Otago Daily Times, July 7, 2022
Questions remain over QAC’s statement of intent.
In two letters published side by side, John Hilhorst challenges QAC’s claim to seek the best aviation infrastructure for the district and Cath Gilmour laments Council’s capitulation to the QAC board.
DOES Glen Sowry’s vision for Queenstown Airport Corp’s future ring true? (ODT 1/6/2022) The company’s statement of intent claims: “our strategic planning considers how best to provide aviation infrastructure and amenity for the district…”
This is clearly wrong. That would mean considering the potential benefit possible from the proposed Tarras airport, and QAC refuses to do this.
Just two years ago QAC was committed to a dual airport operation with a $400 million investment into Wānaka Airport. Only a High Court decision ruling its long-term lease of that airport illegal put the brakes on those plans. So, QAC must recognise Queenstown Airport is constricted, as Rhys Boswell had suggested, and see at least some merit in the idea of a new airport.
Instead, under Council’s explicit direction, QAC has indicated it will use all the legal and other capacities it can muster to directly fight against the proposed Tarras airport to protect its own primacy, regardless of any benefits the Tarras proposal might offer to the region.
This does not consider what’s the best aviation infrastructure for the district. Instead, it only seeks what’s best for QAC and actively represses alternatives.
Mayor Boult’s Council has unleashed the fight response without any Council research, community consultation or councillor workshops that might give a grasp of the opportunity the Tarras proposal offers, not least of which would be using Frankton Flats for a much-needed town.
We find this willingness of community leaders of both Council and the airport company to act so blindly on such a major strategy hard to fathom.
John Hilhorst of FlightPlan2050
THREE times since February, Queenstown Lakes District Council has explicitly instructed Queenstown Airport Corporation that both their 10-year strategic plan and airport master plan cannot be implemented before full approval by councillors.
But Council caved in at the final step.
Your article (ODT, 1.7.22) incorrectly describing the issue as “semantics” suggests the writer does not understand the importance of words in official documents.
QAC’s statement of intent (SOI) said it would “seek” council’s endorsement of the master plan.
Seek means to ask, it does not mean QAC must obtain Council’s agreement. And the statement of intent makes clear that QAC’s board has the right to approve the plan regardless.
QAC didn’t even offer this pretence on the strategic plan. There is zero mention of council approval being sought or gained.
Two pages of principles it is based on are included, but councillors have not even seen or discussed it.
So by agreeing to this SOI, the majority of councillors implicitly agree to a strategic plan they know no details of and that QAC has the right to overrule their unanimous governance decisions.
Legally, councillors at Thursday’s meeting had the right to not agree to the SOI and instead direct QAC to follow its instructions.
Legally, QAC would have to comply.
Councillors didn’t because the majority say they need to show trust and respect for QAC.
Trust and respect are meant to be two-way. QAC has shown either for our Council or for our community.
And it is our community that must suck up the as-yet-unknown consequences of a council-controlled trading organisation that refuses to be controlled by the council mandated (but unwilling) to do so.
Cath Gilmour of We Love Wakatipu Inc that is against any expansion of Queenstown air noise boundaries.