Inside the court hearing into Ali Williams and Anna Mowbray’s helipad

Friday, 3 October 2025

Is riding around in a helicopter really any different to driving a car? Is it any noisier than mowing the lawns?

These were among questions posed to the Environment Court as ex-All Black Ali Williams and toy tycoon Anna Mowbray defended an appeal against their newly consented Westmere “helipad”.

The thrust of RMA lawyer Chris Simmons’ argument on behalf of the richlisters was that helicopter flights were “inherent” to use of a residential property.

Whether “going to a friend’s house or the airport … commuting to work,” it was no different to using land-based transport, he submitted.

Want to stay in the know? Sign up for the latest news alerts here (iPhone) or here (Android)

Helicopters may not be a “common” form of transport, but that didn’t mean they should be treated any differently.

“The purpose of the application is for the applicant and his family to get to and from the property,” Simmons said; a “purely domestic purpose”.

He also twice referred to historic judgments that mentioned horse riding, noting that “effects” like manure were “expected” by planning provisions.

“That one is a bit archaic,” he acknowledged.

And Simmons argued that 10 helicopter flights a month permitted by the consent might be considerably less noisy than power tools or construction next door.

“People do things, and sometimes those things make noise,” Simmons said.

But Judge Lauren Semple pushed back on Simmons’ submission that using a helicopter was in the same category as other uses such as “gardening”.

“Is there a distinction to be drawn between things that are subject to regulation and things that are not regulated?” she enquired.

Simmons said he didn’t want to invoke the film The Castle, nonetheless he alluded to its famous quote: “It’s the constitution, it’s Mabo, it’s justice, it’s law, it’s the vibe.”

Expert witness Dr Philip Mitchell, who swore on a Bible “before almighty God” that his evidence was true, told the judge and commissioners that the Unitary Plan had “contemplated noise” as unavoidable.

“If you’re sleeping at 11am and someone starts the lawnmower, that’s not pristine and quiet.

“You can mow your lawns for two to three hours if you’ve got a big enough lawn, but these helicopter flights last two or three minutes,” Mitchell said.

Commissioner Rosemary Dixon asked about the implications of their arguments. For example would it allow for landing of small planes in residential areas? And what future modes of transport might such a ruling permit?

Mitchell said there were no standards in the Unitary Plan for “spaceships”, but they would still need to comply with standards.

“If you were landing them all day every day, it would reach the maximum [average] noise limit.”

Judge Semple asked if Mitchell would liken it to an Aucklander’s right to hold a noisy party, within regulated limits, which he thought was a good example.

The counter argument

The appeal had been brought by Quiet Sky Waitematā, the Tree Council and Urban Auckland against Auckland Council’s decision to grant resource consent. But, despite the council being the respondent, it was firmly on the appellant’s side.

Lawyer Diana Hartley on behalf of the council asked the court to determine that helicopter flights in residential zones were a “non-complying activity”.

She said the applicant’s case would see “absurd and anomalous outcomes”.

Simmons referred to a controversial meeting of the council’s Policy and Planning committee in July at which councillor Mike Lee put up a motion to make helicopter flights a prohibited activity, but it was voted down.

And so, Simmons argued that if the council had wanted to ban helicopter flights, it “should do so explicitly”.

Hartley said the council was unable to initiate plan changes to zoning until 2027 due to RMA reform legislation.

The council’s expert planning witness, Natalie Bedggood, went on to testify that it was in any case “illogical” to say helicopter flights were “inherent” to residential use.

“That would suggest it was essential,” she said.

Judge Semple further sought to distinguish between the right to construct a helipad versus the right to actually land on it.

As far as planning law goes, “when does a concrete pad become a helipad?” was the question posed.

Said Bedggood: “Once a helicopter lands on it.”

In Williams and Mowbray’s case it was moot because “it's literally landing on the front lawn”.

As these discussions became drawn out before the appellants could even make their case, Judge Semple determined that another day would be required to complete the hearing.

But, due to a busy court schedule and various parties’ holiday commitments it would not be possible until December.

Simmons asked the court to be mindful that his “client is sitting with a consent they cannot use until the proceedings are determined”.

For now, a lawn remains just a lawn.