Outback Wrangler Matt Wright claims Virginia chopper flights protected from Planning Act changes

Outback Wrangler Matt Wright is facing legal dramas after complaints from his neighbours over using his choppers ‘like a motor car’.

Embattled Outback Wrangler star Matt Wright and wife had a matter before the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Picture: (A)manda Parkinson

A celebrity croc wrangler who uses his chopper “like a motor car” to zip around the Top End is facing legal dramas after complaints from his neighbours.

Outback Wrangler Matt Wright and his wife Kaia have just seven days to provide more evidence that when they purchased their Virginia home in 2017 they had a right to come and go via their helicopters.

The celebrity couples’ stoush with the Develop­ment Consent Authority continued in the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal on Wednesday, two years after the complaints were first lodged in 2021.

On Wednesday, NTCAT president Mark O’Reilly heard allegations from two complaints, in which the couple had multiple flights going in and out of their rural area home over a four day period.

Outback Wrangler Matt Wright and his wife Kaia are contesting a Develop­ment Consent Authority enforcement notice over helicopter use at their Virginia home.

One of the complaints alleged Mr Wright was using his home as a launch pad for his helicopter business, and the whirr of choppers had been “going on for five years”.

In response, the DCA issued an enforcement notice alleging the Wrights had breached the Planning Act by using the home as an aircraft landing site without consent while zoned as a rural living area.

The DCA alleged the Wrights — by continuing to fly following legislative changes in 2019 — had contravened the Planning Act.

But the reality TV star and his Instagram famous wife said they bought the property almost two years earlier after confirming they could fly their choppers.

On Wednesday their lawyer David De Silva told the tribunal the DCA enforcement notice against the Wrights was “muddied and misconstrued”, as it ignored their existing rights within their Virginia property.

Mr De Silva said changes to the Planning Act did not mean homeowners “retrospectively” lost their existing land use rights — including their more unusual modes of transport.

“Matt Wright uses the helicopter like a motor car, for transport getting himself to and from work,” Mr De Silva said.

The DCA alleged Matt Wright — by continuing to fly following legislative changes in 2019 — had contravened the Planning Act

“The mode of transportation to and from the property by the Wrights is wholly immaterial to the permitted use.”

Mr De Silva said Mr Wright denied using the property as a “passenger terminal” for his business, with the flights purely for personal and social use.

He said the landing area in question was 35m from their own home and surrounded by a “buffer of vegetation”, with all neighbours at least 100m from the landing site.

But DCA legal representative Jon Bortoli told the tribunal that the Wrights had not established their “existing rights” to chopper in-and-out of the rural living zone before the 2019 changes.

Mr Bortoli said even if there was an “ancillary” permitted use prior to 2019, that did not mean it was immune to changes to the Planning Act.

“If you as the planning scheme decide to make that use unlawful or requiring consent, or regulated in some way — That’s what you can do,” he said.

But Mr O’Reilly said on his first impressions there appeared to be a case that the Wrights held existing use rights to their helicopter.

He gave Mr De Silva seven days to track down the evidence that the Wrights had explicit rights to use their chopper in Virginia in 2017.

“If that material were provided, the DCA would have to have a look at that material and decide whether they want to continue with the enforcement notice,” Mr O’Reilly said.

The hearing was adjourned awaiting further submissions.

Originally published as Outback Wrangler Matt Wright claims Virginia chopper flights protected from Planning Act changes