The battle over 16ha of land at Frankton, known as Lot 6, may not yet be over.
For nine years Queenstown Airport Corporation has sought the land, owned by Remarkables Park Ltd, for expansion of the airport facilities.
In late 2008 discussions began between the two parties but in 2011 it was direct referred to the Environment Court by Environment Minister Nick Smith who found the airport's extension a matter of ``national significance''.
Yesterday, Environment Court Judge Jane Borthwick released her final decision into the long-running saga, finding in favour of the airport.
The decision, dated March 31, said costs were reserved ``but not encouraged''.
And, while airport chief executive Colin Keel said QAC would start discussions with the development company about advancing the airport's expansion, RPL director Alastair Porter said the company was still ``considering its options''.
One option was to appeal the decision to the High Court - the company had until the end of this month to do so.
Should it choose to accept the decision, there would then need to be a discussion ``as to whether Queenstown Airport Corporation will pay Remarkable Park Ltd's price'', Mr Porter said.
``Otherwise they will have to go to the Public Works Tribunal to establish whether they can force the purchase of the land, and if so at what price.''
Mr Porter said the land had a ``high value'' and described it as ``surprising'' the airport company wanted it when ``they have plenty of their own ... over by the industrial area which they could use for their purposes''.
He described it as a ``very complex matter'' but said one outcome which was not in doubt was the provision of a parallel taxiway for jets, which RPL had ``always supported''.
``The current decision is about Queenstown Airport Corporation seeking a designation to locate general aviation, not airlines, and car parking on land Remarkables Park Ltd is already providing for cost-effective car parking and in the future parkland and sports amenities.''
That could include a golfing facilities, including a putting and driving range, other sports facilities, commercial recreation, park land and also car parking.
``It's not surplus land ... it's actually land we've got uses for and we're currently using ... and that use is expanding.''
Meanwhile, Mr Keel said he was ``hopeful'' a conclusion could be reached as soon as possible, describing the Environment Court decision as ``just the next step in the process''.
``Hopefully it provides a platform for truly moving forward ... working together.''
Provided the decision was not appealed to the High Court - which would be an argument limited to points of law - and a land price could be agreed, either informally or through the Public Works Act - Lot 6 would be used to build general aviation precincts, incorporating helicopters, fixed-wing and corporate jet aircraft, away from the airport's closest neighbours. It would open up potential for further development, including building a taxiway parallel to the runway.
``This would significantly improve the customer experience and overall efficiency because aircraft would no longer need to use the main runway for taxiing.''
Mr Porter yesterday contended the airport did not need Lot 6 to build the taxiway.
``We provided for the airport to have the extra land ... quite a long time ago.
There is nothing to stop the airport building that taxiway - they don't need to buy any more land from RPL to be able to build [it].''
Mr Porter said the company would meet to discuss the decision in Auckland next week.
