Omarama problems, help needed.

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

There is disturbing news from New Zealand about the future of Omarama, where
the 1995 World Gliding Championships were hosted and considered to be one of
the most spectacular of gliding sites.

There is a proposal to develop part of the land at the eastern end of the
runway. Pilots throughout the world who have enjoyed flying from Omarama
on the South Island are being asked to make a submission opposing the
application - deadline May 10.

For the full details see this website: http://www.gliding.co.nz/ , click
on the link under "SOS: Omarama Calling"
http://www.gliding.co.nz/Misc/Omarama/consents.htm .

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

[Mike Borgelt]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:10:58 +0100, "W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)."
> wrote:

>There is disturbing news from New Zealand about the future of Omarama, where
>the 1995 World Gliding Championships were hosted and considered to be one of
>the most spectacular of gliding sites.
>
>There is a proposal to develop part of the land at the eastern end of the
>runway. Pilots throughout the world who have enjoyed flying from Omarama
>on the South Island are being asked to make a submission opposing the
>application - deadline May 10.
>
>For the full details see this website: http://www.gliding.co.nz/ , click
>on the link under "SOS: Omarama Calling"
> http://www.gliding.co.nz/Misc/Omarama/consents.htm .
>
>W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
>Remove "ic" to reply.
>
>
>
>

Maybe the pilots from around the world should buy the lots in the
development.
While I'm as keen as anyone to to keep surrounds and approach/takeoffs
clear at airfields the bloke who owns the land may be counting on the
development for his retirement income. Thwart this and you may find a
row of tall, fast growing trees on the boundary of his land.

Mike

[David Starer]

In the UK it is possible to give an airfield protected status. Once this is
done, local planners cannot give permission for any development in the
surrounding area that would have an operational or safety impact on the
airfield. This gives the airfield operator protection against the sudden
appearance of tall buildings, masts, chimneys, etc. Owners of surrounding
property cannot grow tall trees or even put fences up against the airfield
boundary if this would cause a hazard to the operation. Maybe something
similar exists in NZ?

David Starer


"Mike Borgelt" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:10:58 +0100, "W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)."
> > wrote:
>
> >There is disturbing news from New Zealand about the future of Omarama,
where
> >the 1995 World Gliding Championships were hosted and considered to be one
of
> >the most spectacular of gliding sites.
> >
> >There is a proposal to develop part of the land at the eastern end of the
> >runway. Pilots throughout the world who have enjoyed flying from
Omarama
> >on the South Island are being asked to make a submission opposing the
> >application - deadline May 10.
> >
> >For the full details see this website: http://www.gliding.co.nz/ ,
click
> >on the link under "SOS: Omarama Calling"
> > http://www.gliding.co.nz/Misc/Omarama/consents.htm .
> >
> >W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> >Remove "ic" to reply.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Maybe the pilots from around the world should buy the lots in the
> development.
> While I'm as keen as anyone to to keep surrounds and approach/takeoffs
> clear at airfields the bloke who owns the land may be counting on the
> development for his retirement income. Thwart this and you may find a
> row of tall, fast growing trees on the boundary of his land.
>
> Mike
>

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
"David Starer" > wrote:

> In the UK it is possible to give an airfield protected status. Once this is
> done, local planners cannot give permission for any development in the
> surrounding area that would have an operational or safety impact on the
> airfield. This gives the airfield operator protection against the sudden
> appearance of tall buildings, masts, chimneys, etc. Owners of surrounding
> property cannot grow tall trees or even put fences up against the airfield
> boundary if this would cause a hazard to the operation. Maybe something
> similar exists in NZ?

I don't know, but I would hope not. The guy has a perfect right to do
what he wants with *his* land. It is, after all, his, not ours.

The runway at Omarama is a pretty good length at 1380m (just over 4500
ft).

That's several times longer than many aerotow operations have available,
and is even long enough to get a decent height winching (and there is a
winch there).

It's comparable to or longer than the commercial runways at Blenheim,
Gisborne, Hastings, Hokitika, Kaitaia, Kerikeri, Masterton, Milford
Sound, Napier, Nelson, New Plymouth, Paraparaumu, Rotorua, Taupo,
Tauranga, Timaru, Wanganui, Whakatane, or Whangarei. It's longer than
Queenstown was until they decided they not only wanted to have 737s
flying locally but to also fly them fully loaded to Australia.

So you're going to have a pretty tough time arguing that putting up some
houses off the end of the runway is going to have a significant effect
on *safety*.


So the only real danger I can see is that people buy houses there and a
few years down the track start complaining about the noise. Which is
totally illogical, but it happens.

So why aren't we concentrating on *that*?

Don't try to tell the guy he can't subdivide his land. That will cost
him $$$ and so of course he won't like it much. Just ask him to get the
buyers to sign a covenent that they know there is an airport there and
they know there will be some noise. That's not going to cost him any $
at all, so it's hard to see why he wouldn't agree if approached nicely.

-- Bruce

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

Some of you say that the landowner has a perfect right to do what he wants
with "his" land. This is obviously not true, because he has to have
planning permission, which can presumably be refused.

As to whether a landowner or anyone else ought to need planning permission
to do what they want with their own land, this is a large political
question, and in most countries there are in fact restrictions. You cannot
legally do whatever you like, and permission has to be obtained. This is
because what you do with your own land affects your neighbours and others.
Many gliding clubs are restricted in what they can do on their own airfield
for exactly these reasons.

There have been many cases of people buying houses near to an existing
airfield, and then complaining about the noise.

On the other hand, if someone buys a large block of land next to your own
house, or next to your own gliding club, and then wants to build an airport;
are you saying that you should not be able to have any say as to whether it
is built?

As to Omarama, I have unfortunately never been to New Zealand. However I
have spoken with people who have extensive experience of gliding at Omarama
and I am told that in some conditions there is not much clearance when
launching over the area where development is proposed. Is this correct?

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > In article >,
> > "David Starer" > wrote:
> >
> > In the UK it is possible to give an airfield protected status. Once
> > this is done, local planners cannot give permission for any development
> > in the surrounding area that would have an operational or safety impact
> > on the airfield. This gives the airfield operator protection against
> > the sudden appearance of tall buildings, masts, chimneys, etc. Owners
> > of surrounding property cannot grow tall trees or even put fences up
> > against the airfield boundary if this would cause a hazard to the
> > operation. Maybe something similar exists in NZ?
> >
>
> I don't know, but I would hope not. The guy has a perfect right to do
> what he wants with *his* land. It is, after all, his, not ours.
>
> The runway at Omarama is a pretty good length at 1380m (just over
> 4500 ft).
>
> That's several times longer than many aerotow operations have available,
> and is even long enough to get a decent height winching (and there is a
> winch there).
>
> It's comparable to or longer than the commercial runways at Blenheim,
> Gisborne, Hastings, Hokitika, Kaitaia, Kerikeri, Masterton, Milford
> Sound, Napier, Nelson, New Plymouth, Paraparaumu, Rotorua, Taupo,
> Tauranga, Timaru, Wanganui, Whakatane, or Whangarei. It's longer than
> Queenstown was until they decided they not only wanted to have 737s
> flying locally but to also fly them fully loaded to Australia.
>
> So you're going to have a pretty tough time arguing that putting up some
> houses off the end of the runway is going to have a significant effect
> on *safety*.
>
> So the only real danger I can see is that people buy houses there and a
> few years down the track start complaining about the noise. Which is
> totally illogical, but it happens.
>
> So why aren't we concentrating on *that*?
>
> Don't try to tell the guy he can't subdivide his land. That will cost
> him $$$ and so of course he won't like it much. Just ask him to get the
> buyers to sign a covenant that they know there is an airport there and
> they know there will be some noise. That's not going to cost him any $
> at all, so it's hard to see why he wouldn't agree if approached nicely.
>
> Bruce.
>