Flying a helicopter not the same as riding a bike, court tells richlisters
Monday, 18 May 2026
An appeal against Ali Williams and Anna Mowbray’s Westmere helipad consent has had a “preliminary” victory with the court declaring helicopter flights are not an “inherently residential” activity.
The richlister couple were granted consent for 10 return helicopter flights a month from their back lawn last year, but lobby group Quiet Sky Waitematā appealed the decision in the Environment Court.
“Central to this question is whether travel by helicopter is inherently associated with a dwelling, or is an activity in its own right which requires separate regulation,” Judge Lauren Semple wrote in her judgment.
On behalf of Williams, RMA lawyer Chris Simmons argued that transport to and from a home was “ancillary to the residential purpose”, and that included helicopters.
It was further argued that if such a position was not upheld then “children riding their bikes to and from school would require resource consent”.
However, Quiet Sky argued that the interpretation would be at odds with the purpose of residential housing zoning which seeks to preserve “residential amenity”.
Read more:
Inside the court hearing into Ali Williams and Anna Mowbray’s helipad
Anti-helipad campaigners hit back at perceptions they are ‘jealous lefties’
Auckland’s skies being taken over by ‘the Jetsons’, councillors hear
Likewise, Auckland Council argued it would be “anomalous” that an activity like helicopter flights “with potentially significant adverse effects” would be considered a “permitted activity”.
In her judgment, Semple wrote that it was “particularly germane” that under the Unitary Plan some precincts, like the port or Ellerslie Racecourse, required explicit provision for helicopter flights.
“We find it difficult to conceive of a situation where the [Unitary Plan] specifically regulates the nature and number of helicopter movements in a non-residential area such as a showground, but considers there is no commensurate need to regulate helicopter movements in a residential area,” she wrote.
The court also addressed arguments made on behalf of Williams that planning rules allowed for intermittent excessive noise, such as lawnmowers or power tools, which could extend to helicopter take-offs.
Wrote Judge Semple: “We consider that the activities listed are entirely different in their duration, frequency and nature from helicopter movements.”
“Helicopter take-offs and landings are acknowledged as outside ‘normal household activities’.”
Judge Semple also preferred Auckland Council’s argument that the use of transport - cars, bikes, helicopters or otherwise - was not an “inherent” right, but was governed by a specific chapter in the Unitary Plan.
“It would seem incongruous if helicopter transport to and from a residential dwelling was considered inherent to that activity, but vehicle transport was not,” the judgment said.
Regional implications for Auckland’s richlisters
While the ruling was specific to Williams and Mowbray’s Westmere property, the judgment specifically notes that it could “be logically extended to all sites” in the mixed housing suburban zone.
That was a declaration sought by both Quiet Sky and the council in response to a “radical” decision made by an independent hearings panel that presided over the original consent.
The panel’s decision went as far as to state that “use of a helicopter for property access in residential zones is a permitted activity”.
Quiet Sky called that wording “extraordinary” and “congratulated” the Environment Court on its subsequent declaration.
Quiet Sky had also made an application appealing the consent and is awaiting a hearing date.
The court previously heard that with proceedings still ongoing Williams and Mowbray had effectively been left with a granted consent they could not use.
Meantime, Williams has until June 8 to appeal the Environment Court’s declaration in the High Court.
His legal counsel has been contacted for comment.