• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

NZ Transport Agency Western Belfast Bypass Public Consultation - Submission Analysis June 2010 Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Consultation Undertaken 2 3. Consultation Responses 3 4. Key Themes 4 4.1 Concerns about Western Belfast Bypass 4 4.2 Positive Points 5 5. Submission summary 7 5.1 General Locations of Submitters 7 5.2 Petition Summary 7 5.3 Summary of Alternative Routes suggested 7 5.4 Submitters from Local Government 9 5.5 Submitters from Transport Agencies/Groups 10 5.6 Submissions from Directly Affected Landowners 11 6. Summary 12 7. Conclusion 13 Appendices A Consultation Brochure B Submission summary Western Belfast Bypass Public Consultation - Submission Analysis 1. Introduction The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) is currently investigating improvements for the northern and western corridors to Christchurch, including the Western Belfast Bypass. This will provide a limited access route from the Northern Motorway (SH1) for approximately 5km south to Johns Road (SH1), bypassing Belfast Village. The alignment for the bypass has not been finalised, hence a project consultation brochure was distributed within the local area to invite feedback on the initial options being considered. Two short term options (operating until 2020) and two long term options were outlined and feedback was sought on these. Appendix A contains a copy of the brochure which shows the options and routes. The following report provides an overview of the submissions received on the Western Belfast Bypass proposal following public consultation on the options as detailed above. Western Belfast Bypass 1 Public Consultation - Submission Analysis 2. Consultation Undertaken A consultation brochure was prepared and circulated to those landowners and occupiers adjoining and directly affected by the project, along with an invitation to the public open day and a feedback form. In addition, open day invitations were hand- delivered to approximately 600 properties adjoining and close to Main North Road through Belfast. The project details were posted on the NZTA website and public notices advertising the open day were placed in The Press and The Star on three occasions each, from 10-17 March 2010. In addition, NZTA provided a media release which lead to a short article within The Press and a radio clip immediately prior to the open day. In cooperation with Christchurch City Council Information boards were also placed within the Groynes Recreational area to enhance the coverage of the consultation and open day. Project brochures were dropped off at: - Christchurch City Council in Tuam Street - New World and Countdown supermarkets at Northwood - Redwood library - Belfast Rugby Club The open day was held at the Belfast Rugby Clubrooms on 18 March 2010. Large scale plans of the project were available to view, and these were the basis of the open day consultation. In addition, feedback forms were distributed to all attendees, to assist with encouraging feedback on the project. The open day was well attended, particularly by local Belfast residents. The attendance record includes details for 155 attendees, though actual attendance was higher. A number of attendees completed the feedback form on the day and others took feedback forms and the project information (consultation brochure, along with some pre-prepared “frequently asked questions”) away to complete at a later date. Overall, widespread publicity about the open day was achieved within the Belfast area. Two articles appeared in local newspapers immediately after the open day, which further informed the public about the opportunity to provide feedback on the project. The submission period was open for a further month, closing on 16 April 2010. We also met with a number of individuals and groups during the consultation period, including the CCC Groynes Stakeholder Group and we held an on-site meeting with a group of dog park users within the Groynes Dog Park. Western Belfast Bypass 2 Public Consultation - Submission Analysis 3. Consultation Responses In total 413 responses were received on the proposed bypass. 318 responses were in the form of a petition to the proposal and did not support any of the options provided. 24 other responses were received which supported none of the options provided. Seven responses supported Option 1a, 33 supported Option 1b, five supported Option 2a, six supported Option 2b and 42 responses supported a combination of options. Of those that didn’t support any single one of the options proposed, 330 suggested an alternative alignment that they would prefer, three supported any of the options proposed and only 8 opposed the proposal altogether. Western Belfast Bypass 3 Public Consultation - Submission Analysis 4. Key Themes 4.1 Concerns about Western Belfast Bypass The following matters were identified as being the key issues in the submissions received, ranked in order of occurrence for all the options combined: 1. Loss of area available for the dog park and safety around this (320, inclusive of a petition with 318 signatures received); 2. Pollution from exhaust emissions to the users of the Groynes Dog Park (318); 3. Concern with Dickeys Road / SH1 intersection – turning onto/across a busy road (50); 4. Noise from construction, traffic, intersections etc – on nearby dwellings, walkways and The Groynes (32); 5. Short term and temporary nature of Options 1a and 2a (19); 6. Loss of rural outlook and land for The Groynes entrance and land area (10); 7. Ecological - damage to the stream environment, existing reserve, pond rehabilitation and walkway (8); 8. Loss of property value (6); 9. Loss to and damage of rural farmland (5); 10. Disruptions to local businesses, in particular the Sawmill (4); 11. Concern over safety issues associated with access to existing properties (2). A complete summary of the submissions received is provided in Appendix B. The main concerns expressed with each option are as follows. [This is excluding the petition objection] Option 1a Key effects raised in the submissions: x Concern with Dickeys Road / SH1 intersection – turning onto/across a busy road; x Short term and temporary nature of proposal; Other effects raised in the submissions: x Noise – on nearby dwellings, walkways and The Groynes; x Damage to the stream; x Damage to existing farmland. Western Belfast Bypass 4 Public Consultation - Submission Analysis Option 2a Key effects raised in the submissions: x Concern with Dickeys Road intersection – turning onto/across a busy road; x Noise – on nearby dwellings, walkways and The Groynes; Other effects raised in the submissions: x Short term and temporary nature of proposal; x Loss of rural outlook and damage to farmland; x Lost of property value. Option 1b Key effect raised in the submissions: x Noise – on nearby dwellings, walkways and The Groynes; Other effects raised in the submissions: x Damage to the Otukaikino Stream; x Damage to existing farmland. Option 2b Key effect raised in the submissions: x Noise – on nearby dwellings, walkways and The Groynes; Other effects raised in the submissions: x Loss of rural outlook; x Disruption to the existing sawmill and loss of property value. 4.2 Positive Points The following matters were identified as being the key positive points in the submissions received for each option, with the number of occurrences for the various options: Option 1a x Less intrusive on existing houses and business as it is further away (9); x Retains existing oxidation ponds and no need to fill them in (2). Option 2a x Less bridges therefore minimises stream damage (7). Option 1b x Less disruptions to existing business(13); x Offers a continuous flow of traffic (12); x Further from existing houses, therefore less noise (12); Western Belfast Bypass 5 Public Consultation - Submission Analysis x Less loss of farm land, could make oxidation ponds into farm land (8); x Access to walkways and ponds retained and could enhance pond area (6). Option 2b x Less bridges therefore minimises stream damage (9); x Long term solution (4); x Offers a continuous flow of traffic (3). Western Belfast Bypass 6 Public Consultation - Submission Analysis 5. Submission summary 5.1 General Locations of Submitters The majority of the 93 submissions (excluding the petition) were received from people within the Belfast area (43), with the remaining 50 submissions being received from residents residing in other Christchurch suburbs or from outside Christchurch. The location of submitters is shown in Table 1, below: Table 1 – Location of submitters and their preferences Geographic Location Number of Submitters - Options 1a 2a 1b 2b SP Oppose SA Belfast 11 5 29 2 1 3 5 Rest of Christchurch City 6 3 12 9 1 4 6 Other Areas - - 10 6 - 1 3 Total 16 8 51 17 2 8 14 SP – support proposal with any of the proposed options; Oppose – do not support the proposal or any of the options provided; SA – support an alternative route. It is noted that the numbers in the table above are greater that the total number of submissions received as some submitters chose more than one preferred option. The locations of the signatories of the petition are not included in the above analysis as over half did not provide such details. 5.2 Petition Summary A petition was received from Mrs Gill Spinner with 318 signatories attached. Mrs Spinner herself also filled out the submission form and returned this with the petition. Her personal views on an alternative route are discussed in section 5.3 below. The primary concern of the signatories related to the Groynes Dog Park. They do not support any of the proposed options and advocate for an alternative route. The petition proposed that the bypass boundary be moved 20 metres so that a noise bank and buffer zone of trees can be established to screen the bypass. The signatories consider that the bypass will create adverse effects for the users of the dog park in regard to exhaust emissions and noise levels.

Load more

  78

Copy Link