Not sure who Cynic is, and if it were not for the permanent record created by the internet, his comments would be irrelevant. However, for the record, he misrepresents our position, and we thank him for the opportunity to put forward in the public domain of the internet the case for heliports.

First, however, the matter at hand is judicial, not representational as Cynic suggests. Anyone or any organisation may make submissions to the proposed district plan, and such parties may then ask to be heard in Environment Court. At the first court mediation session on the helicopter matter, the room was full of 274 parties admitted by the Court. None of those parties, including us, claimed to represent Waiheke, nor would the Court deem that relevant. The Court considers arguments, fact and law, and the best case wins, not the one with the most popular support.

On the matter itself, contrary to Cynic’s assertion, we did not propose to reduce helicopter flights. We made a submission to the proposed district plan that recommends the Council rezone land to enable development of several well-placed heliports to replace the ad hoc landing regimen now in place. This would allow helicopter traffic growth to be better managed. We suggested the best locations are along the western-facing headlands so the helicopters need not fly over homes, beaches or visitor destinations to get visitors to Waiheke.

Ratepayers pay the Council to solve the transport problems within their jurisdiction. The rules for helicopter access on Waiheke Island were developed before the wine and restaurant industry became a significant industry on the island, and before it became a second-home destination for people affluent enough to afford the higher cost of a helicopter ride to their home. As Waiheke evolves as such a destination, it is the Council’s role to provide appropriate management of the transport systems. When other places around the world faced such growth, their local governments upgraded the destination points to serve the otherwise conflicting needs of the customers, the industry and the community. This proposal for helipads has the support of the four commercial operators who run most of the flights to Waiheke.

As to “plenty of Waiheke businesses that support the use of helicopters to bring revenue to the island”, Cynic may want to examine the revenue stream more carefully. While most of us support increasing the revenue brought to the island, the fact is that commercial helicopter traffic brings little revenue to the island.

The commercial helicopter flies one to six passengers to a vineyard restaurant and then, after lunch, flies them back to the mainland. Most do not step off the restaurant grounds, hire a taxi or patronise other local businesses. Because they do not use the ferries, their full fare ticket that otherwise subsidises local commuter-ticket prices is not purchased. The District Plan rules limit landings to three a week; meaning no more than 18 meals a week are sold to the helicopter trade. But these restaurants serve up to 140 meals per sitting, with two or three sittings per day. Those 18 meals per week will not support hiring an additional staff member, and in fact most of the money spent on the helicopter ride stays on the mainland… pilots, mechanics, fuel providers, support staff, rates for the helicopter company buildings, etc.

If we shift to heliports, the local taxi industry immediately benefits. Because the visitor is driven to their primary destination, they may choose to take a tour, see the island, and perhaps patronise some of the village businesses. In addition, well-placed heliports will not disturb the island, so the Council will allow more landings which would bring more revenue to the island without externalised costs.