Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams want to build a helipad at their home in Westmere, Auckland. Photo / Alex Burton
Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams want to build a helipad at their home in Westmere, Auckland. Photo / Alex Burton
Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams’ helipad proposal in Westmere has sparked significant community debate.
Opponents, led by Quiet Sky Waitematā, cite concerns about noise, environmental impact, and setting a precedent.
Supporters argue the helipad offers efficient transport and claim opposition stems from fear of change.
The word on the street was that someone had been bought off.
The street was in Westmere on a luxury stretch where palatial homes sell for up to $28 million.
The word was that its most high-profile residents, billionaire entrepreneur Anna Mowbray and former All Black lock Ali Williams,had offered another local a Rolls Royce in exchange for supporting their bid for a helipad on their lawn, overlooking the picturesque Waitematā Harbour.
Only in one of the country’s most expensive suburbs, could such a rumour take flight.
“This is untrue and extremely hurtful,” the neighbour who was allegedly offered the car said during a hearing to decide Mowbray and Williams’ resource consent application for their helipad.
The woman was one of about 70 people arguing for and against the bid before independent commissioners this week.
Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams' home is on a headland in Westmere. Photo / Alex Burton
The local at the heart of the rumour told the Herald she was walking her dog three years ago and ran into another resident who said: “I believe you were offered a Rolls Royce for your consent for the helipad.”
“I don’t know what you are talking about,” is her recollection of her reply.
“I was mortified to think I could be bought off, and that is all it would take to get our consent. It is just awful…Anna and Ali have not bought anyone off,” said the resident, who drives an Audi.
The episode was one of the more controversial moments at the helipad hearing.
Proceedings got underway on Monday with the rich-listers’ lawyer Chris Simmons and a team of six experts presenting their case at the old council chambers in the Auckland Town Hall.
Simmons said the application is for no more than two take-off and landing flights a day, up to 10 flights per month, occurring within a two-hour window on either side of low tide when birds are out feeding. There would be no physical works because helicopters would land on the lawn, he said.
It was Simmons’ view that the concerns of the 1300 submitters opposed to the helipad were overstated or misunderstood, and community groups were not representative of the entire community.
Ecologist Graham Don said the proposed flight rules would not affect roosting birds, and the effects on feeding and resting birds at low tide would be minor and transitory.
Acoustic consultant Rhys Hegley said the helicopter planned to be used is an Airbus H130, which takes 60 seconds to descend 150m, idles for up to a minute while loading, and takes 20 seconds to reach 150m.
He considered the predicted helicopter noise level to be reasonable to neighbours and considered the effects on the environment to be minor.
The first layperson to give evidence was Steve Owen, who the Herald’s Society Insider Ricardo Simich said this month was one of New Zealand’s wealthiest property moguls and behind a $56 million property swop - selling his Mission Bay home and buying a Rawene Ave mansion designed and built by rich listers Tenby Powell and Sharon Hunter.
Property mogul and Rawne Ave resident Steve Owen was the first layperson to speak in favour of the helipad.
Owen said the investment Mowbray and Williams had put into their property and the wider community should be applauded, saying allowing them to have a helicopter leave from their peninsula is far less intrusive than neighbours mowing their lawns and jet skis using the upper harbour.
There seems to be a “trial by media” and the application feels like a case of tall poppy syndrome, he said.
Williams and Mowbray did not attend the four-day hearing, but the sportsman’s mother, Helen Williams, did.
“I am very proud to be the mother and mother-in-law of the applicants. I am proud because they want to spend their lives being constructive.”
They cared deeply about being part of the community and had modified their plans to respond to concerns, she told the hearing.
Helen Williams hoped the panel would make a decision based on the evidence without “catastrophic outcome on human life and property” and “decimation of the ecology and wildlife”, a reference to opposing views.
Opposition to the helipad has been led by Quiet Sky Waitematā - a group set up to oppose private helicopters in residential Auckland.
Secretary Elena Keith is the public face of the fledgling group, with 17 members and 200 donors who have given well over $100,000 to fight the applicants.
Elena Keith at the hearing for the proposed helipad.
Elena and Gideon Keith submitted on their own on Tuesday, talking about how they have lived on Rawene Ave for the tranquillity and natural beauty of the area, raising a family using the foreshore as an extension of their backyard.
“There is no place for a helicopter here…it’s a gross inequity,” she said.
“That’s their problem. They shouldn’t make it everyone else’s problem, she said.
Just two doors away from Williams and Mowbray’s home, Julie Cato spoke about the big shock she received after moving into the “peaceful and quiet street” last November.
She wanted the resource consent application rejected “in its entirety”, outlining a long list of downsides, including the impact on frequent stays from young grandchildren, working from home in sight of choppers, the rotors throwing up dust and debris into the swimming pool and spa pool and water sports on the foreshore.
“I’m dismayed to think that our neighbourhood will be subject to such a disturbance,” Cato said.
Quiet Sky’s lawyer, Gill Chappell, submitted that the community group was deeply and genuinely concerned about the broad effects of helicopter activity on the environment.
Sea birds on the headland where Ali Williams and Anna Mowbray have thier home.
The effects on the birds, trees, and amenity were more than minor, and the application must be declined, she said.
Dr Matthew Baber, an ecologist providing expert evidence for Quiet Sky, believed there would be at least moderate effects on the coastal birds foraging or resting during the two hours on either side of low tide.
The group’s noise expert, Peter Abbotson, said the 50 decibel noise level had the potential to comply, but this wasn’t certain. The favoured northwest departure route would exceed 50 decibels, he said.
Urban Auckland, a group of architects and other professionals dedicated to a better built and natural environment for the past 25 years, opposed the application.
Chair Julie Stout said helipads in residential areas were not considered when the Auckland Unitary Plan was drawn up, and it was a developing trend that needed to be taken seriously.
She said Waiheke Island provided a lesson where 64 helipads had been granted in relatively low-density residential areas, causing a cumulative effect of prolonged noise, destroying the quiet for everyone else.
Sydney and Melbourne did not allow private landing pads in residential areas,” the architect said.
St Marys Bay resident Helen Geary, whose family endures helicopter traffic up and down the harbour, said Auckland Council had assessed the resource consent application as non-complying and it should be declined.
“Setting a precedent is the elephant in the room here,” she said.
Several of the 100 or so submitters in favour of the helipad spoke at the hearing.
The hearing is being heard by commissioenrs(from left), Dr Hilke Giles, chairman Kitt Littlejohn and David Hill.
The opponents had a common theme - Williams and Mowbray were community-minded, obtained expert advice, listened to concerns and had made changes. They also took potshots at the opponents.
“Let’s begin with the core truth: this application is about enabling efficient, responsible transport for New Zealanders - Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams - who contribute significantly to our country’s business, culture, and global reputation,” said Pt Chevalier resident Sally Chudzynski.
“Let’s stop pretending this opposition is about saving birds or peace and quiet. It’s about fear of change and tall poppy thinking,” she said.
Andrew Haslett said: “Every concern has been addressed, every environmental safeguard has been put in place, and the applicants have gone above and beyond to mitigate every potential impact.”
One supporter to amply address the evidence, businesswoman Rochelle Moffitt, said the proposed consent conditions included independent noise monitoring from an ecologist who found that flying within two hours of low tide, roosting birds would be left undisturbed, and any effects on feeding birds would be minor and temporary.
“And it doesn’t stop there. Monitoring the bird population is built into the consent, quarterly for two years with council oversight and the ability to review conditions,” she said.
Things erupted on the last day of the hearing this week when the chair of the panel hearing the application, Kitt Littlejohn, threatened to “get rid” of the Tree Council’s Dr Mels Barton.
Barton started her submission with photos alleging illegal removal, pruning, and thinning of protected trees on the couple’s headland property when Littlejohn interjected, saying that was not relevant.
He said she could give a relevant submission, but if she was going to argue, “I will just get rid of you”.
Tree Council spokesperson Dr Mels Barton.
“We have no evidence in front of us that there is any wrongdoing here. Even if it was, it is not relevant to the resource consent application. You don’t refuse resource consent applications because people have done something historically,” Littlejohn said.
When the row settled down, Barton said helicopters would have a significant impact on tree health and stability.
Rotor downwash would lead to winds of up to severe gale force through the crowns of trees, lifting and twisting branches, likely damaging canopies, and shortening the trees’ lives. New plantings would not survive, she said.
Speaking to the Herald after the incident, Barton said Littlejohn should not prejudge how submitters tell their story.
“I have never been threatened with being thrown out before. That was an unnecessary and over-the-top reaction,” said Barton, who has been making submissions for 25 years.
The hearing, being heard before three commissioners, Littlejohn, David Hill and Dr Hilke Giles, has been adjourned until May 29.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
