TRANSCRIPT of PROCEEDINGS BOARD of INQUIRY Basin Bridge
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF INQUIRY
Basin Bridge Proposal
HEARING at BASIN RESERVE, MT COOK, WELLINGTON on 28 May 2014
BOARD OF INQUIRY:
Retired Environment and District Court Judge Gordon Whiting (Chairperson) James Baines (Board Member) David Collins (Board Member) David McMahon (Board Member) Page 7931
APPEARANCES
10 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7932 [9.35 am] CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good morning everybody. I can’t read this, too small. 5 MR……….: Ms Mellish. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, tēnā koe, Ms Mellish. MS MELLISH: Kia ora. 10 CHAIRPERSON: You are giving the representation for Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust and the Taranaki whānau? MS MELLISH: Kia ora, yes, I am. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So if you could just give your full name and who you represent and then read your representation. MS MELLISH: Thank you, Judge. 20 My name is Rebecca Elizabeth Mellish and I am of Te Ātiawa and I represent Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, Wellington Tenths Trust and Palmerston North Māori Reserve Trust. 25 And in my submission I outline clearly the functions of those three trusts in relation to the iwi and Wellington and Upper and Lower Hutts. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 30 MS MELLISH: So are you ready for me to – thank you, Judge. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. MĀORI CONTENT 35 CHAIRPERSON: Kia ora. MS MELLISH: Kia ora. I stand – actually sit – here today to support the applicant as the natural resources advisor to Wellington Tenths Trust, 40 Palmerston North Māori Reserve Trust and Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust. All three trusts are iwi authorities mandated and recognised by the Crown and operate under formal legislative acts. The first two trusts 45 under the Te Ture Whenua Act 1993 and the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Act 2009. Membership of all three trusts are the Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7933 descendants of the peoples who lived around the Te Whanganui ā Tara at the time of settlement in the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi on April 29th in 1840. And I might note that that was signed in Wellington Harbour on board the ship The Aerial (ph 2.54). 5 Those peoples were whānau, hapu and iwi of Te Ātiawa Taranaki Tuturu, Ngāti Ruanui and Ngāti Tama. The whakapapa is reflected in today’s membership of the three organisations. As advisor to the trusts I bring the lifetime experience and history of the ahi ka, of Te Ātiawa 10 Taranaki, Whanganui and Wellington City and Lower and Upper Hutt cities. I was the Chair of the team that negotiated the cultural redress for the Taranaki whanui claims. An instrument of the claims’ process is the 15 ability to undertake reintroduction of place names through the geographic board. The most prominent of which is the Ahumairangi, the traditional name for the maunga, mountain, for over 100 years called Tinakori Hill. The reintroduction of names has created opportunities for the pre-European history to be told. 20 With the creation of our national park, Pukeahu, we are showing Aotearoa New Zealand the importance these original names are. For clarification, Pukeahu, of course, is the mountain right next door to the Basin Reserve where the National War Memorial Park is being 25 established. Seeking therefore under this application to build a bridge around the current Basin Reserve provides an important opportunity to continue that revitalisation. It is necessary for us as mana whenua to consider in 30 these applications the effect on our cultural landscape. In this area our landscape has disappeared with the establishment of the famous cricket ground known as the Basin Reserve. The earlier use by iwi is now not well known, but the history is waiting to be unearthed. 35 [9.40 am] The Basin is surrounded by sites well used by many of the iwi who have resided in and around the harbour. Many names given by those former inhabitants pepper the city and this will lead to the complex and 40 interesting story of Wellington. Bearing all that in mind I stand here before you, commissioners, to seek a further condition on the consent to enable us, as mana whenua, to have the right to name this proposed bridge “Hauwai”. And then I just 45 give you references from the book of Leslie Adkin’s and also the key Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7934 cultural landscape sections out of the RMA just as a reference. And that is all my submission to you, Commissioners, today. CHAIRPERSON: Could you read out the reference in italics, just for the 5 record? MS MELLISH: Certainly. And this comes from the book that Leslie Adkin’s produced “The Great Harbour of Tara” and it is his reference to hauwai. Hauwai cultivation area, the slopes on the east side of what is 10 now the Basin Reserve from the position of the main entrance gates to Wellington College to the edge of the former Basin Reserve swamp. This was the cultivation area of the Ngati Hinewai Hapu of Ngai Tara who occupied Te Akatarawa Pa on Mount Alfred on the Mount Victoria ridge known to us as Te Rangahiwi. And then further on to 15 that I say “I realise this is an unusual condition to seek, but this unique request will assist in addressing the matters referred to in the RMA, particularly the sections outlined below”. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, kia ora, Ms Mellish. 20 MS MELLISH: Kia ora. CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mellish, has the Trust discussed the matter with NZTA? 25 MS MELLISH: We certainly have and on many occasions and we are very aware that we provided cultural impact report to assist the NZTA, so we are very confident that NZTA would support the naming of the bridge that allows that story to be told and if we put Hauwai beside the 30 fact that there was a swamp, the Waitangi Stream ran through, which actually came out of Wellington Hospital, it is quite a complex but lovely story there, two springs in the grounds of Wellington Hospital. Which is why the hospital is called Nga Puna Waiora and they were healing springs. So it is quite interesting and a little surprising that a 35 hospital now exists on that site. And ran through the swamp at the Basin Reserve and called the Waitangi Stream that ended in a lagoon about where Waitangi Park now is, next to Te Papa. MS WARD: Your Honour - - - 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you for that. MS WARD: Your Honour, if it assists the Board in any way and I can advise the Board that my client, NZTA, does support that condition. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you for that. Yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7935 MS MELLISH: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Any questions? Well, that seems to be - - - 5 MR COLLINS: Kia ora. Your submission that was filed on this project mentioned other matters as well as the naming issue. Did you want to raise those any further, to discuss them? 10 MS MELLISH: I am really happy to discuss any of those. One of things of course that we did talk about in the submission was the easing, it is the placement of Wellington Hospital and we see the bridge as quite vital to the work that we do with the hospital. It is a tertiary hospital and it really does service our peoples through the Hutt Valley and through 15 Wellington and Wairarapa and the Kapiti Coast. We have other marae along the Kapiti Coast at Waikanae. And so having access to that hospital for our people is actually extremely important and this development we see as ensuring that reaching there and assisting families to access that is really important. You know, we are still 20 suffering badly from poor health statistics. I think further to that, knowing that we in joint ownership of Pukeahu with Massey University, which is of course adjacent to and we have been working very extensively with the Ministry of Culture and 25 Heritage on that development. [9.50 am] All of this – we do not see the bridge on its own, we see it in that much 30 bigger context and the opportunity that that could provide for us as people. MR COLLINS: So the issue with the hospital is that you are experiencing difficulties getting to the hospital? - - - 35 MS MELLISH: It - - - MR COLLINS: - - - Getting to and fro, or getting to, I suppose, in particular? 40 MS MELLISH: Exactly. And certainly in talking to our people there is always the difficulty and particularly for those that are living rurally and not knowing Wellington well or anything that can assist that good flow of traffic is always going to be helpful for our people. 45 MR COLLINS: Okay. Now the bridge is a particular solution that is suggested by the Agency, but others have suggested other ways of Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7936 achieving the same outcome of grade separation or just better traffic flow. Does iwi have a view that this is the only solution, or is your concern simply to make sure you can get to the hospital in time? 5 MS MELLISH: Yes, we have not wanted to enter into that debate too far of “A is better than B”. What we have – and the feedback we have certainly got from our koumātua is “Your job is to ensure that whatever happens, the ability for us to access the hospital has to be paramount, not necessarily determining in a technical way which is the better 10 option”. MR COLLINS: Okay. MS MELLISH: And so that is the position we have taken. 15 MR COLLINS: Yes. MR BAINES: I understand what you have explained about the importance that you attach to the reintroduction of place names. In a general sense, 20 you know, - - - MS MELLISH: Yes. MR BAINES: - - - it is not unique to this part of Wellington, is it? 25 MS MELLISH: No, it is not. MR BAINES: But it is an important – how can I put it – something you want to see happen more and more, wherever. If I am right in thinking, when 30 you were describing Hauwai it is really on the far side - - - MS MELLISH: On that eastern side into the Basin. MR BAINES: - - - on the eastern side coming down into the Basin. 35 MS MELLISH: Yes. MR BAINES: It occurs to me to ask have there ever been any discussions with the Basin Reserve Trust, for example? I mean, one of the things I 40 noticed having lived in Wellington a long time ago, and when I came back here I always knew this as the Basin Reserve and I see it is the Hawkins Basin Reserve. I was wondering whether, you know, there had ever been discussions with, you know, trying to get the name established as part of the physical entity that is here now? 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7937 MS MELLISH: Not to my knowledge that we have not worked with the, you know, Wellington Cricket on that matter and I suspect it is called Hawkins because of the financial attachment to that. 5 MR BAINES: Yes, I am sure it is. MS MELLISH: And so that is really that issue of where can you have those discussions? We do not have the resources of – you hope one day you would have those resources – - - - 10 MR BAINES: Right. MS MELLISH: - - - but right now we certainly do not have those resources, so this seems a logical way to do that. And just to explain whilst in 15 Adkin the position of the cultivations is quite carefully set out, knowing that we use the rotation system for horticulture and agriculture – well, not agriculture, we do not have animals in that sense – but we did move. So this area with the swamp with the eels, and I am very aware that there are still eels coming right up as far as the Basin Reserve even 20 today through the culverted river system. That cultivations would have been in an area there, but also it would have been - - - MR BAINES: It would have migrated? 25 MS MELLISH: Right. Would have circled. Because naturally - - - CHAIRPERSON: On the west side as well. MS MELLISH: More likely on the eastern side than the western side and that 30 is because of the sun. It is because of the water. That on the western side again, there was another stream, the Waimapihi, and that also created swampy areas in front of Pukeahu about where Mount Cook School is and a bit lower down. So it was quite a complex wetland system here, but it was very useful as a resource of course. And the 35 early city fathers had a plan for a canal to be dug where Cambridge and Kent Terrace are to access the Basin to bring goods through. And I think there are plans on City Council records of that, previous to the 1855 earthquake. 40 [9.50 am] CHAIRPERSON: Which was not very culturally sensitive. MR BAINES: It was not for eel farming, was it? 45 MS MELLISH: No, it wasn’t. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7938 CHAIRPERSON: But those plans were thwarted by higher (ph 00.00.24) authorities. 5 MS MELLISH: Exactly. CHAIRPERSON: So someone was on your side. MS MELLISH: I hope so. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well thank you very much, Ms Mellish. Thank you very much for taking of your time and attending today and giving us your submission. 15 MS MELLISH: Thank you very much. MR BAINES: Thank you, kia ora. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Ward. Sorry, Ms Ward, can you make sure that 20 the draft conditions for the proposal, if allowed, have that condition added? MS WARD: Yes, your Honour, I will make sure. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Because it is not in there now, so I understand - - - MS WARD: Okay, yes, sure. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good morning, Mr Jones, and welcome back. 30 MR JONES: Good morning, sir and thank you. I provided a written representation and rather than read through that, this written representation was originally prepared when I was 35 originally due to give it, I would like to just speak to a number of issues which have arisen since I prepared this representation and which expand on it a little. So firstly under section 2, which how a Basin Reserve flyover would 40 affect me personally - - - CHAIRPERSON: Could you just state your full name first? MR JONES: Oh, sorry, sir. My name is Timothy Jones and I am a resident of 45 Mount Victoria. I am making this submission in my capacity as an individual submitter and I am opposed to the project. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7939 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR JONES: As I mention in this representation at 2.4, I am a keen pedestrian 5 and often walk through this precinct. In relation to that I have many concerns about the design of the shared pedestrian-cycle way. I believe it has been shown during the course of the hearing that it doesn’t meet the standards for such a shared pedestrian-cycle way in such a location. And it was shown during the wind evidence that it would be dangerous 10 to pedestrians and cyclists in strong winds and that strong winds could be expected – or strong wind gusts – for a significant percentage of the time. I formed the impression earlier in the hearing, when listening to the 15 evidence of Mr Hardwick-Smith and Ms Wraight for the applicant that the applicant essentially regards the pedestrian-cycle way as a decorative structure and its intention is to make the flyover seem less like a flyover. There are a number of references to the way in which it softened the impact of the roading part. And perhaps that is reflected in 20 the ways in which I believe the pedestrian-cycle way is not fit for purpose. One of the project objectives is to “improve the safety for traffic and persons using this part of the State Highway 1 corridor”. Building a 25 structure in which pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and the drivers and passengers of high-sided vehicles are at risk from wind gusts on a substantial number of occasions reduces rather than increases safety. Nor does it meet another project objective of “improving public transport, cycling and walking”. 30 So my initial concerns about the pedestrian-cycle way have only been increased during the course of the hearing. [9.55 am] 35 Now another concern which has really been exacerbated by two things is the concern over construction noise. I live in the upper part of Ellice Street, which is outside the area that is usually being discussed when construction noise is referred to. However, I have been awoken at night 40 a couple of times recently by what appears to be the noise, and particularly the vibration, of construction at Memorial Park. Now obviously Memorial Park is further away from the top of Ellice Street than the proposed flyover is. In addition to the impact on the 45 neighbourhood as a whole and to those living nearby, I believe that the lengthy construction period of the proposed flyover would lead to a lot Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7940 of in particular vibration, which would travel up the hill and would have adverse effects on the health of myself and family. And the evidence of Mr Kenderdine has increased my concerns in this 5 area. The prospect of almost 200 nights of work, not to mention work on Saturdays is an alarming one for me. And as with many other aspects of this project making changes at-grade would result in much less disruption and much less construction impact. 10 Now as you will be aware I was one of those who conducted cross- examination on cricket matters. I have referred to that in some detail in my representation and again, I don’t propose to read through all of that. But I just wanted to comment that even since that aspect of the hearing finished, I should say that during that cross-examination Sir Jon 15 Anderson expressed confidence that if the ICC venue assessment process was triggered that it would be done in a professional way. Recent developments of the ICC, which I am sure we are all aware of, but just for the record I will mention them, involve the operations of the 20 ICC’s anti-corruption unit, which has had a significant impact on New Zealand players, with testimony being linked and so forth, again reflects the point that I referred to in my cross-examination, which is that the ICC is a highly politicised – and I would go so far as to say – dysfunctional body in many respects. And that I do not believe it is a 25 good idea to put the future of the Basin Reserve at risk – it is at risk from many factors including spectator and player reaction, but also specifically from an ICC venue assessment, to put it at risk by building a flyover and thereby put its future potentially in the hands of a body which is increasingly showing itself to be dysfunctional. Once again, if 30 there is an at-grade option, that risk does not exist. Now one of the issues that arose in connection with the future of the Basin Reserve was the question of the Basin Reserve Management Plan. Among other places, this question was raised in the planning 35 contemporaneous cross-examination and I have got a reference here which is Hearing Transcript Day 59, page 6804, lines 2 to 4, in which Mr Roberts says that the Basin Reserve Management Plan is yet to be developed. And in relation to this a little bit of digging in the WCC Archives recently revealed that although – as far as I know – it is 40 correct to say that a Basin Reserve Management Plan has not been developed, there is in fact, or was in 1979, a management plan for sports grounds, which resulted from the Reserve’s Act and which included conditions about building on the Reserve. 45 Now I have supplied this document, it is the one headed WCC “Archives Committee Minutes 0018004” and you will find in section 6 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7941 that there is a section headed “Buildings” – sorry, I should say that it is page 3 of the part of the supplied document headed “Sports Ground and Multiple Use Park Zone Management Plan – at page 3, section 6 there are provisions about building on such grounds. 5 So there seem to be three – and I should say that this plan was approved on the 6th of November 1978. There seem to be three possibilities - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just a minute. MR JONES: Sorry, sir? CHAIRPERSON: We have got two documents, I think, have we? 15 [10.00 am] MR JONES: The document I am referring to is this one, which starts with a slightly folded page. It is headed WCC archives committee minutes, 20 00180:0:4. That is the one that I supplied in addition to my representation. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and we are looking at page 3? 25 MR JONES: Yes, now the next part – sorry, it is a little confusing because there are two page 3s. CHAIRPERSON: It is the second page 3. 30 MR JONES: The second page 3, that is correct. Now, 1978 is a long time ago. MR BAINES: Just to be clear, I have got the second page 3. MR JONES: Yes. 35 MR BAINES: It is actually page 4 that refers to building, but you were referring us to something on page 3, which - - -? MR JONES: Okay, oh I see, yes, there is two sets of page numbers sorry. It is 40 a very confusing document. I am referring – I have got to be very specific – I am referring to the page which is one page back from the final printed page. At the top of the page with a dash on either side, is the page number 3. Yes, I agree, that is – I had not noticed there was a separate page number 4 at the bottom. And as I say, point 6 on that 45 page is headed buildings, yes, so, sorry for the confusion about that. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7942 Now, there seem to be three possibilities. One perhaps unlikely - - - CHAIRPERSON: What in clause 6 – do you want us to read the whole clause? 5 MR JONES: No, I merely wish to refer to the fact that there is a document, or at least there was a document in 1978, which referred to building on sports grounds, and that therefore, this would appear to contradict the – so, I will be careful what I say here. There appears to be a document, or 10 at least that there was a document in 1978, which was a management plan which referred to sports grounds which would therefore include the Basin Reserve. Now, I cannot say whether or not this is the current management plan or whether it has been superseded by a subsequent management plan, but unless this plan has been cancelled and not 15 replaced, then it does suggest that there is an existing plan which bears on the question of building at the Basin Reserve. Now, I am bringing this up now – it was only discovered end of last week – so I am bringing this up now because it does pertain to that 20 question of whether or not there is an existing plan which covers the management of the Basin Reserve. CHAIRPERSON: So the document, “Sport Ground and Multiple Use Park Zone Management Plan”, is that attached to the first document? 25 MR JONES: Yes, the document – that is correct, yes. The document as a whole that I have supplied - - - CHAIRPERSON: It is just a draft which was attached. It is an attached draft 30 document. MR JONES: Sorry, that is a draft document, but it was approved on the 6th of November 1978. 35 CHAIRPERSON: The first document refers to a number of reserves and open spaces, but does not mention the Basin Reserve. MR JONES: It does not specifically mention the Basin Reserve, but it covers sports grounds. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR BAINES: Recreation and open space sites. 45 MR JONES: May I proceed? Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7943 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR JONES: I will just go back to where I was in my document. Now, I have referred in my document, in my representation, at section 4, there are a 5 number of reasons why I believe - - - CHAIRPERSON Sorry, you have given us this document. What do you want us to do with it? 10 MR JONES: Well my understanding is that – I am giving you the document to raise a question over whether in fact there is an existing plan that relates to the management of the Basin Reserve. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well what relevance has that got to a resource 15 management application? Whether it complies with the management plan is not a question for us. It is a question for another authority, maybe the High Court. MR JONES: Well of course, it is up to you to consider whether or not you 20 think it is relevant, but the reason I thought it was relevant is because discussion of whether or not there is in fact a Basin Reserve management plan has previously been raised in the hearing. CHAIRPERSON: Yes and the council have told us, I think, that there is a 25 process commenced to create a new management plan, if there is one or if there is not one. MR JONES: Okay, then that is – I am not denying that that is happening. 30 [10.05 am] MR COLLINS: Just to be clear, the first letter for 25th of October refers to – the heading is management plans for reserves and proposed recreation open space zones. So that could be something not necessarily under the 35 Reserves Act it could just be management plans, though it is just the year after the 77 Reserves Act was enacted. And then it refers to a number of parks, but it does not mention the Basin Reserve, so the only category would seem to be – is it in the town belt? Is that the one you are thinking of? 40 MR BAINES: Postal (ph 42.8) zones, sports grounds. MR COLLINS: Sports ground, okay. Sports ground, and then that refers to attached draft management plans to be confirmed, so you are saying 45 that it was confirmed, that is the recommendation. If it was confirmed, here is the draft which are the pages following, and you were saying Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7944 section 6 refers to buildings and how future buildings would be assessed. MR JONES: That is correct. 5 MR COLLINS: Is that the logic? MR JONES: That is the line. 10 MR COLLINS: And the context is that others have suggested that any more buildings, like the Northern Gateway building, should be within some wider framework of the whole reserve, rather than just case-by-case. And you agree with that approach? 15 MR JONES: Yes, that is correct, yes. MR COLLINS: So your argument is that one reason against the Northern Gateway building would be that it is not within a management plan context? And you are saying this represents such a context that as far as 20 you know, has not been rescinded. MR JONES: I am not putting it forward as an argument for the Northern Gateway building. What I am suggesting is that the Northern Gateway building needs to be measured against, if there are existing criteria, 25 then the Northern Gateway building needs to be measured against them. It is my belief that in fact, the Northern Gateway building, for a number of reasons, and of course is reflected in the fact that experts have agreed that the building would not be built – oh, sorry, should not be built unless the project goes ahead, that the Northern Gateway 30 building is not something which you would build if not for the building of the flyover. MR COLLINS: Yes, but is this not a matter for the council to consider? The council has the controlling authority. This is a thing binding on them is 35 it not? Not really binding on us. MR JONES: That is correct. I agree, and I am providing it for context of the question of whether or not the fact there is an existing plan. 40 MR COLLINS: Thank you. MR JONES: So to go back to reasons why the project should not proceed, I just wanted to note, I have mentioned that is evidence from all around the world – this is at 4.2.1 in my representation. There is evidence from 45 all around the world that young people in particular are turning away from driving and from private motor vehicle ownership. This Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7945 phenomenon is evident in New Zealand both in traffic statistics and the steep decline in the uptake of driver licenses by young people. And I just wanted to mention that Mr Oram (ph 3.30) – I was impressed by Mr Oram’s (ph 3.32) representation from the other day, as Mr Oram 5 (ph 3.35) also discussed this in his representation. I just have a couple more points. Yes, that is right I was going to refer to the weaknesses in the agency’s case. I think one of the persistent themes throughout this hearing is that the agency has – sorry, I just feel 10 a little faint, sorry. I am just going to have to stop for a moment. CHAIRPERSON: Would you like us to adjourn briefly? MR JONES: Yes, I am just feeling a little unwell at this point, sorry. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Well, we will adjourn. You may be having a minor migraine or something. We will adjourn briefly while you compose yourself. 20 ADJOURNED [10.09 am] RESUMED [10.31 am] CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well it is a bit unfortunate, Ms Newman, that you have 25 been brought on a bit early, but - - - MS NEWMAN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: - - - let us hope everything is okay. 30 MS NEWMAN: I do. CHAIRPERSON: It looked very much to me like a migraine, so - - - 35 MS NEWMAN: I think it’s possibly a reaction to stress, Tim's been doing a lot, so, yes, very important. So shall I make a start? 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will just get your - So I possibly don’t need to do too much of an introduction but I’m Joanna Newman and I’m convenor of Mount Victoria Historical Society, this presentation is on behalf of Mount Victoria Historical Society and we are opposed to the construction of the flyover. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7946 First of all, a little bit about the Society, we’re an incorporated society and our aims are to research and share the history of the suburb of Mount Victoria and promote interest in and preservation of its unique heritage. On one long side its boundaries the Mount Victoria section of 5 the town belt and on the other side it’s Kent Terrace and the Basin Reserve. The Society was established in 1996 and currently has 69 members, many of which are family members representing two or more 10 individuals. It’s a very active society which has conducted major research in outreach projects including oral history and photographic documentary, resulting in a public exhibition, development in installation of a large heritage panel on the side of the Embassy Theatre, publications and many guided walks and a dynamic website. 15 We’ve made submissions protesting about the impact on heritage of the Ngauranga to Airport transport proposals, to both NZTA and greater Wellington Regional Council since 2008 and to the Ministry for Culture and heritage in 2012 about plans to move the crèche under the 20 National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Act, as I said we oppose the construction of the flyover here. The Basin Reserve precinct is not simply a piece of open country, to draw a line across and construct a highway through. As Ms McCredie 25 said in her cross-examination on day 46, “It’s trying to retrofit a flyover structure in what is a very tight contained street pattern”, this is an historic landscape with many heritage sites in the heart of the capital city, with historic reserves and residential areas. In short, it is a unique, irreplaceable city heart. 30 [10.35 am] So I will talk first about the actual Basin Reserve recreation ground. The Basin Reserve is acknowledged as being special under the Historic 35 Places Act. As you will know by now, it was registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust as an historic area in 1998. The whole area of the Basin Reserve though is more than the sum of its parts. It is registered as an historic area because it possesses aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, historical, scientific, social, 40 spiritual, technological or traditional significance or value. And we would say that in this case with the Basin Reserve it meets at least six of those ten criteria. All the buildings and structures within the historic area are interrelated. 45 Removal and relocation of the C.S. Dempster Gate and construction of a long, three-storey structure in its place would affect the relationships Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7947 between the elements of the historic area. The historic significance in the opposing entry gates on the north and south side of the Basin Reserve allowing entry from both sides though gates named after renowned cricketers would be destroyed. 5 The Basin Reserve has been used as a public park since 1857. It was formally granted to the citizens of Wellington by the Crown in 1861 and covered by the Town Belt and Basin Reserve Deed in 1873. This historically places it in a context of the founding vision for Wellington, 10 one of urban development balanced by open spaces. And I would just like to show you this picture, which is around the time of the first deed, which gifted this land to Wellington. This is what the Basin Reserve looked like at about that time. The 1873 Deed stated that 15 the land was to be forever hereafter used and appropriated as a public recreation ground for the inhabitants of the city of Wellington. And that the trustees who held it on behalf of the citizens of Wellington have no power to alienate or dispose of the same. 20 The Deed was re-written in 1884 and this is what the Basin Reserve would have looked like then. The 1884 Deed, which forms part of the current Trust Deed, also states that the Basin Reserve is to be forever used for the purposes of a cricket and recreation ground. 25 There has been a lot of focus on the fact that it is an important cricket ground. It is only very recently that it has become almost exclusively used for cricket in terms of organised sport and recreation. Throughout its history it has also been a focal point for civic and community events and activities. 30 The national significance of the Basin Reserve is acknowledged by all parties to this Board of Enquiry. Construction of a flyover will have a severe and irreversible effect on the nature of this open recreation space. It will impact on the way thousands of people experience it, 35 including sports and events, participants and spectators, those who cycle or walk through the Basin Reserve, those who take their lunch to the Basin Reserve – as some of us have during this hearing – and those who move around it and who live nearby. 40 The next issue I would like to cover is the one of designation of the Basin Reserve land. This slide shows – with the red-dotted line – the area which is to be taken for roading designation. We oppose designation of a significant area of land within the Basin Reserve historic area perimeter fence for the purposes of the Basin bridge 45 project. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7948 The land has been taken in order to construct a building to try and mitigate the effect of a flyover. The proposed structure is not part of the flyover or RoNS, therefore NZTA should not be permitted to take land within the registered Basin Reserve historic area for the purposes of 5 constructing a building to provide sports facilities. There is a history of such designations never being handed back. There is therefore no guarantee that this is the last assault on the Basin Reserve. 10 [10.40 am] And this is part of the land which is to be forever used for the purposes of a cricket and recreation ground. 15 It should be protected in perpetuity. Like Patricia Grace’s land on the Kapiti Coast, this is a place of cultural and historic significance and a place of special significance, though in this case to all Wellington citizens. 20 In terms of the wider historic landscape, this slide is from the Wellington City Council District Plan, District Plan Map 16. And what this shows is aspects of the makeup and layout of this part of the town. What it shows is the very structural elements of the Kent and 25 Cambridge Terrace leading up to the Basin Reserve. The purple patch is the big area of significant cultural and national institutions. And then on the right hand side you have the very densely populated historic suburb of Mount Victoria. 30 The impact of the flyover construction is not just on a registered historic area of the Basin Reserve. A Historic Places Act registration has to have legal boundaries, but the Basin Reserve’s connection to the Canal Reserve, which of Kent and Cambridge Terrace, and Mount Victoria Town Belt are intrinsic to its value. This is part of a wider 35 heritage landscape. The construction of a flyover would further erode the historic connection between the Basin Reserve, the Canal Reserve and the Town Belt of Mount Victoria. The Basin Reserve was originally 40 connected to the Town Belt through Wellington College land, which was the Town Belt. This is the landscape of the original city of Wellington reflecting the vision of its founding settlers for future citizens. The project would 45 destroy the essential historic fabric of the city and once done can never be undone. I would really like to emphasise that this is not parochialism Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7949 on behalf of Mount Victoria Historical Society just because we are Mount Victoria and adjacent to this area. All landscape and heritage experts have agreed in expert conferencing 5 to this Board of Enquiry on the historic importance and sensitivity of the area. Its meaning and significance comes from accumulation of civic involvement and experience over 150 years. This meaning is both national and local in importance and value. 10 NZTA Technical Report 12 acknowledges that the flyover will change the setting for all heritage buildings which lie within the visual catchment. We strongly oppose destruction of the interconnection between the historic places in this part of the city including the former museum, Buckle Street Police Station, the Catholic precinct, including 15 the former St Patrick’s College and Church, the Home of Compassion Crèche, St Joseph’s, Government House and the southern portion of the historic suburb of Mount Victoria. This is a nationally significant heritage-rich area as well as being 20 essential to Wellington’s identity. Construction of the proposed flyover also requires the taking of land from the Canal Reserve for roading. The Canal Reserve is covered by the Town Belt Deed and subject to the Reserves Act. We object strongly to the taking of any additional town belt land, which is held in trust for the citizens of Wellington for 25 the purposes of recreation. Bordering the Basin Reserve and severely impacted by the project is the Mount Victoria residential suburb. It is a high profile historic area defined under the District Plan as a special character area. Settled since 30 1840 and just at this southern corner we have some of the oldest remaining dwellings in Wellington including Waring Taylor’s House. Now that may not mean much to you, except that there is a street in Wellington called Waring Taylor and a house was built in 1869. 35 [10.45 am] If the Basin Reserve precinct had been properly recognised as a historic landscape and built environment of national and local significance, we do not believe the Basin project could have got as far as it has. The 40 adverse impact cannot be justified. We also believe that if it is understood as such a unique setting, this project cannot be approved. I would like to talk now a bit about the effect of mitigation measures. The adverse effects of the bridge cannot be fully mitigated, as has been 45 acknowledge by all experts. The proposed mitigation structure of the Northern Gateway building and the green screen compound the effects Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7950 of the flyover by encroaching on and further enclosing the open space with a dominating building and structure. NZTA technical report 12 states many times that the views to and from the Basin Reserve from north and south, and from east and west, are historically significant, 5 important historical amenities, and that these will be destroyed. It would no longer be possible to appreciate the historical setting of the Basin Reserve historic area, as the legacy of a basin nestled in a valley between hills, and at the head of a stream that once lead to the sea. 10 The adverse effects of the proposal on the cultural landscape will not only be visible from within close proximity, but also from the surrounding hills which are valued dwelling and recreation locations. Furthermore, the mitigation requires removal of the historic gates and fence which you can see very clearly, or you can see the historic fence 15 in that photograph. Which are integral to the registered historic area and surrounds and upsets the historic pattern of buildings being confined to the west side of the reserve. It therefore represents a severe impact on nationally significant historic heritage. 20 Building a structure simply to hide the flyover from the critical point of view of a cricketer at the central crest ignores the impact of the flyover and mitigation structures on all others who use or experience the Basin Reserve and its surrounds. The mitigation structure is not required for construction of the flyover. Construction of such a building within the 25 Basin Reserve historic area should be treated separately and not simple as mitigation for a roading project. The mitigation structure should be removed from this consenting process, we believe. The impact on southern Mt Victoria, there has been quite a lot of 30 discussion of the views from the cricket ground from the Basin Reserve of Mt Victoria and the town belt behind, and this just shows what a connection there still is to this area, and how little, in some ways, it has changed. Mt Victoria is a historic suburb retaining a large amount of its original housing. The southern edge of Mt Victoria is defined by 35 Paterson Street, Kent Terrace, Ellice Street and Dufferin Street. NZTA technical report 12 again, includes among its assessment of adverse effects of the flyover construction, the impact on the setting of the Mt Victoria residential character area. The applicant and all its 40 witnesses acknowledged that the north-east quadrant is the most effected, and that the impact cannot be fully mitigated. The north-east quadrant is the southern end of the Mt Victoria heritage area. The effects on the Mt Victoria historical area have not been adequately taken into consideration. We are particularly concerned at the impact 45 on lower Ellice Street. The application includes permission to remove 28 Ellice Street and take additional land from St Joseph’s property in Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7951 order to build the flyover closer to the church and residences on lower Ellice Street. This will have a severe impact on 21 to 45 Ellice Street, and 28, 32, and 40 Ellice Street. These buildings, along with 9 to 13 Dufferin Street, are acknowledged in TR12 as having heritage 5 significance. This adds to the impacts on historic heritage of the Basin Reserve area that have already been incurred by the removal of the historic buildings on Bogart’s corner by NZTA. These effects are cumulative and adverse 10 on the historic setting of the Basin Reserve. [10.50 am] We oppose removal of the pre-1900 residence at 28 Ellice Street 15 because this constitutes destruction of the last remaining residence on the south side of lower Ellice Street. Degradation of the environment through the removal of 28 Ellice Street and proximity of the flyover with its associated traffic noise, vibration, dirt and lighting will severely impact historic houses in lower Ellice Street. It is likely to lead 20 to further loss of heritage buildings in this area in future. We also object to the severe impact on St Joseph’s church caused by this project. There has been a lot of behind-the-scenes dealing and discussion about car parks, but the building itself will be degraded. It is 25 an award-winning, eye catching example of modern ecclesiastical architecture by studio pacific architecture, which is likely one day to be regarded as an important part of the city’s architectural heritage. It includes an important stained glass window by renowned New Zealand artist Shane Cotton. 30 The brief for the church design in 2001 was to create a new church and community facility on a prominent site in Wellington, and specified that the beauty of the building should derive from its material and form rather than from its ornamentation. We believe the project will 35 permanently ruin the setting and amenity, and some of the values of this church. And finally, though it is not technically part of this project, we would like to comment on the moving of the Home of Compassion crèche. 40 The applicants set out the results of a fatal flaws analysis in the feasible options report, 2011, and stated that the requirement to move the crèche was a fatal flaw for option A, which is the one we are discussing. I will not read that quote, but the following year the power to move it was granted under the National War Memorial Pukeahu empowering act, 45 2012, despite the fact that its removal is not required to construct the War Memorial Park. Its movement was also contrary to the IKEMOS Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7952 New Zealand charter for the conservation of places of cultural heritage value, 2010. However, while NZTA has ensured that the crèche relocation is taken out of its application to construct the Basin Reserve flyover, it does claim, sighting the crèche in close proximity to its 5 present position, thus maintaining historical connections with the locality and management of heritage effects on a building in its new location as part of this project. Locating the crèche in a War Memorial park removed from the last 10 vestige of its context on the edge of Buckle Street where the Sisters of Compassion took in and cared for the children of the poor and needy and where it stood alongside the soup kitchen from whose window they served the poor, will have a severe impact on the meaning of his historic site. And I will just comment that the irony of treating it as a 15 building block in an urban design plan and locating a building used by the Sisters of the Home of Compassion in a War Memorial park does not seem to have struck anybody, but I think it is quite ironic that they think it is appropriate to site it in a War Memorial park. 20 It will be detrimental to the future - - - CHAIRPERSON: The photo that you have there, - - - MS NEWMAN: Yes. 25 CHAIRPERSON: - - - where was the poor served soup from? MS NEWMAN: It was next door. 30 CHAIRPERSON: It was next door? MS NEWMAN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: - - - It was not part of this crèche? 35 MS NEWMAN: No, it was part of the Sisters of Compassion - - - CHAIRPERSON: All right. 40 MS NEWMAN: - - - establishment on - - - CHAIRPERSON: Next door. MS NEWMAN: - - - the site and it was just next door. But once you move the 45 frontage, you know, the alignment with Buckle Street where they Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7953 served the poor of Te Aro, you lose some of that historic context and meaning. Mt Victoria Historical Society acknowledges that relocation of the 5 crèche is not covered by this application. But we would say it is not yet moved all the way to its new site. [10.55 am] 10 I will just briefly refer to the Resource Management Act requirements, but I know that you are very aware of those, but we do believe that the applicant has not demonstrated why the irreplaceable historic heritage values and amenity at the wider Basin Reserve area should be so severely compromised to make way for roading. It’s argued that the 15 adverse effects outweigh any benefits claimed in the proposal submitted to the EPA. In our submission we have set out the specific clauses in part 2 that we don’t really feel have been taken sufficiently into account. 20 Just in conclusion, we really appreciate that there will be a lot of pressure to approve this project, NZTA has ensured that plans are well advanced prior to gaining consent, on the assumption that it will be granted. 25 The model small traffic gains don’t outweigh the adverse effects on heritage or the amenity “it contributes to the landscape and the residential area”. 30 The Basin Reserve is a park. The open space should be left for future generations. People experience the environment as a whole, including surrounding hills and view shafts and the approach down Kent/Cambridge Terraces, the view down Ellice Street and up the rise towards the west. 35 Heritage is not only about buildings, though this project results in a loss of built heritage. It is about the experience people have of the environment as a whole. Wellington will lose something precious that will never be able to be recovered. 40 The experience of the Basin Reserve will become one of a traffic flyover and an enclosed space. The perception will be “that’s where the flyover is”, a bit of paving, some sedge and grasses planted in concrete boxes will not make it more inviting. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7954 The project is out of scale with the built urban environment and incompatible with the open space reserve characteristics and with the inner city life. It would continue the destruction of this part of the city. 5 For more than 40 years plans to create a motorway through the area have led to a blight, from the destruction of the Catholic precinct, including the move of St Patrick's College and St Joseph's, to smaller but significant losses. 10 There will be renewal, if the land is released from roading designation. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well thank you very much, Ms Newman, you are 15 another one of the parties or representative of a party who have spent a lot of time at this hearing and we appreciate your input, not only through the submission but you cross-examined on one occasion as well and you have no doubt been “handing the bullets” to Mr Bennion from time to time for him to fire as well, so we do appreciate your hard 20 work. MS NEWMAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions? 25 MR BAINES: Just a couple – thank you very much, I think you have made it quite clear what the Historical Societies position is and the reasons for that. 30 I just wanted to ask a couple of details, 28 Ellice Street, can you remind me, what is it actually currently used for? MS NEWMAN: It’s tenanted. 35 MR BAINES: It is tenanted, so it is occupied by residents - - - MS NEWMAN: It is occupied, tenanted. MR BAINES: - - - but tenanted? 40 MS NEWMAN: Yes. MR BAINES: Okay. As are all those properties, if you think of – is it 21 to 45, are they all - - - 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7955 MS NEWMAN: Not at all, in fact I’m speaking on behalf of friends who live at 37, but the ones on the corner I would think – corner of Ellice and Brougham are probably a mix of owner/occupier. 5 MR BAINES: Sorry, but they are all occupied by residents - - - MS NEWMAN: Yes, they are. MR BAINES: - - - it is not a matter whether they are owner occupied or 10 tenanted, they are all residentialists. 1 MS NEWMAN: Yes, they are, yes. MR BAINES: Right, right. And people are, I mean, they are currently actively 15 residential? MS NEWMAN: Yes. MR BAINES: Right. 20 MS NEWMAN: Well I think of the – the one on the corner of – one is part offices to the Catholic Social Services and part tenanted, so it’s a mix. MR BAINES: Right. And my other question relates to, if you like, the 25 relationship between St Joseph's and the Mount Victoria area - am I right in thinking that St Joseph's taken on a somewhat wider role, it’s not just a Mount Victoria parish church anymore, is it – is that - - - [11.00 am] 30 MS NEWMAN: No it’s not. I mean I know quite a number of people from Mount Victoria who go to St Joseph, but it’s definitely got a wider, you know, wider parish. 35 MR BAINES: Right. MS NEWMAN: And I suspect that’s one of the things that happens with a lot of churches these days, particularly inner city ones that they tend to have much wider parishes. 40 MR BAINES: Are you familiar with how it is used, St Joseph's Church – I mean I am thinking particularly of the, there is that meeting area and there is a meeting room – I forgot the name of it now, we have been told the name – does that – what sort of – does that get a certain amount 45 of local Mount Victoria community use? Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7956 MS NEWMAN: Well it does, we’ve used it on a few occasions for meetings, and it’s a lovely place to meet, and I have to say that one of the things that I have really noticed having had meetings there on a Saturday afternoon, is that, you look out that window and, yes, there is traffic 5 constantly coming down Paterson Street and it can be quite busy, but it is never stalled or stopped, even on a busy Saturday when people coming and going for sports. But, yes, they certainly do make it available for community use. 10 MR BAINES: Right, okay, thank you very much. MR COLLINS: You mention on the first page that the society had been involved in making submissions on the Ngauranga to Airport proposals, and I was asking somebody else about that and they also 15 mentioned that they had made submissions and they could not quite remember how it worked, but I do not know if you were involved personally but it sort of goes to this whole question about, the consultation with the public over a long period, there has been criticism of the sort of formal consultation which was this Option A or Option B, 20 but I think the applicant’s case is, there was consultation earlier and I am interested in how that worked for you and what it involves – if you were involved personally. MS NEWMAN: Yes, no I was, but 2008. They were written submissions and 25 I think that 2008 was to the Greater Wellington Regional Council, but actually - - - MR COLLINS: It is a while ago. 1 30 MS NEWMAN: It is a while ago and I’m sorry I can’t remember. I know I spoke to one submission at the – and I’m pretty sure that was Greater Wellington Regional Council in 2008 – spoke to that. MR COLLINS: So that – sort of like, in hearings, you go along and protest. 35 MS NEWMAN: Yes, to council – yes. MR COLLINS: Okay. 40 MS NEWMAN: There have been issues where – and I can’t – I’m sorry, I’m not very good at remembering dates, but one of them has been very noticeable in the fact that 80 percent of submitters were against and that has never really been taken into account. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7957 The feedback for 2011 and 2012 consultations NZTA was very tardy about making any of that information available, it wouldn’t publish the submissions. 5 So, yes, it’s been a very mixed experience – and it was very clear that 2011 and 2012, whichever was the one that was the community focus workshops, they were asking for feedback. It was not – it was very carefully worded as “feedback”, not “consultation”, so that was when the Option A was presented, yes. 10 MR COLLINS: And earlier consultation, what do you recall, what was sort of put before you, was it a – this is Ngauranga to Airport, a general concept or options or “Here is what we intend to do”, do you recall how that worked? 15 MS NEWMAN: Look, I honestly don’t I’m afraid. MR COLLINS: No, that’s okay. 20 MS NEWMAN: I should have – yes, checked that or brought something along - - - MR COLLINS: No, that’s all right. 25 MS NEWMAN: - - - but I think it was pretty general. I don’t believe in 2008 there were options, but there’s probably somebody sitting here who remembers better than me. MR COLLINS: And secondly, when you discuss historic landscape on page 30 3, you’re saying “the construction of the flyover would”, not just construction, I guess you mean the existence of the flyover, “would further erode the historic connection between the Basin Reserve, Canal Reserve” – sorry, the Basin Reserve, Canal Reserve and the town belt, now is that because of the nature of the structure being up, it is – so you 35 would be less concerned – well would there still be difficulty with that connection if it was more traffic at ground level or some sort of tunnel or some other structure, is it the nature of the structure that causes that problem? 40 [11.05 am] MS NEWMAN: It is very much the nature of the structure, and the structure combined with the mitigation which is that very, you know, sort of, monolithic, if you could say that, I guess it is not monolithic if it is two 45 things. But a very massive block at this end of the canal reserve, and Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7958 between the canal reserve and the Basin Reserve, which from both sides, blocks that sort of open space connection. MR COLLINS: So the mechanism, it is a visual thing. People on one side or 5 the other - seeing it - lose the sense of connection between the things that are either side of it. MS NEWMAN: Yes. And lose that sense of the valley too, between the, you know, which rises up to the town belt. 10 MR COLLINS: Good, thank you. MR MCMAHON: Just a couple from me, Ms Newman, and you better not let Mr Bennion hear you call it a valley, he would be very upset. In your 15 last paragraph, you refer to the destruction of the Catholic precinct, including the move of St Patrick’s College and St Joseph’s, and I just wondered if you could give the board some context as to when that occurred and what was actually lost at that time. 20 MS NEWMAN: St Patrick’s moved out to Silverstream as a result of the initial roading plans. No, Kilbirnie, sorry, yes. And I do not remember exactly when it was, but my understanding is they just got sick of waiting to find out what was going to happen. 25 MR MCMAHON: The judges referred earlier in the hearing to a very good black and white photograph of the area that is in the room that we reside in, and a number of historic buildings associated with the Catholic precinct. When were they removed? And what sort of mechanism was involved? 30 MS NEWMAN: I think the church, the extraordinary octagonal church went, I think that went about the 1940s, oh - I cannot remember when that went. But that went quite early. And it did have massive leak problems, so, you know, short of having a lot of money that was probably never 35 going to survive. But the college was very much a result of the uncertainty of roading plans which have been around for 40 years. MR MCMAHON: Yes, and since St Patricks went to Silverstream and St Joseph’s to Kilbirnie, is that - - - 40 MS NEWMAN: St Patrick’s went to Kilbirnie. MR MCMAHON: Kilbirnie, okay. 45 MS NEWMAN: St Joseph’s went to a temporary wooden building up on its current site for many years. And I think that relates to the 35 years that Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7959 they were talking about the uncertainty that they had had getting finalisation before they could go ahead with their church. MR MCMAHON: Okay, thank you for that. Just one final matter. You raised 5 a very interesting point on page 3 under the designation of the Basin Reserve land section, and ti is your third paragraph. And you say that there is a history of designations never being handed back, and there is no guarantee that this is the last assault on the Reserve. I am trying to search for any condition requiring the handing back of designation or 10 the proposal to be approved, and the closest I came to was condition DC2 which is a general requirement on the agency to review the width of the area of the designation, and identify areas that are no longer required, but there is no specific reference to the Basin Reserve that I can see. And that is your point, is it? 15 MS NEWMAN: It is, yes. MR MCMAHON: Okay, thank you for that. Thank you, sir. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Just following on, the demolition of the Catholic precinct, who carried that out? MS NEWMAN: I am afraid I do not know. 25 CHAIRPERSON: You do not know. Was it the church itself? Or, you do not know. MS NEWMAN: I do not know I am afraid, no. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes thank you very much indeed, Ms Newman. MS NEWMAN: I think you might have to put up with me again. CHAIRPERSON: Oh, we are getting used to you. How long does she 35 propose? MS NEWMAN: Probably a similar - - - CHAIRPERSON: Well that will take us to about half-past 11? 40 MS NEWMAN: That is fine by me. CHAIRPERSON: Yes okay, well we will have that. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7960 [11.10 am] MS NEWMAN: Well I guess this time, at least you can pretend that I am somebody else, if I can make my voice different enough, you can 5 pretend I am somebody else. I am making this representation on behalf of Alan Oliver and Julie Middleton who are the owners and residents of 37 Ellice Street which is that house there. And they are the owners of 39 Ellice Street. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes? MS NEWMAN: So please, when you are listening to think, think of it at Julie who is speaking. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are speaking for them. MS NEWMAN: I am, yes. So kia orana and greetings from Rutaki, Rarotonga in the Cook Islands. My partner Alan Oliver and I are temporarily 20 living in the Cook Islands. We were home in Wellington over Christmas and hoped to be able to give our oral submission personally. However, the hearing timing has made this impossible although I did sit through day one and two of the hearings. We are now back in the Cooks so have asked our friend Joanna Newman, convener of the Mt 25 Victoria Historical Society, to speak on our behalf. Referring to the argument raised in the hearing’s first days about the weight of expert versus lay-witnesses, Alan and I are obviously not technical experts, although we both have BA degrees in physical and 30 human geography. We are, however, experts in living in Ellice Street, having lived here for over 30 years. We are acutely aware of the rhythms of our street and neighbourhood. Daily, we see the effects of the peak school drop-off and pick-up on local parking and traffic, and the school buses’ daily struggle to merge into the Basin traffic. We 35 know the parking chaos caused when St Joseph’s, the Greek Orthodox Church or the street church in Hani Street, have a mid-week funeral. We know the frustration of having to ring the Wellington City Council when a car is parked over our garage as there is no other parking available in the area and we need to get our car out We see the high 40 pedestrian usage of our street, and now the high cycle usage. We know vehicles rat-run up Marshbank (ph 2.45) Street, along Brougham, and down Ellice streets to avoid congestion in Kent Terrace. We see the local car repair businesses testing the cars up Ellice Street, and car sales yards’ employees taking prospective customers on test runs up our 45 street in new cars. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7961 We also know from experience that Pirie Street is an exceedingly steep and difficult access road into Mt Victoria. Living here in this neighbourhood is over 30 years, we know things that expert planners will have no idea about, and will not consider in their deliberations. 5 We are completely against the Basin Bridge proposal for the following reasons. Having both been born and brought up in Christchurch, we came to 10 Wellington in the late 1970s to join the public service, Julie, and begin teaching, Alan. We flatted in many areas, Thorndon, Newtown and Kelburn. From a damp flat in Kelburn, we looked across the city to the sunny old houses in Mt Victoria and decided this is where we wanted to live. We found a flat at the top of Marshbank Street (ph 4.02) and 15 looked for a house to buy. We loved the historic houses, the sunny aspect, the town belt, the closeness to the city, the sense of community in the area, and the community centre across ways. We purchased our neglected rundown partly renovated house at 20 number 37 Ellice Street, which you can see there in its original state, one rainy day in August 1983. The house dated from the 1890s and was one of a group of historic houses in the bottom block on the north side of Ellice Street. We spent the next 10 years renovating our house. We did all the building, re-piling, painting, gibing, fencing, and 25 landscaping ourselves, hiring a plumber, electrician and gib-stoppers as cash flow allowed. [11.15 am] 30 We turned our house into a liveable home, and after much research, restoring the front of the house back to its 1890 front with a veranda, white picket fence and cottage garden. And there is Alan and one of his trusty helpers working on building the 35 house. When our elderly neighbour, Miss Jessie Harrison, died at neighbouring number 39 Ellice Street, her estate lawyer offered the house to us to purchase for the price of the land as the house was so 40 dilapidated it was almost beyond repair. He did this purely because he knew we would restore the house and not demolish it and build town houses. We purchased number 39 when interest rates were 22 per cent, which shows great commitment on our parts. 45 We have gradually restored this house, too, over the years, mainly between tenants. This house still needs work, but essentially it is now a Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7962 solid dwelling. The section is double the size of any neighbouring sections and had we not purchased it a developer would have done so, demolished the house and built a row of town houses with a driveway beside it, destroying the unique streetscape of original Victorian 5 houses. Number 39 Ellice Street was built in 1878 and has undergone several renovations of which we have photographs. The current front was built in 1924, which confuses people who don’t realise the house itself is 10 much older. We have always belonged to the Residents’ Association. Alan, as a committee member and Julie as an informal secretary and administrator and we have been involved in many local resource consent hearings 15 over the years, including the two for St Joseph’s. We were amongst the founders of the Mount Victoria Historical Society in 1996, which was formed to help retain the historic houses in the area and to raise awareness of local history. We have worked tirelessly for this organisation, both as committee members, researchers, event 20 organisers, including walking tours of the Basin Reserve precinct and southern Mount Victoria area and resource consent submitters. Alan’s research and submission stopped the removal of the iconic Queen Victoria statue from Kent and Cambridge Terrace in 1998. We 25 have been editors, writers, co-ordinators and distributors of the Mount Victoria newsletter, which has been running in the suburbs since 1976 and is delivered to every household, 2,000 in total, every month and is an invaluable and unique tool of communication within the suburb. 30 We were staunch supporters and users of Crossways Community House in Brougham Street until it was closed. We enjoyed taking our children to the Pirie Street Park when they were little and have always enjoyed walking and running in the town belt walkways. We are committed and involved members of our local community of Mount 35 Victoria. Our first daughter, Kate, now 25, went to Clyde Quay Kindergarten, then on to St Mark’s Church School. Our second daughter, Suzanna, now 20, went to the pre-school at St Mark’s, then on to the main 40 school. Both girls went to Wellington East Girls’ High School. Kate currently lives in our house at number 37 Ellice Street and manages our neighbouring rental property. Bucking the trend of most young people both daughters are committed 45 walkers. Kate walks to her work places at Toi Whakaari and the New Zealand Opera premises in Courtenay Place. Suzanna flats in Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7963 Parnell in Auckland. She doesn’t own a car, but walks and catches buses to the university and local shops. I attribute their willingness to walk and not expect to always use a car to their upbringing in an area where their home, schools and city amenities were all within walking 5 distances. Is it wise to still be assuming that everyone will want to own a car and basing traffic and roading planning on this premise? To sum up, we and our daughters love Mount Victoria. It is our Tūrangawaewae. Our 10 mountain is Mount Victoria, our sea – the harbour itself. It is a friendly neighbourhood with a real sense of community – a rare thing these days. [11.20 am] 15 It has a lovely environment of historic houses and open spaces of the Basin Reserve and town belt. We have a huge personal and financial investment in our neighbourhood. We were committed personally by buying and restoring our house, then doing the same at neighbouring 20 number 39 Ellice Street and through the Mount Victoria Historical Society to preserving the special historic built heritage of our neighbourhood. We believe, the Basin Bridge project will destroy our neighbourhood, 25 degrade our way of life and affect our property values. Our specific objections are: the whole of Basin Reserve area is registered with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust as an historic area. And I apologise if this might sound a bit repetitive, but we were 30 never expecting that Alan and Julie’s representations might follow mine of Mount Victoria Historical Society. The NZ HPT classification is not given lightly and means the area has great national significance, not just regional and local importance. We 35 all know by now the various classified buildings within this area. We also know, consciously or unconsciously, that the backdrop to this area is the historic houses of the suburb of Mount Victoria, just like the backdrop to the Parliament buildings is the houses of the historic suburb of Thorndon, which has already been ruined by the motorway 40 cutting through it. If the historic features of this area are shifted, the whole area will be degraded. Buildings are significant in their original context and should not be randomly shifted. If the Dempster Gate is shifted to make way 45 for a mitigation structure, the whole balance of the area will be destroyed. You will have a modern entrance gate at one end of the Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7964 Basin Reserve Cricket Ground – that is the lower floor of the mitigation structure – and you will have two historic entrance gate buildings at the other end. 5 It is unacceptable to frivolously relocate historic buildings and monuments. It is not absolutely necessary to relocate the Dempster Gates. Since 1987, New Zealand has had a Chapter of the International Council on Monuments and Sites, ICOMOS, a UNESCO organisation that is used as a benchmark in conservation matters. And they include 10 the section on that which I may not read because I am sure you have probably read it yourselves. Interesting enough, the New Zealand Ministry of Culture and Heritage, NZ HPT and many city councils including Wellington use the 15 ICOMOS charter as guidelines for their heritage work. Consequently, we are deeply disappointed to hear the NZ HPT representative on day two of the hearing rubber stamp the relocation of the Dempster Gate. The NZ HPT should be objecting to moving the gates. 20 Also, the Basin Bridge itself will be a huge eyesore in this historic area. This is what Alan and Julie will have at the bottom of their street, just five or so houses away. It will divide the area and obstruct current view shafts across the area, such the Grandstands to the houses of Mount Victoria or vice versa. The Basin Bridge will have a huge adverse 25 visual effect in this historic area. 1B, the Basin Reserve Trust Deed, of which the Wellington City Council is guardian, says that “the land is designated for recreation only and no thoroughfare is permitted over it”. The Basin Bridge 30 proposal intends taking Reserve land to build a mitigation structure to hide the bridge and to take Canal Reserve land to use for pylons to commit the bridge to run over Reserve land. We believe no Reserve land whatsoever should be taken for any part of Basin Bridge proposal. 35 This is an unacceptable use of land under the original Town Belt and Basin Reserve Trust Deed and should not be allowed. The Wellington City Council, as legal guardians of the Reserve land, should not allow anything other than its original intended purpose that is recreation. By giving permission to use a little bit of land here and a little bit there for 40 non-recreational use, sections of this land will be whittled away, until less and less of it is left for its original purpose. Already too much of the town belt has been used for other purposes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7965 [11.25 am] Also we find it amazing that the WCC should only approve the Basin Bridge proposal if the mitigation structure is also built. We find their 5 thought processes to be wholly faulty and illogical. Why is the hiding of the Basin Bridge from the cricketers view so much more important than the view that southern Mount Victoria residents will get? What is being done to mitigate the visual impact of the bridge from the windows and backyards of southern Mount Victoria residents? 10 If this proposal goes ahead I will walk out my front door and see a huge ugly motorway bridge. Not the grassy cricket embankment and pōhutukawa trees I see now, and that is the view from a corner of Allan and Julie's front garden and I’m sure the view is better from their 15 upstairs front window. The uncertainty and loose arrangement for the design, building of and paying for the mitigation structure also amazes us. From what I have heard, there are no guarantees in place between Wellington City 20 Council and Transport Agency that it will ever be built. Also, the mitigation structure itself will be an eyesore, it will form shadows and affect view shafts. Home of Compassion Crèche Building: For the reasons stated in 1A 25 which was the “relocation”, we disapprove of the moving of this building too. The Home of Compassion Crèche Building is significant in its own right, but also in its geographic location, in relation to the old soup kitchen and now moved St Patrick's College and the original St Joseph's Church site in Buckle Street. Moving this building will destroy 30 these geographic relationships. Also, we find it sneaky, that the resource consent for this has been part of the Memorial Park project, because in reality it’s not physically part of that project at all. 35 When I last saw this building at the beginning of February it had not been moved, but was definitely being prepared for moving. The moving should be halted so wider debate can take place, a separate resource consent hearing should be held for this building. We think this 40 building should stay in its current location and not be moved. CHAIRPERSON: Now will that be a convenient place to break for - - - MS NEWMAN: Certainly. 45 CHAIRPERSON: - - - morning tea and give your throat a little rest. Yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7966 REGISTRAR: All stand for members of the Board. ADJOURNED [11.28 am] 5 RESUMED [11.49 am] CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Newman? 10 MS NEWMAN: Thank you. So, where we were up to was talking about the impact of the bridge on lower Ellice Street and Southern Mount Victoria, our specific neighbourhood. First of all we object to removal of 28 Ellice Street and here is 28 Ellice Street from Alan and Julie’s front garden. 28 Ellice Street needs to stay in its current location as it 15 helps maintain the residential streetscape character of this side of the street. It is a pre-1900 single storied residence of which not many remain of this design in the neighbourhood. It is the last old residence in this 20 block. It is likely that it was the home of one of St Marks first parish priests referred to in the parish history. This house currently helps to shield residents on the city side of Ellice Street from the adverse visual impacts of the St Joseph’s car park. 25 Since 1983 when we moved into this neighbourhood three houses have been demolished from the St Joseph’s land area bordered by Ellice, Patterson, Brougham and Dufferin Streets. This includes the church owned house in Brougham neglected then demolished as it was irreparable. 30 30 Ellice Street which was demolished by the church and the land used for their car park entrance and the two storied red house on Dufferin Street owned and neglected by Transit New Zealand then burnt in a suspicious fire. 35 Having motorway designations over land tends to make owners neglect them then use this neglect to leverage demolition then subsequent freeing up of the land. To the neighbourhood this is a regrettable and insidious creeping disintegration of the residential nature of the 40 neighbourhood. To you this is only three houses but to us in lower Ellice Street it has meant that over the years the southern side of our street has lost its residential streetscape and become car parking. The southern Ellice Street side has become ugly with uncoordinated 45 landscaping despite the promise in the St Joseph’s resource consent approval for quality landscaping. Also the unexpected demolition of Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7967 the shops on the corner of Kent Terrace and Ellice Street is regrettable. In the 1980s there was a great group of shops there. A fish and chip shop, pizza place, burger bar with tenants living upstairs. 5 Transit New Zealand let this group of buildings become neglected to the point where they claimed demolition was the only solution. Again, to most people this was a grotty block of shops in reality the main building was a beautifully designed piece of architecture which curved around the corner. Again, the edge of our community is being changed 10 surreptitiously and is now an inviting piece of land masquerading as a park, but in reality it has not been maintained and is full of litter and weeds. 2B. We are concerned at the potential health hazards of living so close 15 to an elevated bridge, not only for ourselves and our neighbours, but for all the hundreds of pre-school, primary and secondary school pupils who spend their daytime in this area. We are concerned of the increase of the following, traffic noise and 20 fumes, dirt and dust, vibrations, traffic headlights, bridge lighting, pedestrian safety in the underpass, I am sure they mean under the bridge, especially at night, impact of wind gusts. This will all adversely affect our general wellbeing. 25 There are of course two parts to this initially issues arising from the construction period and then issues arising from long term if the proposal is built. We were shocked to find the construction period for this project is three years. We will endure three years of dirt, dust, construction noise and pile driving vibrations, not to mention disrupted 30 traffic flows and car parking disappearing to accommodate construction vehicles. Three years. [11.55 am] 35 Long term if the bridge is built there will be issues with the bridge lighting. The lighting will have to be bright enough for the cars, cyclists, and pedestrians on the bridge and cycleway itself. The street lighting and fancy anti-vandalism up lighting on the piers will have to be bright enough to deter the undesirables from lingering under the 40 bridge and bright enough for pedestrians to feel safe there, but also dull enough for the local residents to not have extra light shining into their windows at night. There will also be issue with vehicle headlights which will adversely 45 impact on local houses at night. Long term the constant vibrations of Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7968 passing traffic will inevitably have an adverse effect on the foundations of neighbouring houses and especially St Joseph’s Church. Locals will be breathing in increased fumes from the increased traffic 5 and especially as the traffic may well be idling when it is trying to merge into the bottleneck at Mount Victoria Tunnel. Thousands of school children spend their days in this area and we are unhappy that the air quality and their subsequent health will be compromised. 10 I note wind tunnel trials have not been done, such a huge new structure in a valley basin which surely have an impact on the local wind velocities and directions, especially combined with the mitigation structure. It would seem appropriate in such a windy city as Wellington that some study of wind on a bridge structure should take 15 place and especially for the separate cycleway. It is rather arrogant to say wind will not be an issue when no one has done any research. 2C. We believe these above issues will adversely affect the monetary values of our properties. It could well be that we cannot rent number 20 39 Ellice Street during the three year construction phase as tenants are not keen to live so close to a major construction site. We would then personally sustain a huge financial loss as a result. We also wonder what will be the long term effect on the bridge on the property valuations of the closest neighbouring properties. I would suspect there 25 will be an adverse monetary effect downgrading our property values. 2D. We object to the effect that the bridge will have on the multi- award winning St Joseph’s Church built by Studio Pacific Architecture. This is a stunningly beautiful modern circular church building built 30 around the Maori cottage shape with historic stained glass windows and a huge new stained glass window by the famous New Zealand Maori artist, Shane Cotton. With a bridge intending to be so close to this building not only will you 35 not be able to appreciate the symbolic shape of the church anymore, the traffic noise will degrade the sound quality within the church and the traffic vibrations will undoubtedly affect the structure of the building long term. We are not parishioners of this church but appreciate the building as a piece of special architecture. Not many new church 40 buildings are built these days and this one is very special. I wonder how the church will also function satisfactorily during the bridge construction phase. A church is supposed to be a place of quiet contemplation and this does not marry well with the noise, dust, 45 vibrations, we well as being neighbours to NZTA owned land which undoubtedly will be used for storing machinery and construction Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7969 materials. Maintaining their car parking numbers will also be hard whilst the cottage at number 28 is demolished. 2E. The current access in and out of Mount Victoria currently via 5 Ellice Street will be disrupted and changed with this proposal. Now I will just say at this point I had some conversations with Alan and Julie about this because there has been a huge lack of clarity about this area and so I did talk to Greg Lee about what the final decisions were and he assures me that there is now good access out of Ellice if you are 10 wanting to go through the tunnel or around the Basin Reserve, but I left Alan and Julie’s presentation as it is because I think it does highlight the huge lack of clarity and the difficulty in getting information about this aspect and the number of changes it has gone through until very recent times. So I have left it as they wrote it for me. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well I think, and I may be wrong Ms Ward can take note of what I understand the position to be. The slip lane is predominantly for buses, but cars can use it but they are not going to be encouraged to use it as I understand the evidence. 20 [12.00 pm] How they are going to discourage them from doing it I have not the faintest idea and no one has told us but I am not quite sure just what 25 that means. MS NEWMAN: Yes and I think that highlights the lack of certainty about how it is going to work, so I have - - - 30 CHAIRPERSON: So perhaps we could have some clarity of understanding? MS WARD: Yes, your Honour, by all means, sure. MS NEWMAN: So Alan and Julie say general access in to and out of the 35 southern end of Mount Victoria is via Ellice Street. The bridge proposal compromises this access for local residents and other users. As stated earlier Ellice Street is the main unofficial schools, park and drop off point for local parents especially. 40 As the official drop off point in Dufferin Street outside St Marks is often very congested with traffic school buses also exit Wellington East Girls via Ellice Street. Religious services and funerals at the churches in Ellice and Hania Street not only on the weekend, but also during the week also cause peak usage of Ellice Street. Neither churches are 45 particularly local but draw parishioners from the whole of the city who arrive mainly in cars seeking parking initially in their specific car Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7970 parks, but then spill over into normal street parking. Mount Victoria itself unusually has no shopping centre so residents either go to Kilbirnie or Newtown to shop usually exiting via Ellice Street. 5 Throughout the planning process there have been various options put forward for Ellice Street including totally blocking off its access to the Basin, to being able to turn left into the tunnel, not being able to turn left into the tunnel to being only able to turn left into Dufferin Street. It has been very confusing trying to keep up with all these changing 10 plans, especially when these details do not appear clearly on official diagrams. I have spoken to several neighbours and they are confused as to the current plan for Ellice Street. To us the current plan seems to be continuing with the current slip lane 15 which takes vehicles onto Dufferin Street only. This will benefit the school buses exiting the street but diminishes the choices for everyone else. We will not be able to go out of our street and head for Hataitai or Kilbirnie for example. 20 There is also confusion about what is happening with traffic flows and parking for the Regional Wines business on the corner of Hania and Ellice Street. Whatever happens there will affect Ellice Street in a very major way. The current bridge proposal will increase traffic on Brougham and Pirie Streets as we will now have to go around the block 25 and exit out of Pirie Street to go through the Mount Victoria Tunnel. Mount Victoria Street state from the earliest plans of the city whilst adequate for horse and cart they have not translated into wide streets for the vehicle age. Brougham Street is very narrow with parked cars 30 on either side, often vehicles have to pull into a vacant park to let a mini bus or larger vehicle pass. The suggested alternative access into Mount Victoria in this proposal is Pirie Street. This street is also very narrow and steep and probably 35 unable to cope with a huge increase in traffic volumes. It also has an unusual intersection at the corner of Pirie and Brougham in that buses have priority turning down Pirie into Brougham causing vehicles to have to stop and put on their handbrake because of the slope. Planners could contemplate taking away street parking, but not many houses in 40 this block have off street parking so that would be difficult. As a committed pedestrian I am concerned about the details of the proposed slip lane which exists Ellice Street for Dufferin Street. It seems to have no barrier between the slip lane and footpath yet it will 45 be used by parents with pre-school and primary school children. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7971 In conclusion the Basin Bridge proposal will radically change the local traffic flows at the suburb of Mount Victoria. We find it unacceptable that local residents will have congested and unsafe local streets because of this Basin Bridge proposal and that southern Mount Victoria will be 5 cut off from the neighbouring suburbs my limiting options at the end of Ellice Street. [12.05 pm] 10 There has been no direct consultation with affected residents in lower Ellice Street. No specific consultation has been made with the residents in lower Ellice Street. The Transport Authority states in its reports that the residents in this area are some of the most adversely affected, but they have not consulted with them specifically. This is unacceptable. 15 I personally did attend one of the preliminary day-time meetings held ages ago in the Basin Reserve Grandstand. As far as I was concerned, this was very preliminary consultation and everything was still undecided. Late last year an envelope was sent in the post addressed to 20 us personally as owners of 37 Ellice Street, dated the 10th of August 2013, to notify us of the resource consent process and the pre-hearing meetings. As we were away in Rarotonga our daughter Kate opened this letter 25 and we then immediately made an email submission. Nothing was sent to us as owners of number 39 Ellice Street. Wanting to be informed on what was going on we asked Kate to attend a pre-hearing meeting on our behalf. She attended the meeting at the Greek Community building on October the 17th, at 4 o’clock. Unfortunately, she was very 30 disappointed by the meeting. Kate found the whole atmosphere was very intimidating. The officials present were not sympathetic to participants’ questions and often referred them to reports rather than giving an honest, on the spot answer. Kate left feeling exhausted, disappointed, uninformed and feeling the whole process had been a 35 total sham and waste of time. She spoke to several other attendees as she left the meeting and they all felt the same way as her. At no other time has anyone tried to contact us about this whole process. We had not had a phone call or a visit. 40 Surely, those property owners in our block should have been identified as key stakeholders and been invited to a special consultation session. This is not rocket science. You want to build a motorway bridge right outside our front door and you do not think it is appropriate to consult us personally and directly? We are glad to read that NZTA consulted 45 some locally affected people: the local schools, the Mount Victoria Residents’ Association, to name a few. However, missing out the most Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7972 affected neighbours is in our opinion rude and undemocratic. True consultation is supposed to be thorough and democratic. In conclusion, we totally oppose the Basin Bridge proposal for the 5 reasons we have outlined above. We have found the consultation process unsatisfactory and undemocratic. With the plans being constantly updated it has been hard to keep track of the current ideas. The hearing process has also been confusing, especially with the mountains of paperwork referencing to so many transport reports, 10 constant amendments to reports and important reports and subsequent decisions still unmade or under discussion. Also it turns out that some features shown on some plans are actually outside the area of the actual Basin Bridge proposal, such as extra trees on the Basin, so give a false impression of the actual proposal. How can important decisions be 15 made on such a mishmash of information? We would like to finish our submission with a poem from Michael Leunig, an Australian living treasure, poet and social commentator. This was published in his book “Poems 1972 to 2002”, published by 20 Viking 2003. The Awfulisers Every night and every day 25 The awfulisers work away, Awfulising public places, Favourite things and little graces; Awfulising lovely treasures, Common joys and simple pleasures; 30 Awfulising far and near The parts of life we held so dear: Democratic, clean and lawful, Awful, awful, awful, awful. 35 We feel the Transport Authority’s Basin Bridge proposal is “awfulising” our corner of Mount Victoria and the Basin Reserve and of Wellington itself. We hope the panel will reject the proposal and that a cheaper, low-impact, ground-level solution can be found to ease the supposed traffic congestion around the Basin Reserve. 40 [12.10 pm] We feel no amount of clever landscaping, tree planting and mitigation structures can disguise a very bad plan. Ka kite and kia manuia. Julie 45 Middleton and Alan Oliver. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7973 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, thank you for reading their very full and excellent submission so well. MS NEWMAN: I would just like to add that I have been in consultation over 5 email with them the last couple of days and told them that Mount Vic Residents’ Association had submitted something on conditions. And they did suggest that I could say that they support that very much and they are very pleased to see that that has been in it, at this late stage. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Yes, well, we have received those and we have also referred to the Board’s consultant planner, but she is indisposed just at the moment for personal reasons. But she hopes to get back to us next week. 15 MS NEWMAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: And I am sure the other parties may well wish, including NZTA, to comment on them as well. 20 MS NEWMAN: Thank you very much. MR...... : Thank you very much as well. CHAIRPERSON: So, Mr Williams, is it? Andrew Williams? Catherine 25 Zwartz. Ms Zwartz, is that correct? MS ZWARTZ: Yes, thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good morning, Ms Zwartz. 30 MS ZWARTZ: Morning. CHAIRPERSON: Welcome along to the hearing. 35 MS ZWARTZ: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON: And we just want you to relax and if you could just give your full name for the record and who you represent, either yourself or yourself and your husband, or yourself and your family, or yourself and 40 someone else, or whatever? And then read your submission? MS ZWARTZ: Thank you. My name is Catherine Zwartz and I live in Newtown, which is just south of here, in Wellington. I am representing myself. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7974 I am chartered professional engineer in the fields of structures and water supply. I am directly affected by the proposal as a daily commuter past the Basin Reserve. 5 I know you have already heard a lot of submissions and a lot of people have mentioned the special character of the Basin as a historic recreational reserve and its quality of being an oasis and a breath of fresh air and a peaceful place, whether passing through it or coming here for an event. I can recommend watching the full moon come up 10 over Mount Victoria from sitting in the stands. It is a very special and free experience. And it is a special place because of its topography being surrounded by the hills and secluded from the traffic noise. The significant negative effects of the flyover and particularly the 15 building at the northern end would really degrade this special atmosphere and contravene the original purpose of the ground that Joe has spoken so much about. I have been with a friend who is an ecologist looking at native 20 nocturnal fish up in the park called Prince of Wales Park which is a couple kilometres up the valley in the suburb of Mount Cook and we found a really healthy population of these galaxias, banded kokopu, they are very trim little wee ones to big, mature, six inch long fish. They are migratory galaxias, so. 25 [12.15 pm] They are still using the original waterway, which – because the stream is now piped under the Basin to the sea, but they are still migrating up 30 to this park. And I think it is nice to remember that through this area – back to what happened when – I mean before all the structures were there – and also Liz Mellish was saying this morning about eels being found up here. I am not advocating day lighting the stream again, but I think it is quite important to remember those links with the original 35 land forms. MR BAINES: What is the name of the park that you mentioned? MS ZWARZ: Prince of Wales Park. 40 MR BAINES: Prince of Wales Park. CHAIRPERSON: Where exactly is that? 45 MS ZWARZ: It is in Mount Cook suburb, - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7975 CHAIRPERSON: Oh, yes. MS ZWARZ: - - - in the town belt. So it is sort of up there. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think we went up to it on our first site visit. MS ZWARZ: Oh, did you? CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You can actually look down from up the top up there; 10 there is a rugby field or something like that on it. Is that right? - - - MS...... : Yes. CHAIRPERSON: - - - Yes. And you can look down - - - 15 MS ZWARZ: You can. CHAIRPERSON: - - - back towards this area. 20 MS ZWARZ: Yes, yes. So there is still a link in the waterway, - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MS ZWARZ: - - - which is quite a nice fish passage stream. 25 But the flyover and particularly the Northern Gateway Building would really visually block this view shaft and the sort of sense of connection through the Basin down to the sea there. The building is totally unnecessary. It was requested by the Basin Reserve Trust as so called 30 mitigation, but for everybody outside the Basin – residents, pedestrians, transport users it just makes the effects worse. It blocks – it is a visual imposition to this view shaft and the facilities are focused on serving players and officials without catering to the public on ground that is meant to be recreation for the public. 35 I think construction of that building would be a monstrous insult and an attempt at – aggrandizement by a failed local politician. The idea of moving the northern gate to the south is also – it is a parody of the original intention of the gates. There is a bit of a problem with those 40 gates, especially if you are cycling through them, because it is a bit of a blind spot, you cannot see when you come up to them whether there is somebody already in this sort of tunnel. But I am sure there are ways that could be fixed without moving the gates themselves. 45 MR BAINES: Do you think that is actually a deterrent at the moment? I have seen lots of people cycling through. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7976 MS ZWARTZ: No, it is a very well used part. MR BAINES: Do you see people there who choose to go around rather than 5 through because of that? MS ZWARTZ: Yes, I actually choose to cycle around? MR BAINES: You choose to cycle around? 10 MS ZWARTZ: Yes, I cycle - - - - CHAIRPERSON: There is a gate - - - 15 MS ZWARTZ: People use it all the time, it is very well used. I mean you can mitigate it by just slowing down slightly as you come into it. MR BAINES: Right. 20 CHAIRPERSON: You do not have to go through the gates here because they open the big - - - MS ZWARTZ: They are usually open. 25 CHAIRPERSON: - - - They open up the gate - - - MS ZWARTZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: - - - the gate beside it. Is there a gate beside the other ones 30 over there they could open? MS ZWARTZ: No, well, it is usually you have to go through there. There is a gate a bit further round, it is slightly uphill. 35 CHAIRPERSON: There is one, I can see one from here. So they could open up - - - MS ZWARTZ: Well, they do not. And I guess the reason for that closed thing is so the people do not watch the games for free. 40 CHAIRPERSON: So there must be one here, because they bring caravans, I noticed, for the big games. MS ZWARTZ: Yes, there is a gate a little bit further up the hill. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Pardon? Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7977 MS ZAWRTZ: Yes, there is a gate a bit further up the hill. It is slightly round towards the cottage. 5 MR COLLINS: It is open now. CHAIRPERSON: It is open now. MR COLLINS: It is open now. I can see it from here. - - - 10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR COLLINS: - - - It is not in a direct line for cyclists. - - - 15 CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see. MR COLLINS: - - - Not like this one. Which is - - - MS ZWARTZ: That is right. Anyway, I cycle from the south. I do not come 20 through the Basin because I am going to the west. I go up Buckle Street and go around the edge here. And the flyover will not affect my commute, it will not make it better. The Memorial Park will improve it, because I currently come around - - 25 - [12.20 pm] MR BAINES: Sussex Street. 30 MS ZWARTZ: Sussex and cross Buckle Street, two lanes and go over there – so it will be good when that road is underground that will improve my commute, but traffic coming in here won’t, I don’t cross it anyway – I don’t cross this – I don’t cross traffic coming around the Basin, so it 35 won’t affect me if there’s less or more of it. MR BAINES: Would Tasman Street be an option for you, isn’t that – sorry, which is the one that’s next up beyond Sussex, just below the - - - 40 MS ZWARTZ: Yes. MR BAINES: Is that Tasman Street – becomes Tory Street? MS ZWARTZ: Yes, that’s right, yes. Well I – the reason I don’t go there is 45 you have to climb a bit of a hill – yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7978 CHAIRPERSON: It’s quite steep going up, you’d have to go up by the supermarket. MS ZWARTZ: I’d go up by John Street, yes. 5 MR BAINES: Right, okay. MS ZWARTZ: It had been proposed before but the thing about that is it’s quite narrow, so I come down the bus lane down Adelaide Road, yes. 10 Going home, I would – I’d ride under the flyover that bit, north end here because I come down Kent Terrace. MR BAINES: Kent Terrace. 15 MS ZWARTZ: I attended the NZTA’s stage managed – days hearing in 2011, in this building, as part – as a representative of the local organisation and there was no consultation on non-flyover options, they presented the flyover as a fait accompli is, whether we wanted here or here. 20 They admitted at those sessions that the cost was really the driver of their selection of options. Many of the participants raised questions/concerns about the visual, historic, transport, property, accessibility issues, but the organisers didn’t really take much notice. 25 But then once they lodged the application they termed those sessions “community engagement”. They weren’t really – there were pretty hollow, as other people have probably told you already. And throughout that process leading up to the application, all the 30 queries about public transport to the applicant were deflected to the Regional Council who was preparing the public Transport Spine Study that I’m sure you’ve heard a lot about as well. But when that was published this year, it - - - 35 CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, were the Regional Council representatives at the meeting with NZTA? MS ZWARTZ: No. 40 CHAIRPERSON: No. MS ZWARTZ: No, I was – no, that was just NZTA doing that - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but - - - 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7979 MS ZWARTZ: - - - meeting, but when people asked them what about public transport they said, “Oh, that’s Regional Council’s problem, Regional Council is doing this Public Transport Spine Study”, and when the spine study came out, as you know, it made some questionable 5 assumptions about the infrastructure, like the, you know, the tunnel, the second tunnel would be where the buses go and they had made assumptions about infrastructure, but there didn’t seem to be a great deal of communication between the public transport spine study and the flyover design, they seemed to be working in isolation from each other 10 which is, which is really quite inexplicable since they’re both trying to provide transport solutions for the same piece of ground. Luke Troy from the Regional Council acknowledge that the package of combined roading projects for tunnel and the flyover would reduce 15 public transport in the - and the first few years after they were built their modelling showed that they would not enhance public transport. And the flyover planning also seems to have ignored a lot of the other things that affect public transport under the control of the Regional Council like, the fare changes and timetable changes and so on, the 20 work that they’re doing at the moment which is aiming to attract more people to public transport and affect the balance between passengers and drivers on the road, I mean I think Wellington really deserves a proper modelled study that predicts all the transport users, predicts the patterns of all of them rather than isolating the car drivers from the bus 25 - - - [12.25 pm] CHAIRPERSON: You mean a more integrated study? 30 MS ZWARTZ: Yes. That recognises cyclists, pedestrians, bus users. I mean this east/west traffic that the flyover is catering for is at enormous cost and it seems to be taking priority over the other local movements. 35 NZTA (the applicant) hasn’t got a good track record of designing safe roads in this neighbourhood because the inner city bypass here, Karo Drive, which they – well, I’m sure you know about it – but it had, had 60 accidents in its first five years including a fatality, so in June last year they reduced the speed limit on that piece of road (Karo Drive) 40 from 70 to 50 because of safety concerns, and they’re – they’re just been doing a whole lot of fiddling with the lanes up there. So that does not give me confidence in their – NZTA’s skills to design a safe piece of road or to predict with any accuracy the traffic flows, 45 because they’re contention is that, that – well their contention with the bypass was that it would speed traffic up, but obviously if you have a Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7980 50k piece of road instead of a 70k road then you’re not going to have the same time benefits. So I think their own modelling was shown to be not very crystal. 5 I’ve got a magazine here which is the January/February 2014 issue of the professional engineers magazine, it’s called “Engineering Insight”, it’s got a story on another roading project in Auckland called “Port of View”, which is – NZTA is also the client there – there’s – that’s, they’re building a tunnel, and they had an alliance there of consultants 10 and contractors and NZTA and the stories about the development. I just wanted to read a little bit about that project, it says, “As for the tunnel design, two teams were established during the initial development phase, to examine the merits of sequential excavation 15 versus an earth pressure balance tunnel boring machine …” two kinds of construction. And the design manager – the systems design manager of the Alliance said – a quote: “We knew we were doing one design to throw away, but 20 it had to be done to the same level of rigour that we could all look at each other and look at the client and say, ‘But this is the right solution’”. I think that’s an example of a comparable scale of project where the 25 design was really – they took quite a lot of care to be rigorous in their - comparison is different options and I don’t think that rigour has been shown in this project. [12.30 pm] 30 MR COLLINS: Are you suggesting there that Option B, when there was consultation about Option A and Option B, and Option B perhaps was, like the one you were suggesting there, was to throw away. Is that someone else that said that us? It is interesting you have come to the 35 same point, if that is what you meant? MS ZWARTZ: The Option A and Option B were essentially the same thing, they were just in slightly different places. 40 MR COLLINS: Well, they are quite a bit different, further away, going around the other side of the Grandstand Apartments. MS ZWARTZ: Yes. In terms of costs, they would not have been, I do not think it is the same as this, because they did not devaluate really, 45 different options. They did not devaluate an at-grade option to the same degree of fineness as they did with (INDISTINCT 0.47) option. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7981 MR BAINES: Your point there is that you think in the Waterview place when they are looking at two different approaches to tunnelling, they did reasonably rigorous assessment of both options. 5 MS ZWARTZ: Well they said they did. I mean, they had already selected the tunnel option. MR BAINES: Right, yes. 10 MS ZWARTZ: So it is not quite the same. But they certainly put a level of rigor into the comparison that I have not really seen in this project. MR BAINES: Right. You are contrasting that with what you think has 15 happened here? MS ZWARTZ: Yes. MR BAINES: Right. 20 MS ZWARTZ: Heaps of expert witnesses have already talked about other solutions to the traffic (INDISTINCT 1.30) separation, so I am not going to talk about that. And I am not a proponent of any particular alternative solution. But the basin is not a cause of major congestion. I 25 am not saying that as a traffic engineer but as a daily commuter through the Basin. What I would like to see, as part of any solution, is proper separated cycle lanes that are designed as part of the road, not as an add-on. And improved bus routes would also, combined I think they would both help to reduce the number of car journeys from suburbs like 30 Newtown which are very close. I mean, I know lots of people who do not cycle from Newtown because of the traffic. They are scared of being hit by cars. And if there were a really good, safe, protected cycle route, I think that would help with traffic congestion. 35 MR BAINES: Is that as much to do with what happens on either side of the Basin Reserve rather than just the Basin Reserve itself? I mean it seemed from what you saying is that once you get into the Basin Reserve it is very safe. 40 MS ZWARTZ: It is very nice going through the Basin, but any solution has got to be continuous, you cannot just stop and start it. MR BAINES: No, I accept that. I mean, you know where the designation area is and in fact, it does not go far up Adelaide Road, and from your last 45 comment, suggest that what deters more people from cycling from Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7982 Newtown is probably their experience in Riddiford Street and Adelaide Road and likewise. MS ZWARTZ: Probably, but the whole route is - - - 5 MR BAINES: Yes, I accept that. MR COLLINS: Do you find that ride difficult? In the peak period, you have got a bus lane you can use, and having looked at that a few times, that 10 seems to work reasonably well. You have got buses as well, but you do have separation from traffic. But it is not as good as in Cambridge Terrace, is it? Cambridge Terrace there is no parking as well, so the cyclists are actually in the parking strip and the buses are able to go past them more easily. 15 MS ZWARTZ: Yes, in the mornings, Adelaide Road has got no parking down that side. There is a no parking 7am to 9am down the bus lane. MR COLLINS: Oh, so it is the same. 20 MS ZWARTZ: Yes, so it is pretty good down Adelaide Road. There is an issue because there are getting to be more and more cyclists now. Very often at the lights, there are six or eight or 10 of us. And the problem is we do not all go at the same speed as we come down, and the buses, so 25 the cyclists string out and then the buses are leaving the bus lane to overtake us to go back into the traffic lane. So sharing with buses is workable when the number of cyclists is not too high. But in the long term it would really be better to have a separate lane from cyclists’ point of view. 30 MR COLLINS: Yes, and then because you are going down Buckle Street, you actually cycle on the road around Sussex? MS ZWARTZ: I do. 35 MR COLLINS: How is that in the morning? MS ZWARTZ: Well I have not been hit yet. 40 CHAIRPERSON: You have not what, sorry? MS ZWARTZ: I have not had any accidents. But yes, the traffic goes quite fast there. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7983 [12.35 pm] But I still prefer cycling on the road to cycling on the road to cycling on the footpath. 5 Yes, I would like to see a full consideration of all the transport issues as I said before, not neglecting or minimising public transport, walking and cycling. And yes, in the applicant’s original design, the War Memorial Park was not expected to proceed, but now that is almost 10 complete. But the applicant seems to not have moved on from predetermined solutions which it is trying to force on an unwilling and unconvinced local community, as I am sure you have heard from lots of submitters. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes well, is there anything else you wish to add? No, well, thank you, Ms Zwartz. Thank you very much for your submission. As I have said to a lot of people, it is not easy to come along here and wait and give your submission, because you have to fit it into a busy day. You are an engineer and you have got a busy schedule no doubt. So we 20 do appreciate you - - - MS ZWARTZ: Well I appreciate the opportunity to give my point of view, because I do not feel that that has happened so far in the process of NZTA. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. MR BAINES: Thank you very much. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Now, Mr Zwartz. Yes, welcome Mr Zwartz. Are you related to the previous submitter? MR ZWARTZ: I am proud to say she is my daughter. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I should have guessed that. Yes, thank you. MR ZWARTZ: Kia ora tatou. I would like to start by noting that your hearing procedures have been very respectful of public involvement in the hearing process, and as a member of the public I would like to thank 40 you for that. And I would also like to put on record, as an ordinary member of the public, my appreciation of the extensive cover given to the enquiry since February by the local newspaper the Dominion Post. As revealed to the public in those newspaper reports, over the last 45 nearly four months, you have heard a range of experts on, among other things, traffic, cycling, landscape and urban planning, noise and air Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7984 pollution, heritage and cricket. I am not an expert in any of those topics relevant to the decision on the flyover, but I wish to present a view on the moral framework of your decision making. The comment was made yesterday by Mr Baines after Dr Willemijn Vermaat’s presentation, that 5 the whole issue to be decided on could be summed up as who benefits and who does not? There can be no question that all of the travelling public benefits from smoother and safer traffic flow, but the moral questions are, how much will those who do not benefit actually suffer? And why should they? 10 I have got some examples which are given in no special order. Number 1, the owners of and residents in Grandstand Apartments: they will suffer increased air and noise pollution and probably pecuniary loss. Number 2, the travelling public around the eastern side of the Basin 15 Reserve: they have lost, for 24 hours a day for the whole year, the use of a lane in Dufferin Street that is reserved for the use of two schools, mainly used only twice a day, and only in term time. Number 3, cricket players and spectators: they are at risk of having the Basin Reserve downgraded as venue because of the flyover and the effects or possible 20 effects on batsmen at the crease. Number 4, St Joseph’s Church: I am not a Roman Catholic, but it pains me considerably that a Government agency, using public funds, would consider so crassly oppressing a place of worship. 25 [12.40 pm] Number 5, everyone looking south up Kent and Cambridge terraces towards the hills of south Wellington: that view shaft will be permanently spoiled. Even NZTA said “The adverse visual effects of 30 the bridge are not able to be avoided or fully mitigated” and of course since my original submission and since that comment by NZTA the situation has been made worse by the proposal for the pavilion building to go in. 35 Number 6, the taxpayers and road users of New Zealand whose roughly $100 million is being spent on the flyover and pavilion: the moral question is – are they getting value for money? What is the morality of permitting the expenditure of that amount in 2014 on structure planned in 1990? I just appended a picture of the 1990 presentation at the back 40 of my submission to remind us that there was actually a 1990 proposal, but I have heard this morning that in fact the planning is 40 years old, not just 24 years old. What is the morality of permitting the expenditure of that amount in 45 2014 on structure planned in 1990, when the world and New Zealand society have changed so much since then. And just to give a parallel Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7985 example of change in that time, in the last 24 years, since 1990, we have seen the growth of the internet and the use of emails leading to the rapidly declining use of snail mail, which is a total change that might not have been dreamt of in 1990. 5 There is a really close parallel with present and future changes in transport (INDISTINCT 2.29) society’s attitude to transport is changing. We all, so now, since 1990, place considerable emphasis on sustainability, which was not an issue at that time. We have concerns 10 with another, which I regard as a moral issue, the issue of climate change, which was not of concern in 1990. And yet we are getting asked to allow the Agency to implement a structure which was designed in or before 1990. 15 These are only six examples. I am sure that you have heard many more during the enquiry. Only this morning we have listened to the personal situation of residents, house owners in Ellice Street. All of these are decisions affecting people, not decisions removed from people, such as comparisons of benefit-cost ratios or comparisons of construction costs. 20 So I am talking about a class of decision-making relating to people which you are having to grapple with. I would like to comment on the character of NZTA – this is based only on public material. I hope the board will bear in mind the behaviour of 25 NZTA both in presenting its case to the public and to the board and in other projects that it has been involved with. I will give three examples. 30 In my original submission of last September which was attached this morning, NZTA said “The project will not compromise views of the town belt”. This was plainly untrue as shown by the pictures in the Basin Bridge project document itself. 35 Point 2: I also pointed out the discrepancy in the NZTA statement on accidents. Since that time a coroner’s report has criticised the dangerous Karo Drive/Victoria Street intersection as reported in the Dominion Post on 16th of April this year under the heading “Crash Site Incompatible with Motorway”. The paper reported “The intersection 40 was 32nd on a recently released list of New Zealand’s 100 most dangerous intersections”. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7986 [12.45 pm] This was an intersection built by NZTA as part of the inner city bypass which project faced huge public opposition including criticism of the 5 intersections that were going to be created. One must severely question NZTAs competence assessment when they on the one hand overstate risks at the Basin Reserve and on the other hand themselves build a dangerous intersection. 10 ` Point 3. The matter of NZTA wishing to take writer, Patricia Grace’s ancestral land for the Kapiti expressway saw them claiming in the Environment Court that an alternative route would cost $16,000,000. This was reported in the Dominion Post on the 9th of April this year 15 when their own internal memo which was tabled in the Court showed that they had costed two other options at $4.6,000,000 and $2.3,000,000 also reported in the Dominion Post on the following day. One must severely question NZTAs adherence to truth. 20 In conclusion I felt it was a moral imperative to make a presentation here, not so much on my own behalf because I am of an age where the consequences of building the flyover will not have many years of impact on me, but on behalf of my children and grandchildren. They will be among the Wellingtonian’s and New Zealanders who will suffer 25 the ill effects if the flyover and its associated pavilion go ahead of an archaic, ugly and expensive misjudged response to our changing society and the changing world. Therefore I ask you to keep the moral aspects of the problem inside the framework of your decision making. 30 Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Well yes, thank you very much, Mr Zwartz, are there any questions? 35 MR COLLINS: Thank you for that. It is an interesting perspective because the usual way of doing this I think is to say a small number of people affected in big way and sort of equivalent to a whole lot of people being affected in a small way. You sort of balance out the number of people affected positive or negative and the extent of that affect, but 40 when we hear from individuals like submitters individually telling us of their concerns. It seems to be sometimes their concerns are greater than we might have realised just by reading and even for walking about when you actually 45 understand the detail of their concerns, their personal circumstances Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7987 and so on. Perhaps that is part of that perspective that you are giving us that is more than just a numbers issue. MR ZWARTZ: Thank you, I think you have taken aboard my point about the 5 moral quality of the judgement that you are going to make. MR COLLINS: Yes, I would have to say individually sometimes any change in the environment there is going to be winners and losers and that is the difficult task we have and all these situations you simply cannot 10 have I might say progress with some people being losers. That has got to be taken looking at the whole situation of how many people are affected and how much and I suppose what you are saying is, is it fair is it not? 15 MR ZWARTZ: Yes, the distillation of moral philosophy is summed up really in the golden rule that you would do to other people only as you would hope they would do to you. I hope that is a framework for the decision making that your Board is going to make. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you have hit the dilemma have you not, between trying to judge between the effects on people, some of them very serious affects that we have heard from many of the people who have come here and indicated to us how it is going to affect them which is real and is a base really for us considering the expert evidence and 25 weighing all that against more abstract matters such as BCRs which are a mathematical formula way of trying to gauge benefits. There is a difficulty in comparing the two and I think you have highlighted that so thank you. 30 [12.50 pm] MR ZWARTZ: Thank you. MR BAINES: Thank you very much. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, welcome along Ms Bingham. MS BINGHAM: Thank you, Lorna. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Lorna, yes. It is good to have you here and you can either stand or sit down whatever you wish. MS BINGHAM: So I might sit if that is okay? 45 CHAIRPERSON: Absolutely, and just relax and just for the record give us your full name and then just talk to us in the manner that you wish to. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7988 MS BINGHAM: Thank you, I will put my glasses on and then I will be able to see what I am going to talk about. 5 My full name, I am Lorna Judith Bingham and I am a local resident in Wellington. I live in Brooklyn and I have previously lived in Ellice Street, but was many years ago when I first came to New Zealand. I am discussing what gives me the authority I think to have an opinion 10 on the matter of Basin. I also have two sons at Wellington College and they are both teenagers and I thought it would be really good to be able to bring one of them along with me today, there is a first 11 soccer match at school. 15 CHAIRPERSON: That is much more important. MS BINGHAM: I have to say teenage boys are not really into supporting their mother at these sort of events, if you have got teenagers you may understand that. 20 I am also a registered health professional. I work locally at the Capital and Coast District Health Board so luckily I have nipped out in my lunch break to be able to do this so that was really fortunate. I am also a member of the Child Obesity and Type 2 Prevention Network which 25 was started two years ago through health professionals and other interested in this topic following on from the Diabetes Nurse Specialist symposium that we had and organised here in Wellington. I believe I use evidence based practice in my day to day work as a health professional so thank you for that. 30 I am here today to represent myself however I would like to ask if it would be okay that perhaps I am representing other people as well. I know this morning I came along and many of my colleagues said good on you, I wish we had done something and I think there are many 35 people on both sides of the fence who would be here, but because of time constraints and other social issues cannot be here to represent themselves. There are some sectors of society I would like to represent if that is okay with the Board? 40 CHAIRPERSON: Absolutely. MS BINGHAM: Thank you. Wellington, it has been described as the coolest little capital in the world and today probably the windiest. How would a flyover enhance the image of our city I ask myself? I really cannot 45 see that it would bring benefit. It would ruin the walkability of our city Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7989 and Wellington is a great place to walk around even on a windy day. That is something I feel very strongly about. [12.55 pm] 5 I honestly believe that safety would be compromised especially for women and children when travelling under or near the flyover or the Basin Bridge as its other name is. I think the safety issue is probably one that men are not quite so aware of from a personal perspective but I 10 like to go out and walk and my children go to the school here and I think one of them is going to soccer this afternoon. I said I would come and pick him up from school at the end of the day because we do worry about our children walking home in the dark or 15 walking home and lots of concrete pillars and unsafe to walk. Unfortunately flyovers do represent that sort of environment I believe. I have lived in London, Belfast, Sydney, worldwide and anywhere where there is a flyover it does not feel like a safe place. I have to add 20 unfortunately round the Westpac Stadium which is another area in Wellington where we have got lots of concrete it really does not feel safe. I think I would like you to consider that point from a vulnerable person’s perspective. 25 I also believe the structure would physically divide our city and Wellington is the coolest little capital in the world and we live here because it is small and it has got all the benefits of a city without many of the disadvantages. 30 I also think the flyover does nothing to address social inequalities and really what we are talking about is people who drive cars and the previous speaker mentioned that she cycles and that really this solution is talking about people who drive cars. 35 Many of the people who drive cars across our city and I drive a car so I am one of those people as well, they drive from one suburb and they are fortunate enough to be able to afford parking in the city centre which is paid for often by work and that is great and that makes life easy and handy. 40 However, for the many people who cannot afford a car or cannot afford the expensive parking in the city the flyover will not really bring great benefit. I think many people nowadays many people are choosing not to drive where they can walk because of their health and the other 45 benefits that they brings. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7990 I feel strongly that in Wellington we need a progressive solution to the traffic issues. Progression is part of every society and is important to society but the evidence that I have seen so far is that the NZTA are using old fashion solutions to solve the so called traffic issue for a 5 small turn gain. I would just like to add I do work at Capital and Coast and yesterday morning at two minutes past nine Capital and Coast to drive to Porirua and it took me half an hour. When I left the car park at work my clock 10 on the car said 9.02 and I went got to the start of the motorway it said 9.05 and it is obviously nine o’clock and in the morning and it is not eight o’clock or peak time. CHAIRPERSON: Whereabouts is Capital Health? 15 MS BINGHAM: Capital and Coast, the Wellington hospital. CHAIRPERSON: I see, it is the main public hospital just down here, yes. 20 MS BINGHAM: Yes, and I actually noted the time out of interest really and that is not peak time but that is nine o’clock so it is not far off peak time really. There is evidence worldwide that flyovers are being removed and the areas are being revamped and I know previous speakers have given examples such as San Francisco, Seoul, Portland 25 and Oregon. The benefits to health of a walkable city as Wellington is currently and as an accredited diabetes specialist nurse I can unequivocally tell you that as a nation, as a city and as a community we need to be doing all in 30 our power to combat the obesity tsunami. Ensuring social, economic and health implications are huge for the future of our nation and I have brought you the abstract of a paper from paediatric diabetes 2012, the incidents, clinical features and treatment of type 2 diabetes in children younger than 15 years and a population based cohort from Auckland, 35 New Zealand. Auckland is not Wellington as we all know however, what we see in Auckland is often mimicked in Wellington but a few later in some aspects of health care and I would like to just draw your attention to the 40 results part of that abstract about halfway down. The annual incidents of new cases of type 2 diabetes in children less than 15 years increased fivefold in the Auckland region of New Zealand from 1995 to 2007. The average incidence per 100,000 45 over the entire period was 1.3 overall in Europeans, 3.4 percent in both Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7991 Māori and Pacifica. And over that period of time have seen a five-fold increase in type two diabetes in children in that time period. [1.00 pm] 5 57 percent of children were symptomatic at presentation. Now probably, you know, you may not be aware of diabetes or very much about it or symptoms, but to be symptomatic with diabetes as a child means that you have exceptionally high blood sugars and that you have 10 probably had diabetes for quite some time. And diabetes, as you probably know, if it not well controlled has huge impact on health, long-term. And many of the issues we see in children now, we are seeing in adults who have add diabetes, 10, 20 plus years, and where it has been poorly controlled. So this is actually catastrophic from a 15 health perspective, and has huge implications cost-wise. So I want to go into this further at this point, but I will just leave you that paper as important evidence to take into account. And type two diabetes, for those who may not be aware, is largely a disease of 20 lifestyle, so it is connected very strongly to obesity and related to the obesity epidemic we are seeing, and related directly to physical inactivity and food intake, and stress as well. But I would just also like to add from an equality perspective, type two 25 diabetes is not really such an issue for people who are not obese, and you know, as we see from this paper, the Caucasian population are not such at risk. It is Māori and Pacifica who really the brunt of this is awful disease if it not managed well. 30 I have also included in this presentation, some information from the centre for disease control from America, which gives us evidence of the benefits of physical activity, and many of these you will be aware of. Regular physical activity is one of the most important things you can do for your health. It can help control your weight, reduce your risk of 35 cardiovascular disease, reduce your risk of type two diabetes and metabolic syndrome, reduce your risk of some cancers, it strengthens your bones and muscles, improves your mental health and mood, improves your ability to do your daily activities and prevents falls if you are an older adult. And it increases your chances of living longer. 40 So, many benefits. In fact, we all should be doing more, and I should be not sitting here talking to you, but probably being out for a walk. Okay, so the centre for disease control in the States also says “individuals who use public transportation get over three times the 45 amount of physical activity of those who do not.” And that is approximately 19 minutes rather than six minutes, by walking to bus Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7992 stops and final destinations. 22 minutes of moderate physical activity such as brisk walking for a day, is recommended. Some of the many health benefits of public transport have been alluded 5 to previously. Using public transport as opposed to driving or car improves air quality and I have read that buses emit 80 percent less carbon monoxide than a car, and that one single deck bus is equivalent to taking approximately 60 cars off the road. Improving or using public transport reduces energy consumption over all. It fosters more liveable 10 communities, and I think this is a really important point for Wellington and also for the local environment that we are in, because communities are really important and as we heard the previous two speakers, people cycle and walk through Basin Reserve area and we want to preserve that if we can, I believe. 15 It also improves confidence and people gain valuable road safety skills by using public transport, one I had not thought of, I had to admit. It increases people’s level of health and fitness, we have heard that from the centre of disease control in the States, and also it reduces stress. So 20 travelling on a bus, you can talk to friends, you can read, you can listen to music, you can be more relaxed. [1.05 pm] 25 Other advantages of public transport on health, it reduces inequalities, and again, it makes transport affordable for many people, and I have to say, there is some work which I have not read or put in here, but I will just allude to it, where its shows that people on lower incomes, by the time they have paid their rent and their heating, they have got very little 30 money left for food. And I think again, if you are trying to run a car, that is another added expense in that picture, and we should be trying to encourage public transport from that perspective. Public transport is convenient, you do not have to find parking spaces. 35 And I know in Wellington that is a bit difficult when I drive and do not take the bus, and I often wish I had taken the bus instead. And also it avoids traffic congestions. A bus apparently is seven times safer than a car, and also using train is 15 times safer, unless you are on the one that crashed yesterday afternoon I think. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the station at Lower Hutt does not seem to be too safe, does it? - - - MS BINGHAM: No. 45 CHAIRPERSON: - - - It has had two accidents. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7993 MS BINGHAM: Yes. Reducing social exclusion and community connectedness I think is really important as a resident of the city. And I think, in times of crisis, it is even more so important, and I believe for 5 those poor people who are living in Christchurch and I think maybe some of you come from Christchurch, that that community connectiveness and social inclusion is really important in a society. It also reduces health costs and long-term health costs I would hasten to add, especially for thinking of the non-communicable diseases such as 10 type two diabetes or cardiovascular disease or cancers. So, enough about health. From my understanding, and I would love to have had the time to read all the documents that have been presented, I like time to read and think 15 and reflect on things, however, as a mother and a heath professional working almost full time and having just previously finished study, I have not got time to read very much, I have to confess. CHAIRPERSON: Well, we are full time on it and we barely get the time to 20 read it as well, - - - MS BINGHAM: So I rely on you - - - CHAIRPERSON: - - - so I can understand. 25 MS BINGHAM: I rely on you to correct me if I get some facts wrong. From what I understand, more roads equals more traffic. Speed gains from new roads are short-lived. Congestion shifts to another junction and new roads provide a short-sighted solution. Also, I think there is 30 evidence that the vehicle kilometres per capita is declining in Wellington, and that came from the Ministry of Health statistics that a previous submitter presented to the Board. And I believe there is something called the Lewis Muggeridge effect, which shows that when we build new roads, drivers drawn in from other routes. Off peak 35 drivers tend to then become peak drivers and public transport users move away from using public transport and gaining those health benefits that I have already alluded to. Okay, safety benefits of not going down the NZTA Basin Bridge or 40 flyover route: Areas of high public transit movement tend to have better overall security and reduced crime rates. And I believe, again, I spoke earlier about the fact if we have a flyover that often they become an area of high crime and there are security issues. Bus-related accidents have one twentieth of the passenger fatality of rates of car 45 travel, so by having more buses and less cars, we can make a difference Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7994 there. And community cohesion by promoting positive interactions between neighbours is enhanced. I am at a loss also to see how the Basin flyover fully fits with the 5 greater Wellington regional land transport strategy put out for 2010 to 2014. And that covers firstly, to assist with economic and regional development, and I know that there are some arguments for the flyover from that perspective, but again I feel that they are limited and short- sighted. Safety, we have already talked about that, we should be 10 reducing reliance on cars, improve public transport and we should be promoting good urban design. And I have not read anywhere or heard anyone say that a flyover or the Basin Bridge would be good or fit with good urban design. 15 We should be ensuring environmental sustainability, and again, by building another road and having more cars, I do not, again, think that that fits with that point. And we should be making transport more affordable for low income groups. So by promoting public transport, that would make a big difference to those people who are already 20 disenfranchised in our communities. [1.10 pm] The detrimental effects of the Basin Bridge: It would be a backwards 25 step on many levels, social and justice, health and psychological wellbeing, and future health costs from rising rates of obesity, if we have a Basin Bridge. If would be a change for the worst to our outdoor space and the whole urban landscape. And I have to say, walking down here today even though it is windy, and you look up and it feels open 30 and fresh, and a flyover would not enhance or contribute to that feeling. I do not believe other people would disagree. I think we would be destroying an area of national significance, the Basin Reserve, and I said in my original submission that I am not a 35 huge cricket fan. I never can work out if people are in or out, or what is happening, however, I have spent many beautiful afternoons here on the bank with my children in the summer watching cricket. And I think it is all sort of family experiences that we miss out if we build flyovers and put people off coming. And also if the cricket ground loses its, I do 40 not know what the word is - - - MR BAINES: Test status. MS BINGHAM: Test, there it is. Then, you know, we will not be getting the 45 same people coming, the same cricket teams coming et cetera. So Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7995 although I am not a cricket fan, I really strongly support the heritage and that great resource that we have in Wellington. I also believe that there is a safety issue for the 4,000 school children 5 which I believe are in the area during school time, and that would be from increasing traffic and again, traffic pollutants. And it has been shown that if you are near main roads, the traffic pollutants have a worse effect on your health. And again, it would really downgrade the walkability of our city. 10 The flyover would be a catastrophic mistake for Wellington from many aspects. Safety, health, humanity infrastructure, cost, and again I have to agree with the previous speaker, it is incredible in this day and age, when we are trying to rebuild Christchurch and we are looking at health 15 costs and many other things that we are looking at spending $100,000,000 on this proposal. Aesthetics, it would divide the city as I have already said, and it would have a huge impact on the aesthetics of the local environment. 20 Inequality for socially disadvantaged people, it would impact on our historic infrastructure. But I also think a flyover, it would be a catastrophic mistake from a moral and ethical perspective as well, as we have already heard from the previous speaker, and that this is really important and one that maybe has not been brought out in many of the 25 submissions, which have been technical in lots of aspects. As David Brookes from the New York Times, a columnist, said, “Don’t sacrifice the future for the present.” So I would ask you to please help us on behalf of the Environmental Protection Authority, to truly protect 30 the health of our population, city, and the local environment, by making the best decision for future generations and all Wellingtonians, not just the car drivers and the socially advantaged. Deny consent for the Basin Bridge because in reality, it is just another ugly, outdated flyover. Thank you. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well Ms Bingham, again thank you very much. As you have told us, you are a mother and a busy health professional at the local hospital down the road, so it has taken a lot of organisation and time and effort for you to come along and speak to us, and we 40 appreciate it. MS BINGHAM: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Has anyone got any questions? 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7996 MR COLLINS: Not really a question, it is more of a comment. I am glad to see it takes 20 minutes of moderate physical activity, just brisk walking per day, that is exactly the time it takes me to walk here each day, so I am getting twice that if I walk both ways. 5 MS BINGHAM: Oh, right? CHAIRPERSON: Oh, he is just skiting, do not take any notice of him. 10 [1.15 pm] MR COLLINS: I often give up and get a bus though, or even a taxi if we are finishing late. But that does not really deal with the issue of our big lunches I am afraid. 15 MS BINGHAM: Oh dear. MR COLLINS: I am still worried about getting fat. 20 CHAIRPERSON: He eats twice as much as everyone else. MS BINGHAM: Well, you better make sure he walks home tonight then. MR BAINES: Or five times round the Basin Reserve after lunch. Can I ask 25 you, Ms Bingham, you have made a lot of connections between different things, between the way we travel and the amount of activity that we have and some of the health consequences of that. And particularly, you draw our attention to that article on type 2 diabetes. 30 MS BINGHAM: Yes. MR BAINES: I am just wondering, I mean, the issue has been debated here at various stages during this hearing about the consequences of this proposal for mode share or mode shift. And I suppose in a sense, what 35 you are saying is its actually really important to be encouraging as much as possible, and to the extent that it is reasonable to do so, people to opt for the choice of taking public transport or walking and cycling, I mean, if they can. Obviously, there would be some people for whom that is not a practical option for one reason for another. And my 40 question really is, I am just wondering whether you are aware, we had a census last year which was the first Census for about eight years was it not? Because we had that (INDISTINCT 1.32). but I am wondering, and in 45 that time, we have been told that there was a marked increase in the proportions of cyclists. That certainly has been highlighted. I am not Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7997 quite sure if I have got in my head whether there is a marked increase in pedestrians, but anyway, the Census asked questions about do you go to work. And given that the congestion around here is usually peak time, so to the extent that there is congestion probably has a lot to do 5 with commuting, do you know if there has been any analysis that says and in these shifts towards more active modes, are they actually, has there been any demographic analysis, you know, in other words, are the people who are most at risk of inactivity the ones who are actually starting to change and become more active? Or is that not the case, do 10 you know what I am getting it? I mean you said - - - MS BINGHAM: I think I know what you are getting at, and I cannot give you anything concrete. There is nothing that comes to mind from the top of my head. But I guess, you know, if we look at many of the people who 15 are cycling, they are lycra prepared. (ph 2.52) MR BAINES: They - - -? MS BRINGHAM: (INDISTINCT 2.55) 20 MR BAINES: Oh yes, yes. They do not tend to have two-litre coke bottles in their backpack though, do they? MS BINGHAM: No. And you know, I am sort of being serious, and I cycle 25 myself, and I have done three-quarters of TACO (ph 3.07). I have not made a whole one yet, but that is to come. So I think, again, and I stand to be corrected if somebody wants to correct me, but I think some of the people who commute and cycle and the ones who we hear about and whatever, are the lycra brigade and I have got a couple of 30 colleagues who cycle a lot, and they cycle on maybe, $5,000 bikes. So I think again, there is a social, maybe, division. MR BAINES: I accept what you are saying, I guess, if I could try and ask the simplest question, do you think that in fact, trying to encourage active 35 modes for commuting is actually going to do something serious about the type 2 diabetes? In other words, are we going to be getting the people who are most vulnerable to type 2 diabetes, shifting to these active modes or not? 40 MS BINGHAM: I do not think it is going to happen overnight, maybe for cycling, because people have to afford a bike and then et cetera, et cetera. But I think there will be a shift, and there is a potential to be a shift, and just thinking, if you go to, I have been involved in some teaching and cycling in schools, a little bit on the edge. But if you go to 45 Porirua where there is big, wide roads and it would be quite a nice place to cycle, people find it difficult to cycle because they have not got Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7998 bikes. So you know, the shift will not happen immediately. It will take a long time and we have to actually support people who cannot afford a bike. You know, so again, it is that social inequality. But however, you know, there are many people in Newtown, and Newtown is not a 5 wealthy suburb, who cycle to work. And for them, once you got your bike, it is free transport. [1.20 pm] 10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I suppose by making the infrastructure available it facilitates a shift and there can be other ways of encouraging people as well by health – the health professionals encouraging their patients to do it by public advertising, all sorts of ways. 15 MS BINGHAM: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MS BINGHAM: Yes. And you know, I guess we – it’s about being advocates 20 for, you know, the ethnic difference - disparities - and as I showed you from that paper from Auckland, you know, Caucasian children (white European New Zealand children) don’t get type II diabetes to the same extent as Maori and Pacific children and that’s who I’m here to represent today as well as myself. 25 Thank you for listening. CHAIRPERSON: And then you very, very much indeed, and we’ll take the morning – the lunch adjournment. 30 REGISTRAR: Please stand for members of the Board. ADJOURNED [1.21 pm] 35 RESUMED [2.18 pm] REGISTRAR: Please stand for members of the Board. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good afternoon everybody. Now - - - 40 MS WEDDE: Good afternoon, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Wedde. 45 MS WEDDE: So we have Mr McFadyen and Mr Kenderdine here. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 7999 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MS WEDDE: After they are sworn would you like them to be introduced and - - - 5 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please. MS WEDDE: Okay. 10 CHAIRPERSON: And then, how are we going to – are you going to ask questions on behalf of the Architectural Society, Ms McCarthy? MS McCARTHY: Yes, sir. 15 CHAIRPERSON: So who’s going to go first? MS WEDDE: I don’t have any questions. CHAIRPERSON: You don’t have questions, yes. 20 MS WEDDE: No, I might some have re-examination. CHAIRPERSON: So you may wish to re-examine? 25 MS WEDDE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MS WEDDE: Just before we get started though, there are a number of 30 documents, so I’ve agreed with Ms McCarthy that just to make that process a little bit easier, when the witnesses are introduced they’re proposed that all of those documents they’ve produced in one bundle. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 35 MS WEDDE: So that hopefully that’s clear and then we can move onto Ms McCarthy’s questions. CHAIRPERSON: So we’ve got two documents, a draft evidence of Mr 40 McFadyen and Ms McCarthy’s document that she filed yesterday? MS WEDDE: Yes. Mr McFadyen has confirmed his draft evidence as final. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 45 MS WEDDE: So that can be regarded as confirmed and finalised evidence? Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8000 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MS WEDDE: And then in addition there are a number of cost estimates for A, 5 X, F, H which is the underpass, and so, just so that we can go through those in an orderly way, after the witnesses are introduced I’ll make sure they’re all clearly before you. [2.20 pm] 10 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MS WEDDE: And with your leave I have a few supplementary questions for Mr Kenderdine on construction matters that arise out of matters that 15 have emerged over the last few days, if that would be acceptable? CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. MS WEDDE: Thank you. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, welcome back Mr Kenderdine and welcome along Mr McFadyen. MR KENDERDINE: Thank you. 25 30 CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Collins has just referred me to the Memorandum of Counsel, dated 22nd of May, do we need that? MS WEDDE: You probably don’t, there is an attachment to that memorandum which may be referred to, but I’ve got that as a separate document and 35 if that wasn’t formerly filed as evidence I was going to seek that that be produced as an exhibit. CHAIRPERSON: It’s just that I haven’t got it with me. 40 MS WEDDE: Okay, there are spare copies so you should be okay. I think it might be easiest if I ask my supplementary questions of Mr Kenderdine first in relation to construction - - - 45 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you would, yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8001 MS WEDDE: - - - and then we can move onto the costing matter. CHAIRPERSON: Very well. 5 MS WEDDE: So, Mr Kenderdine, just in relation to construction matters that have arisen in the last few days, you provided a supplementary statement of evidence which provided an indication of the number of 10 nights where there maybe night-time work? MR KENDERDINE: Correct. MS WEDDE: And I just have a few supplementary questions for you on that 15 statement, the first question is, of – well, just so that we remind ourselves, that supplementary statement indicated that there might be up to a 181 nights of night-time work is that correct? MR KENDERDINE: A 180 I thought was the number, but yes. 20 MS WEDDE: Right. And I think in response to Mr Collins you agreed that perhaps you might be able to give or take 30 - - - MR KENDERDINE: Correct. 25 MS WEDDE: - - - nights two, two or from that? MR KENDERDINE: Correct. 30 MS WEDDE: So we could be looking at a range of 150 to 210 nights, is that correct? MR KENDERDINE: Correct. 35 MS WEDDE: So the first supplementary question I have is, of those nights would it be possible that some of the work identified could occur on the same nights? MR KENDERDINE: Yes, that’s entirely feasible, so that the – and I guess I 40 use the example of the steel beams that need to go across Kent and Cambridge Terrace during an evening, that the temporary traffic management or the traffic number of nights would have allowed for one of the setups for those other nights, for the same night which would be the steel shifting which is under the false (ph 3.53)work section. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8002 MS WEDDE: So in terms of total number of nights of night-time work, what’s the implication there and if you’re able to combine some works into the same evening. 5 MR KENDERDINE: In an ideal world there’ll be less obviously than the total we got there. MS WEDDE: And the second question was, of those nights that are indicated as night-time work, are you able to provide for the Board any 10 indication how many of those nights would involve work between 10 pm and 6 am, so the crucial hours for sleep time? MR KENDERDINE: Yes, I guess the majority of the bridge deck and structural works would be concrete pours which from our of point and I 15 guess it’s from our point of view so that’s got to be worked through, we would be doing – starting early in the morning, I think we used 4 am as an example, so starting at 4 am. For the service relocations and traffic management, a lot of that work 20 will be starting at the time that the network starts decreasing, so that’s around 7 pm, it’s normally about the time that the road controlling authorities allow people to start moving out onto the network or slightly later for the State Highway 1. So, some of that work will actually be done by 10 pm, but will occur after that 7/8, 8 pm window 25 where we change noise boundaries. [2.25 pm] MS WEDDE: Okay, and so just to be clear there, you are referring to the 30 work identified as traffic relocation and service relocation, is that right? MR KENDERDINE: I think I used the words traffic relocations and service relocations, yes. 35 MS WEDDE: Thank you. And then, final question on this matter, you have indicated the total number of nights where night time work will occur, are you able to provide any indication of how many of those nights or portion of those nights where the standard noise time limit for noise would be exceeded? 40 MR KENDERDINE: In terms of the evening or the night time standard, which I think is 55 off the top of my head, the majority of activities right next to them would probably be at that level, or exceed that level. At the receiving environment, some distance away, that will vary 45 significantly as to where we are. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8003 MS WEDDE: Thank you. The next topic, Mr Kenderdine, I wonder if you could please outline your understanding of the construction mitigation that is proposed for mitigating construction effects on St Mark’s School based on your understanding at this point? 5 MR KENDERDINE: Certainly. I guess we have started conversation with St Mark’s School. For myself, that was back in 2013, and I forget the date, which was an open day held in St Joseph’s where I spoke to a number of people associated with the school and one of them 10 impressed upon me the fact that, as was pointed out I believe, in the submission yesterday, that the sleeping area for the preschool was in very close proximity to State Highway 1. So we are, I guess, very mindful of that. 15 So we have been starting to talk to them about what the situation is for them, what their issues are, and in a similar nature to shut down at certain times that we have talked about for the National War Memorial, we would consider for instance, if they have a sleeping time in the afternoon and we were in any way disrupting that sleeping time, that 20 we might shut down then as well. We established a static dust monitor in St Mark’s in December of last year to start some baseline data recording, and interestingly enough, my community relations manager Brian Aspen, was meeting with the 25 principal directly after their presentation here on their site, to talk through the establishment of an online, full-time weather monitoring station which includes dust, wind and rain. He had met with the principal on a couple of occasions prior to that and we have another meeting set up for June the 12th. 30 In terms of the noise, again, we did some testing on the 5th of December which forms part of my rebuttal evidence, the outcome of that, talking about the existing noise level outside and the noise level inside the classrooms during the day. 35 MS WEDDE: And are you referring to your annexure E of your rebuttal evidence? Just for the board for reference? MR KENDERDINE: Yes, that is correct, yes. So, on that basis I am advised 40 that the majority of our work will not be audible above the background noise level. [2.30 pm] 45 I entirely take the point that I read which is the potentially impact noise can be perceived as different and also vibration, if it occurs, can have Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8004 an impact on that environment. So very mindful to those, and how we might go addressing them. But as I say, we started in December with dust and noise and we will continue to work through how we can best do that, whether it is a noise wall, location, has yet to be confirmed. 5 MS WEDDE: Okay, thank you, Mr Kenderdine. They were my supplementary questions. Does the Board have any questions arising from those matters? 10 MR COLLINS: Can I just be quite clear about the number of nights issue, is that the number of nights that you anticipate that sometime during the night, the noise would exceed the 6803 construction noise standard? CHAIRPERSON: To adjacent properties? 15 MR COLLINS: To the nearest inhabited buildings. MR KENDERDINE: That is a good point you raise because when I said you would be greater than that at the source, we would not be expecting to 20 be greater than that on all of those nights at the receiving environments. MR COLLINS: Okay, I am just concerned that we have a clear expression of that, if it is important for our decision that we have a clear wording. So, I am still confused about it. So the standard refers to receiving 25 environment not at source? MR KENDERDINE: Correct, sorry. MR COLLINS: And so you do not care what disturbance the sound is at the 30 source? The jackhammer. MR KENDERDINE: Yes. MR COLLINS: It is at the nearest receptor, which presumably, is the 35 Grandstand Apartments? Well, not always, no. MR KENDERDINE: Not always. And that goes to the point as to where we are. So our analysis of our concrete pours are such that if we are on this side of Cambridge Terrace pouring concrete, that we will not breach 40 that level at the Grandstand. MR COLLINS: So what are these numbers of nights? Are they - - - MR KENDERDINE: So the number of nights are nights that we will be 45 potentially working, and making some noise, is the purpose behind the Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8005 question. When would we be working at night? So not all of those nights will we breech the noise limits at the receiving environment. MR COLLINS: Well that is useful, that is quite different. 5 MR KENDERDINE: My apologies if I - - - MR COLLINS: No, no, we did not ask the question before, and we may have misled in our questioning of the Grandstand Apartments people. I 10 thought it was an estimated number of nights when, somewhere, the standard would be breached, but you are saying it is just the number of nights when there will be some work going on outside of normal hours. But often that would involve the activities you described last time, which may well breach the standard, depending on whereabouts they 15 are. MR KENDERDINE: It is a broad range of activities, and it is so specific to what they are doing so one of those nights is the people changing the traffic light software. So I would be surprised if they were in breach, 20 even if they were working directly outside the Grandstand Apartments on that night, doing that activity. Clearly, if we are pouring concrete on the pier or on the bridge deck, some small number of metres away from the edge of the building it would be a different matter. 25 MR COLLINS: Well, thank you for clarifying that. That is quite useful. MR BAINES: Can I just ask, following on from that, am I right in thinking that the noise activities happening at the moment in the night are the concrete pours, is that - - - 30 MR KENDERDINE: Correct. MR BAINES: Up here, sorry, up on the underpass. 35 MR KENDERDINE: Yes, predominantly, the night time activity that, for instance, the Tasman Gardens’ people would be aware of, is concrete pours. MR BAINES: Right. Now, we have had several residents of Ellice Street in 40 the last couple of days come and say they are already being disturbed by the noise from up here. Does that surprise you? MR KENDERDINE: It does surprise me. From what I understand, again, I am not a noise expert, but from what I understand, we would not be 45 breaching the noise standard in Ellice Street from anything that we are doing onsite. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8006 MR BAINES: Right. [2.35 pm] 5 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I think the point they were making is that notwithstanding that they were still disturbed and we have heard evidence about different people reacted differently. 10 MR KENDERDINE: Certainly. And I guess that is the start - - - CHAIRPERSON: And this was just keeping within the standard, does it need to say “I am not going to disturb people”? 15 MR KENDERDINE: I mean for individuals – each individual is different. CHAIRPERSON: It is night time work that is likely to disturb people. That is the important thing. 20 MR KENDERDINE: Well, I guess that is the start of the conversation we have with people around what we do it, when we do it and how we do it. MR COLLINS: Thanks. 25 MS WEDDE: I think there is one more question. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 30 MR McMAHON: Thank you, Mr Kenderdine. That it confirmed actually what I thought I heard you say the other day that the definition of night time in the standard is 7.00 pm to 6.00 am. Is that your definition of night time that you were using? 35 MR KENDERDINE: Yes. I mean there is a slight grey area in the conditions at the moment between 7 and 8, but to all intents and purposes 7 until 6 would be suitable. MR McMAHON: And so that I am certain – are you saying that concrete 40 pours are predominantly in the 4.00 am to 6.00 am night time period? MR KENDERDINE: Just so I am clear, we have got a certain number of nights there that we think we will be boring concrete in. 45 MR McMAHON: Yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8007 MR KENDERDINE: Well, in fact, early mornings. They will be the ones for the bridge we expect to be 12 hours long. So does that help answer your question? 5 MR McMAHON: Yes. MR KENDERDINE: So it is not over – we are not going to start at 4.00 am and finish at 6. 10 MR McMAHON: No, I understand that. The question was poorly phrased from me, I am sorry. I meant the portion of the night time period that you would trigger would be 4.00 am to 6.00 am albeit that you will go beyond 6.00 am? 15 MR KENDERDINE: Yes. MR McMAHON: Yes, okay. MR KENDERDINE: The pile pours for instance – I think we have got the 20 most numbers there is for the bridge. MR McMAHON: Second question I had was in relation to St Mark’s Church. I have been looking at the conditions and under the Construction Environmental Management Plan and also under the Noise and 25 Vibration Plan there seems to be provision for a supplementary or special management plans. And I wondered whether the Agency or yourself had given any consideration to the production of a special management or a supplementary management plan for individual occupiers, such as St Mark’s School? 30 MR KENDERDINE: I think we – yes and no. So yes, we would be doing something specifically around that area, but that would be part of the plan. 35 MR McMAHON: Okay. MR KENDERDINE: I don’t think other people have day-care centres that far from the edge of the road where we would be working, so yes, we would be specifically referencing the activities around that, but that 40 would be part of our wider plan rather than a series of supplementary - - - MR McMAHON: And would the same apply to traffic management? There is a provision for supplementary traffic management plans also? 45 MR KENDERDINE: So you have got the wider - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8008 MR McMAHON: I am just trying to understand how it works. MR KENDERDINE: Yes, okay. So yes, so the short answer is that the area 5 outside of St Mark’s will have its own plan. And those plans will change over time very much as the pedestrian access around the corner of Patterson Street and the Basin changes, the access to and from the school, we understand the challenges associated with that. We have an inkling of the challenges associated with that. But also you have got the 10 Governor-General’s house and Wellington College. So yes, that will have its own very specific plan. MR McMAHON: Thank you, Mr Kenderdine. Thank you, sir. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. MS WEDDE: Thank you. So we will move on to the costing matters. And I 20 will just first introduce Mr McFadyen, good afternoon. MR McFADYEN: Good afternoon. MS WEDDE: Could you please confirm for the board that your full name is 25 Ronald John McFadyen? [2.40 pm] MR McFADYEN: That is correct. 30 MS WEDDE: And you have prepared a statement of evidence dated 20 May 2014 for this enquiry? MR McFADYEN: I have. 35 MS WEDDE: And just to be fair this was filed originally in draft, but Mr McFadyen has – well, I will ask him now to confirm if it is final. Do you have any amendments to make to that evidence? 40 MR McFADYEN: No, not at all. MS WEDDE: And in that evidence from paragraph 1.3 you have set out your qualifications and experience? 45 MR McFADYEN: Sorry? Say that again, please? Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8009 MS WEDDE: In your evidence from 1.3 you have set out your qualifications and experience? MR McFADYEN: I have. 5 MS WEDDE: Do you confirm that this statement is true and correct to the best of your knowledge and ability? MR McFADYEN: I do, yes. 10 MS WEDDE: Thank you. Now, sir, there are a number of cost estimates that I understand Ms McCarthy may be asking questions. So I just propose now to make sure 15 that they are all before you and have document numbers? Some are already in the bundle and some will need to be produced. Perhaps just starting with - - - 20 MR McMAHON: Ms Wedde, could you just hold off a minute, I have inadvertently left my copy and Ms Girling is just getting me a copy. MS WEDDE: That is the one. 25 MR McMAHON: Thank you. MS WEDDE: So starting with this statement of evidence at Annexure B we have the cost estimates for Option X. (INDISTINCT 1.58.3) And Mr McFadyen, this is the cost estimate for Option X that you have 30 prepared, is that correct? MR McFADYEN: Yes, it is. MS WEDDE: Okay. So there are a number of other cost estimates and 35 hopefully to make this as clear as possible I will go through those chronologically. Ms Girling, could we please hand out this one? 40 So being handed out now is a cost estimate for Option A dated 24 December 2009. Do you have that Mr McFadyen? MR McFADYEN: Yes, I do. 45 MS WEDDE: Now, is this an estimate that you have prepared? Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8010 MR McFADYEN: It is. MS WEDDE: Can I just be clear with you on that? 5 MR McFADYEN: Sorry. No, it is not, sorry. It is not. MS WEDDE: Okay. So this estimate was not prepared by Mr McFadyen, but just noting that for the record and for administrative reasons I am going to propose that it is produced as McFadyen 1. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Well, can we just make it Annexure B to his evidence? MS WEDDE: If you prefer, yes. We could make that Annexure – it would be Annexure C. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Annexure C. And who is it prepared by? MS WEDDE: It is prepared by Gareth McKay according to the document and it is dated 24 December 2009. So it is an estimate that would have 20 informed the Feasible Options Report. CHAIRPERSON: Is that on the document? MS WEDDE: Yes, right at the bottom in the left-hand column. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Oh, yes. Thank you. MS WEDDE: All right. The next document in the sequence is the Option A estimate dated 16 March 2012 headed “Transportation Improvements 30 (INDISTINCT 4.41) in Basin Reserve”. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. [2.45 pm] 35 MS WEDDE: Now, this document is an extract from the (INDISTINCT 0.7) assessment report, so that is already in the bundle of documents at 8/4. CHAIRPERSON: What was the date of this document? 40 MS WEDDE: 16th of March 2012. And it is the cost estimate for the scheme assessment report for option A. MR MCMAHON: Did you say 8/4? 45 MS WEDDE: 8/4. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8011 CHAIRPERSON: 8/4 is the - - -? MS WEDDE: That is the bundle reference. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Oh, yes. And this is annexure C, annexure D? MS WEDDE: So for convenience, we will call that annexure D. Just so we are clear, Mr McFadyen, this cost estimate dated 16 March 2012, in 10 relation to option A, did you prepare this cost estimate? MR McFADYEN: No, I did not. MS WEDDE: Just for convenience, we are going to call that annexure D to 15 your statement of evidence, just so that that has a document number for proceedings today. MR McFADYEN: Yes. 20 MS WEDDE: The next document in the list is the option H cost estimate, dated 2nd of July 2012. CHAIRPERSON: What was the date of this one? 25 MS WEDDE: So this scheme estimate is dated 2nd of July 2012, and Mr McFadyen, were you responsible for preparing this cost estimate? MR McFADYEN: Yes, I was. 30 MS WEDDE: Thank you. So we will call that annexure E. The next cost estimate (INDISTINCT 2.50) is Basin Reserve option F, dated 19 July 2012. CHAIRPERSON: So 20th of July? 35 MS WEDDE: Dated 19th of July 2012. And it is entitled ‘Basin Reserve option F option estimate.’ And this document was in the bundle at 9/47. Mr McFadyen, were you responsible for preparing this cost estimate? 40 MR McFADYEN: Yes, I was. MS WEDDE: And can we please call that annexure F? CHAIRPERSON: I am getting a little concerned where this is all leading to 45 because we are at the end of the hearing, and a lot of these matters perhaps should have been raised earlier, and if it is to do with simply Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8012 the costing of option X, it seems a tremendous amount of work on a very small aspect of the hearing, taking up valuable time. I do not know who is responsible for this, but what is all this heading to? 5 MS WEDDE: I cannot assist with that (INDISTINCT 4.52) CHAIRPERSON: No, you have just been requested to do it. Can you explain, please? I hope it is going to be extremely relevant. 10 MS McCARTHY: Well, this is - - - CHAIRPERSON: Would you stand when you address, please? MS McCARTHY: I am sorry. 15 [2.50 pm] This is a matter that we have been trying to get Mr McFadyen on the stand since, I think it was February, to address some issues. And these 20 issues are to do with the option X estimate, and consistency across the documents. It is certainly not meant to be wasting your time. CHAIRPERSON: Well we have read your quite detailed memorandum which raises four issues, and in the last issue there are a number of sub-issues 25 which are all quite relevant. I would have thought that would have been sufficient to address your concerns on other matters you had raised in this memorandum. Just simply cross-examine on this document here and this evidence. 30 MS McCARTHY: The reason for introducing these documents is simply a matter of some of the detail in the documents. CHAIRPERSON: But is that not a matter of submission? 35 MS McCARTHY: Some of the document had not been produced, but it can be a matter of submission if you would rather. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we do not want to spend hours cross-examining a witness on matters that are simply set out in the documents, unless it is 40 to contradict something that he has said in his evidence. MS McCARTHY: Some of the matters are not covered in his evidence, and some of the - - - 45 CHAIRPERSON: Well if they are not covered in his evidence, they are in the documents, and he has not contradicted them. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8013 MS McCARTHY: Some of the information is not in the documents or in his evidence. 5 CHAIRPERSON: Well, we will let you proceed, but we have got a whole lot of submitters waiting for their representations and they have been waiting for days because of the lengthy cross-examination we have been having of some of these witnesses. And we have been very lenient, but we are getting towards the end of the hearing and we are 10 running out of time to write our decision, and people are not assisting us. MS McCARTHY: Well, I will do my best to assist you, certainly. I have got quite focussed questions. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Pardon? MS McCARTHY: I have got quite focussed questions. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Very well. MS WEDDE: There is just two more documents. Not new cost estimates. CHAIRPERSON: I mean we have got huge, large issues in this case, and this 25 is to do with a very minor issue, it may not be a minor issue, but a smaller issue, compared with the large issue of alternatives where we can and some of the cross-examination has been missing the wood for the trees, we have got to do a stand-back assessment, not to do a microcosm-type assessment. It is not our function. 30 MS WEDDE: Sir, there are just two further documents and they are not cost estimates. Could we hand this one? So this document is entitled ‘Basin Reserve improvements comparison of options’ and Mr McFadyen, this is a document that you have prepared? 35 MR McFADYEN: It is. MS WEDDE: And does it simply show the base expected and 95th percentile cost estimates for the various options which are listed down the left- 40 hand side? MR McFADYEN: Yes, it does, yes. MS WEDDE: So sir, that just brings together the total amounts reflected in 45 the various cost estimates in one document. And that can be called Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8014 annexure G. This is as of today. I asked, Mr McFadyen prepared it when? MR McFADYEN: Yesterday. 5 MS WEDDE: Yesterday. The final document is the attachment to the memorandum we filed last week, which for expediency it seemed at the time, we just filed one 10 memorandum to get the material out, but it has not yet been produced as evidence, so Ms Girling will hand that out. [2.55 pm] 15 CHAIRPERSON: Where does this document come from? MS WEDDE: I understand that this document is a collaborative effort between Mr Kenderdine and Mr McFadyen. Mr Kenderdine did you provide the cross-section dimensions? 20 MR KENDERDINE: I provided the data to provide effectively the top of the two graphs. CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I missed that. 25 MR KENDERDINE: I provided the dimensions for the top of the two cross- sections which is related to the underpass as we know it today. MS WEDDE: You are referring to Figure 1? 30 MR KENDERDINE: Figure 1. CHAIRPERSON: The underpass is in orange. 35 MS WEDDE: This document shows two figures, figure 1 is the Buckle Street underpass as being constructed at the moment with the extension required for Option X. CHAIRPERSON: Which is in blue? 40 MS WEDDE: Which is in blue and you will see that it differs from figure 2 which is the cross-sections for the Buckle Street underpass and Option X estimates in early 2013. Perhaps just so we are clear Mr Kenderdine, could you explain what the differences are in terms of dimensions and 45 what that means? Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8015 MR KENDERDINE: Certainly, this was just to answer the question that was put to me what was the difference between the volumes between what we are doing today and Option X if we did it today and the original estimates. We have prepared, if we take the figure 1 which is probably 5 the easiest place to start at the top of the page. We currently have a three lane underpass of a certain width, an excavation width and then coming into that you would have a slightly narrower cross section of two lanes as was talked about in earlier 10 submissions for Option X coming in off the Basin Reserve. All those two sections are is just showing the reflection of the difference in with between the two underpasses used. If you could turn the page to table 1 contains a lot of figures and I 15 apologise for that. All that does is just show you how the widths and the heights were made up so that we had a very clear document. As you may recall there was some question over working areas and undercuts and other matters so what we have done is tabulate from there so there is a consistency and then just shown how in figure 2 back 20 on the front page how they differ from what was in Option H and X estimates. MS WEDDE: Mr Kenderdine figure 1 is entitled indicative excavation volumes based on extending current underpass to form hypothetical 25 Option X why is it entitled hypothetical Option X just so we are clear? MR KENDERDINE: Hypothetical in terms of we are not sure of the fire and life safety implications or other egress matters so we have just taken a very basic box structure and extrapolated that for the purposes of the 30 exercise. MS WEDDE: Thank you, so does figure 1 provide for fire and life safety requirements? 35 MR KENDERDINE: Potentially not if it is a tunnel. MS WEDDE: Sir, so that can be formally produced into evidence can that become an exhibit to Kenderdine’s evidence? 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what are we up to exhibit H? MS WEDDE: Well I am proposing that it could be an exhibit to Kenderdine’s evidence, I am not sure what number we are up to so Kenderdine 5. 45 [3.00 pm] Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8016 CHAIRPERSON: Well, what if - - - MS WEDDE: - - - Well, Mr McFadyen, would you have any objection to it 5 becoming annexure - - - CHAIRPERSON: Well I just do not want – is Mr Kenderdine going to be cross-examined on his earlier evidence? No, - - - 10 MS WEDDE: No. CHAIRPERSON: - - - well, let us keep it altogether otherwise it is going to become - - - 15 MS WEDDE: Okay, I do not want to make it more complicated. CHAIRPERSON: It is difficult enough to follow as it is. MS WEDDE: All right. 20 CHAIRPERSON: Let us keep it simple. Because it is all to do with the costings, so let us keep it with Mr McFadyen’s evidence. MS WEDDE: Yes, Annexure H? 25 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MS WEDDE: Thank you, sir, that is all the documents. So I will now ask Mr McFadyen and Mr Kenderdine to take any questions from 30 Ms McCarthy. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR BAINES: May I ask a question for clarification? 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR BAINES: I am just trying to understand the difference between figure one and figure two. Do I understand that figure one sets out the 40 dimensions et cetera, if one was to give indicative volumes for extending the underpass if it were to be done now? Whereas figure two was the information that was relevant to what was done at an earlier time, is that right? Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8017 MR KENDERDINE: Correct, yes. So figure one if you added option X to what is currently out there, and figure two is what was originally assumed for both projects. 5 MR BAINES: What was originally assumed, okay, thank you. MR McFADYEN: And was assumed because of design estimates and option estimates. 10 MR COLLINS: If it is of any help, I am interested in the situation of what it might cost for option X if it was added to what is committed now. I am not really interested in historical - - - CHAIRPERSON: No. 15 MR COLLINS: - - - things at all. So I - - - CHAIRPERSON: That is why I thought it was a simple issue, really. And that is all we are interested in, is what the option X cost would be if it done 20 now. MR COLLINS: If that helps to clarify, you know, it is a bit narrower? A bit quicker. 25 MS McCARTHY: Our interest has been the historic situation. So - - - CHAIRPERSON: Well we know what, in the comparison of option X with option F and option A, we know what was used for that comparison? 30 MS McCARTHY: I guess our position might be what we think should have happened, - - - CHAIRPERSON: And that is - - - 35 MS McCARTHY: - - - and a lot of my questions are focussed towards that. So we are thinking about it in terms of the assessment of alternatives. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand that. So what is the relevance of that? 40 MS McCARTHY: What we are trying to establish is that the consideration at the time was not at the right time and did not consider the right things. And so it was a matter of the process of consideration of alternatives, that is largely where my questions are coming from. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8018 CHAIRPERSON: Well I am finding it difficult to follow, because it is an iterative process when you are estimating and carrying out considerations of different options. 5 MS McCARTHY: I have some things which we would probably cross, and I can start on those if you like. - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 10 MS McCARTHY: - - - That might be a - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let us see where we go. MS McCARTHY: Yes. 15 CHAIRPERSON: The issue really is, is whether at the time of each option being considered, the same methodology was applied to each. MS McCARTHY: Yes, and I think there are some differences when you have 20 got at tunnel. If you are focussing on the bridges, then the tunnel issues do not necessarily get - - - CHAIRPERSON: Oh well, let us see where we are going, shall we? 25 MS McCARTHY: Yes, certainly let me know if you do not think it is relevant. MS McCARTHY: Mr McFadyen, just to start off, I would like to talk about 30 the green bridge for option X. [3.05 pm] And in the preliminary assessment of option X which I do not know if 35 you are familiar with, it is bundle number 28, and it will be on the screen soon I think. Both the NZTA estimate and the estimate that the architectural centre commissioned arrived at a figure of $15,000,000 for the green bridge. And that is quite different to the figure in your option assessment of option X. Could you explain what that difference 40 is about? MR McFADYEN: Well I am not sure what that difference is about without - - - 45 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, could you point out the differences to him so he can - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8019 MR McFADYEN: Without seeing the estimate. MS McCARTHY: Well both of the documents, both the NZTA or Opus 5 assessment, if we go to page 30 in the preliminary assessment of option X. MR...... : I beat you to it. 10 MS McCARTHY: It is only one line. So - - - CHAIRPERSON: So what are we looking at? MS McCARTHY: Page 30. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly. MS McCARTHY: So this was 2011, September 2011, and Opus did an assessment of option X and they had an expectation that that structure 20 would cost $15,000,000. That is quite a difference between your option estimate, one of which is on the second page of the option X estimate, and that has $3,800,000, but it does say Basin Reserve pedestrian structure, so I wondered if there were other - - - - 25 MR McFADYEN: There is. There is another one closer to the Mt Victoria tunnel which is on the - - - MS McCARTHY: No, - - - 30 CHAIRPERSON: I cannot really see - - - MS McCARTHY: - - - I am just talking about the green bridge. MR McFADYEN: Yes, so that would come off - - - 35 CHAIRPERSON: What are we talking about? Sorry. What are we talking about? I have not identified it from this document myself. MS McCARTHY: It is just one line above the table - - - 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MS McCARTHY: - - - in paragraph 10.4. 45 CHAIRPERSON: “At this stage, we expect that the $15,000,000 identified in the option X cost - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8020 MR...... : Where is option X? CHAIRPERSON: - - - is appropriate given the potential complexity in design 5 and construction.” That line? MS McCARTHY: That is the line there, yes. CHAIRPERSON: But what is the $15,000,000 referring to? 10 MS McCARTHY: The $15,000,000 is referring to the cost of the green pedestrian bridge - - - CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see. 15 MS McCARTHY: - - - which would be just behind you. So what I am wondering is your estimate of 3 almost 4 million dollars, are there other things that need to be included to get the entire cost of that structure? 20 MR McFADYEN: There is landscaping costs which are included in the landscaping area. MS McCARTHY: Could you point us to that in this document at all? 25 MR McFADYEN: Yes, I can, in option X will be - - - CHAIRPERSON: And this document, you are referring to his evidence? MS McCARTHY: I am referring to - - - 30 MR McFADYEN: Apologies, their landscaping is within - - - CHAIRPERSON: Annexure? 35 MR McFADYEN: - - - that bridges structure. CHAIRPERSON: Which annexure? MR McFADYEN: It is item 7.1.9 of - - - 40 MS McCARTHY: Annexure B, sir. MR McFADYEN: - - - option X estimate. 45 MR...... : 7.1.9 landscaping pedestrian - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8021 MS McCARTHY: Sorry Mr McFadyen, could you just - - - MR McFADYEN: So there is nothing else in this estimate that would lead to increasing that bridge structure. 5 MS McCARTHY: So you have the 3, almost 4 million, - - - MR McFADYEN: Yes. 10 MS McCARTHY: - - - and in terms of landscaping? MR McFADYEN: Yes, and that is inclusive in that 3.2 million. MS McCARTHY: Are there any labour issues or anything else? 15 MR McFADYEN: No, not that I am aware of. MS McCARTHY: Can you think of what the reason would be for that difference between $4,000,000 and $15,000,000? It seems like a lot. 20 MR McFADYEN: Well without seeing the other estimate, I do not know what is included in that other estimate for $15,000,000. MS McCARTHY: Right. 25 MR McFADYEN: I have not seen any of those documents. MS McCARTHY: Another question that we have is the cost of the Northern Gateway building. And Ms Wedde’s memo of the 22nd of May, 3.5A, 30 states that the cost is estimated to be between 1 and 20 million, probably 5 million. Do you have additional comment to make in relation to that? [3.10 pm] 35 MR McFADYEN: I have had no involvement in the Northern Gateway building at all. I am not privy to where it is or what it looks like, and it is not included in option X. 40 MS McCARTHY: No this is in relation to option A. Do you do any costings in terms of buildings? I realise you are not a quantity surveyor, you are a civil engineer, is that correct? MR McFADYEN: Yes, that is correct. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8022 MS McCARTHY: So in terms of the costing of buildings, is that within your experience? MR McFADYEN: No, it is not. 5 MS McCARTHY: Okay, if we could go back to the option X estimate, and if we could also look at appendix B of the document that I filed yesterday too. 10 MS WEDDE: Now, Mr McFadyen, when you do an estimate and you are given a list for example a list of properties or a list of buildings to demolish, do you actually look to see whether, you know, do you give an opinion or do you just sort of cost the list rather than anything else? 15 MR McFADYEN: No, we have a look at where the road or the option may go and we draw plans to make sure we can fit the proposal on. And from that plan, we will work out what percentages of land area or buildings are affected by the proposal. 20 MS McCARTHY: In your evidence, in relation to resale in terms of land, in paragraph 4.4 you stated that you used the estimated land prices that were not required post-completion did you not? Paragraph 4.4. We are talking about the proportion of land based on the area remaining and where buildings were unaffected the improved land value remained 25 unchanged. And then in 4.5 you said, “All unused land is assumed to be sold and credited to the estimate.” Is that correct? MR McFADYEN: Yes, that is correct. 30 MS McCARTHY: So I took it from that because we have problems trying to find a line item which sort of described that, that it was sort of all packaged together. MR McFADYEN: It is all packaged under one item. 35 MS McCARTHY: We have got appendix B up there. I would like to look at the property which is 59 Rugby Street, which is the red box on Rugby Street to the left. If we look at that in the roading diagram just beneath that image there, if we could scroll up a little, if we can see the diagram 40 underneath it. Keep going. You can see at the bottom there. CHAIRPERSON: That is the one in the corner. MS McCARTHY: No, not on the corner. 45 CHAIRPERSON: Not on the right corner but as you go into Sussex Street. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8023 MS McCARTHY: Yes, that is right. So you can see in that diagram the road possibly touches that property, possibly does not. If we go to the option X estimate, we can see a cost for that property and it is $1200 there. So 5 what does that represent? MR McFADYEN: Sorry, what number Rugby was that? Was that 55? MS McCARTHY: 57/59. 10 MR McFADYEN: 57/59. The proportion of land value required is about .2 percent of the total area and we have assumed… 57/59 Rugby… That’s an assumed an estimated cost of about $1300 to take that part of that land. So we have not taken all that land. 15 [3.15 pm] MS McCARTHY: And is that the diagram that is used to decide whether something is going to be demolished or how much land is to be used, or 20 was there a larger diagram drawn? MR McFADYEN: Generally, that is what we would use. It is not quite the same as this, but this is a plan that we have used, overlaid the roading part of it on and deciphered what those areas are from CAD. 25 MS McCARTHY: Okay, so all of those prices are a result of that plus and minus process? MR McFADYEN: That is correct, yes. 30 MS McCARTHY: Just going back to the building under the bridge, I note in the evidence, or in Ms Wedde’s memos, that is meant to be commercially sensitive. Is there any way we can get some sense of what sort of range of cost that would be? 35 MR McFADYEN: Well I suppose there would be, but I have not. As I said, I have not seen that building so I do not know what it looks like or what it is made of. 40 MS McCARTHY: Okay, but that is information that you think probably, it would be highly likely it could be given to the Board if they are interested in that? MR MFADYEN: Certainly. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8024 MS McCARTHY: I have got a question for you, Mr Kenderdine, and it relates to demolition. My understanding is that the pricing, as a building gets larger the demolition costs get smaller, comparative to a smaller building, is that correct? 5 MR KENDERDINE: Sorry, I do not have much experience with demolition. MS McCARTHY: Oh, you only build things? Sorry. 10 MR KENDERDINE: As it happens, I try to. MS McCARTHY: No, that is fair enough, I thought you might, as the project manager, might have some familiarity with demolition. 15 MR KENDERDINE: My limited experience with CERA said that that is not necessarily the case. MS McCARTHY: But there are significant changes in terms of different building types, concrete versus timber? 20 MR KENDERDINE: It can be. It tends to be locational, but if you use a quantity for an estimate you will just use an estimated rate, normally. MS McCARTHY: Okay, thank you. Mr McFadyen, in your estimate for 25 option X, I understand from Ms Wedde that that was based on both option H and option F assumptions. MR McFADYEN: Correct. 30 MS McCARTHY: Could you tell us exactly what that meant or what that involved? MR McFADYEN: Well, it is just based on the same assumptions that we use for estimating each individual item of work. So in case of services, we 35 would have a register of assumptions that we would use. And that base through is the same with the Geotech and that was based right through the options H, F and X. So they were similar. MS McCARTHY: In relation to the Geotech, could you tell us a little more 40 about those assumptions? MR McFADYEN: The Geotech were the same assumptions on all three options. And they were based on option H. So that you will see in the three cost estimates basically we have got the same items for all three 45 options, same rates but different quantities. The issue we have probably got there is that we have highly likely underestimated X and F. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8025 MS McCARTHY: Okay, well thank you for that. If we go to the length, and the documentation in terms of the fire life is well documented, so I would just like to assume that there is no fire life provisions, and I am 5 making those sorts of assumptions, one that the historical guidance from 2010 but also if there was a land bridge rather than a fully enclosed tunnel. So I would just like to sort of speculate in that regard. The initial amount of earthworks for option X was 88,000 cubic metres. 10 Is that correct in that realm? [3.20 pm] MR McFADYEN: Yes, that is correct. 15 MS McCARTHY: If we take the Option H tunnel and so Option H is Annexure E – if my reading is correct the earthworks calculated for that were 45,000 cubic metres, is that about right undercut to waste off site? 20 MR McFADYEN: For the tunnel? MS McCARTHY: Yes, for Option H which is the Memorial Park? MR McFADYEN: Yes, that is correct. 25 MS McCARTHY: Okay. If we go to Annexure H which is the Kenderdine section we have the volume for extending Option X to the tunnel as been 16,000, don’t we? 30 MR McFADYEN: Yes. MS McCARTHY: And if we add those two together we get 61,000 cubic metres? 35 MR McFADYEN: Well, that is not entirely true because if you look at Annexure H it is 36,000 plus 16,000 working off what is being built at the moment. MS McCARTHY: So it is 36,000 rather than 45,000 thousand so that there is 40 an overestimation in the Option H estimate? MR McFADYEN: The estimate that was done prior to work commencing was based on the dimensions of the tunnel as indicated in figure 2. And that was as a result of the lane woods, the weave, the barriers and 45 everything else we had in the tunnel to give that internal dimension. So Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8026 that is what those rates are based on, it is an estimate based what we knew and we were designing to at the time. MS McCARTHY: Yes. So if we add those two numbers from Annexure H we 5 get 52,000 cubic metres? MR McFADYEN: Yes, correct. MS McCARTHY: If we go to - - - 10 MR McFADYEN: And that is shown on the table three of that as 52,500. MS McCARTHY: If we go to Annexure F, which is the Option F estimate, the totals of earthworks – if I read it correctly – are 112,000 cubic 15 metres. Did I read the right line there? I have added the 104,000 and the 8,000. MR McFADYEN: That is correct. 20 MS McCARTHY: So I wonder if we could have on the screen at the moment the project area, a plan, which is 1A.01. And if you could blow it up so we could just see the project area from Taranaki to Paterson Street? So the reason why I put this up is so that we get a little bit of a sense of the area for Option H which goes from Taranaki – and presumably from 25 Taranaki Street portal right through to Paterson Street. And we can imagine Option X, which would start at the same place in Taranaki Street and go to the back of the Vance Stand. So at the time of these estimates Option F had one 112,000 cubic 30 metres, Option X had 88,000 cubic metres. From my feeling it doesn’t sort of make sense in relation to one being twice the size of the other. Can you elaborate a little more in terms of where those numbers came from? 35 MR McFADYEN: Well, I think Option F is basically the tunnel and the amount of works around the tunnel. There is not much more works in the rest of the project area. In Option X we have a lot more work around Sussex Street, Rugby Street, Adelaide Road and quite big changes around St Mark’s Church and places like that. 40 [3.25 pm] MS McCARTHY: So it is the surface areas that make up that? 45 MR McFADYEN: It is the whole areas of the project. It is the total earthworks of the projects. Of the total - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8027 MS McCARTHY: It does seem – I mean just the other day I think Mr Kenderdine – I am sure you will correct me – that the Paterson Street abutment was about 4,000 and that is quite a big bit of earth, isn’t it? It 5 does seem like quite a large difference, but you assured me that that 88,000 compared to 112,000 is fair. But now we have it down to – what was it 52,000? MR McFADYEN: It is 52,000 plus the additional difference for the rest 10 project of - - - MS McCARTHY: And that is not 36,000 cubic metres, is it? MR KENDERDINE: I think that – if I can add on in terms of the preparation 15 of Annexure H, the quantum at the bottom of table 3 is 73,000. MS McCARTHY: Yes. No, I am just sort of talking about the – I am making that assumption. 20 MR KENDERDINE: Yes, so it is not 88,000 and as I have discussed with the Board very clearly what the expectation was around what we were providing here for clarity, we weren’t including the other volumes of earthworks. 25 MS McCARTHY: Yes. MR KENDERDINE: So there will always be a difference for Figure 1, which is 52,000 and what the total quantum will be because of the other earthworks required to do with Sussex Street, the realignment of the 30 roads and the bridge over the top of that stamp. MS McCARTHY: Yes, I just thought noting that 88,000 from the original estimates seems a little high when we are taking into account all those other things. 35 One last point – I was going to ask some questions on the Option A 2009, but I think given your comments I won’t worry about those. CHAIRPERSON: The reason I made the comments was – you may recall, I 40 think you were here, when Mr Milne was cross-examining on the difference in cost and I asked him – sorry? MS McCARTHY: With Mr Stewart? 45 CHAIRPERSON: No, just the other day with - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8028 MS McCARTHY: Mr Kenderdine? CHAIRPERSON: No, with Mr Brabhaharan. 5 MS McCARTHY: Oh, yes. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The difference – not so much in cost, but the difference in - - - 10 MS McCARTHY: The geotech? CHAIRPERSON: - - - the geotech and also the excavation and things I asked him what the relevance was and he said the relevance simply was to show that the cost estimate in reality is much less than it was. And I 15 said, well, what was the purpose of that. And he made it quite clear that – he said it is for the sole purpose of establishing the legal principle that Option X is an offer it shouldn’t necessarily be discarded. MS McCARTHY: Yes. 20 CHAIRPERSON: And that is what I am happy to allow you to progress – that is why we allowed this. But not to go back into looking at what happened in history, because we have done all that. 25 MS McCARTHY: Okay. CHAIRPERSON: You do not get two chances of biting the cherry, do you understand me? 30 MS McCARTHY: Oh absolutely. Now just a question, Mr Kenderdine, it just sort of helps to give a little bit of context in relation to Option A, which we heard about the other day, is going to be in quite difficult conditions in terms of the geotech down to past 40 metres in terms of piles in a couple of places. In terms of the Option H estimate, Annexure E, what 35 is the current bill for Memorial Park in terms of the piles? MR KENDERDINE: Sorry? MS McCARTHY: What is the current bill for the underpass? 40 MR KENDERDINE: My current contract is in the order of $120 million. MS McCARTHY: $120 million and that is a completed price? 45 MR KENDERDINE: That is the park and the inner city bypass and the underpass. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8029 MS McCARTHY: And for the underpass, which would be applicable to this scheme estimate? 5 MR KENDERDINE: I don’t have that with me, sorry. MS McCARTHY: Do you have a rough idea about how much that would be in relation to the works? 10 MR KENDERDINE: It is within the orders of these, yes. MS McCARTHY: The $120 million, would it be half of that? Three quarters of that? 15 [3.30 pm] MR KENDERDINE: I think, well, you asked if it was in the order of this and I said yes, it is in the order of this. I am sorry, I did not realise - - - 20 MS McCARTHY: No. MR KENDERDINE: - - - that question was going to be asked so I did not bring my numbers with me. 25 MS McCARTHY: So the ICB is included in your 120 and what else? MR KENDERDINE: The park - - - MS McCARTHY: Okay. 30 MR KENDERDINE: - - - and the underpass. MS McCARTHY: And if the Board wanted to know what the figure, oh, the park is included in this estimate, is that correct, Mr McFadyen? 35 MR KENDERDINE: Sorry, which estimate? MS McCARTHY: This is he annexure E, which is the memorial park scheme assessment from June 2012. 40 MR KENDERINE: I do not think the park as we know it, the National war Memorial Park, is included in this estimate. But I would be – turn to my learned colleague. No, it was not. 45 MS McCARTHY: Okay, so the landscaping is not included in here? Right, but if the Board wanted that figure that figure could be supplied, so Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8030 they would get some sense of relativity in terms of the build as distinct from the estimate. MR KENDERDINE: Certainly. 5 CHAIRPERSON: If we want it we will ask for it, but if you want it, you can ask for it. MS McCARTHY: Well, I did ask but he is, I mean, if he is going to head off 10 now - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know. MS McCARTHY: - - - because it is sunset, so I cannot really ask if he does 15 not have the information. - - - CHAIRPERSON: No. MS McCARTHY: - - - I would love to get the answer, but to have it in front 20 of the Board would be helpful if it was needed. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well, is it possible to provide that information to Ms McCarthy? 25 MR KENDERDINE: A relative version against this? CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR KENDERDINE: Yes. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So there you are, you will get it provided. And if you think we should have it, you can give it to us. - - - MS McCARTHY: (INDISTINCT 1.46) 35 CHAIRPERSON: - - - But we will not be requesting it unless we know what the reason for it is. Yes, well thank you for that. Now, have you…? MR COLLINS: Yes, what I would really find useful would be some rough 40 indication of the costs of adding option A, the project, to what is being built at the moment, and/or option X added to what is being built at the moment. And what I have found is that there is vast amount of numbers and things, but I cannot get that simple comparison. Are they roughly the same? Are they in an order of magnitude different? So like 45 annexure G here, this is apparently as of today, still comparing option Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8031 X as it was originally proposed, including the National War Memorial tunnel. Now, you must ignore the National War Memorial tunnel, that is being 5 done. I do not even particularly care what it cost. What it would be useful to know is for us now, considering the project option A, is option X still a realistic option that we should be aware, even though we are not choosing options of course, but is it a thing we should ignore as being unaffordable? Or is it a realistic prospect still? Now one 10 factor I think is the way the level of the portal of the underpass is being built higher than ideal. That may affect it. The cost of the mitigation for option A may affect it. You might say, “They are the same price roughly, but I do not know what the cost of the Northern Gateway building is.” That is fine. But just give us a rough idea if that is 15 possible. MR KENDERDINE: It would take - - - CHAIRPERSON: I think that is what she has been trying to get. 20 MR KENDERDINE: Well it would take quite a lot of work, with due respect, - - - MR COLLINS: Okay. 25 MR KENDERDINE: - - - because I think the risk of taking an actual cost today with an estimate, with a range of estimates over here, and then trying to backflip them all - - - 30 CHAIRPERSON: No, no - - - MR KENDERDINE: - - - and hope that we come up with something that is - - - 35 CHAIRPERSON: No, that is not really what we want. We want today’s costs for option A, just the ballpark figure, and today’s costs for option X, not including any of the tunnel duplication project. - - - MR COLLINS: It (INDISTINCT 4.27) - - - 40 CHAIRPERSON: - - - Is that what you are looking for? MR COLLINS: Is it? 45 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8032 MR COLLINS: (INDISTINCT 4.31) CHAIRPERSON: - - - that is what Mr Milne was looking for, yes. And that is all we really want, and that is why I got concerned when I saw all this 5 stuff coming. MR COLLINS: (INDISTINCT 4.40) MR KENDERDINE: Well I think we could do it, but it will take quite some 10 time to give a robust analysis, and I am assuming that is what you would want, because if you were considering them, - - - MR...... : (INDISTINCT 4.56) 15 MR KENDERDINE: - - - we would have - - - MR...... : (INDISTINCT 4.58) CHAIRPERSON: That is why Mr Dunlop in his latest evidence said it has not 20 been done. We asked him for that and he said it has not been done, but he did not explain to us the difficulty doing it, I suppose. But that is the reason. [3.35 pm] 25 MR COLLINS: But again, but you must have some feeling for it? Is it twice the costs for Option X? If Option X was to be chosen tomorrow, would it be twice as much, ten times as much as half as much? 30 MR KENDERDINE: In my opinion, I would fall back to these, because of the graph we have got here. And I would be more or less taking one away from the other. CHAIRPERSON: Except, as we understand that graph for Option X that it 35 includes the underpass? MR KENDERDINE: That is correct. MS WEDDE: Because I think it does at least show the comparison of the 40 options at early 2013, so the third line shows the total cost of A+H, and H is the costs of the Buckle Street underpass. So that is the combined cost of those two projects together and then Option X is shown in the next line. So by comparing those two that gives you a comparison of the options as they then were. There has been some discussion about 45 some changes that have been made to Option X if you were going to consider that today, and so that may affect - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8033 MR BAINES: Are you saying that Option H here is effectively the underpass? MS WEDDE: Yes. 5 MR BAINES: By itself? MS WEDDE: Yes. 10 MR KENDERDINE: Correct. MR BAINES: So in fact the third line, Option A + H is really just adding the top two together? 15 MS WEDDE: Absolutely. MR BAINES: And so then Option X, as originally proposed, which would include a tunnel, if you then subtracted Option H from Option X you would get some indication of what remains to be done to connect an 20 Option X with Buckle Street? MR KENDERDINE: Correct. MS WEDDE: Yes. If you subtract A plus - - - 25 CHAIRPERSON: So where it says Option X it is effectively Option X plus Option H? MS WEDDE: Yes. It hasn’t been for that that Option H has its own meaning, 30 but yes. MR BAINES: Option X including Option H? CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well it is not saying that. Option A plus H is a 35 comparison to Option X plus H? MS WEDDE: Yes, well, Option X includes the cost of the total tunnel from Taranaki to (INDISTINCT 2.36) 40 CHAIRPERSON: As does Option A plus H. MS WEDDE: Yes. MS McCARTHY: Additional comments – my understanding is that Option A 45 and H were not revised after 2012, they were added together, so while Option X was estimated in 2013 whereas the other two date from 2012 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8034 and that Option A didn’t include the Northern Gateway Building or the building under the bridge or the green screen. Is that correct? MR McFADYEN: I think what you are saying is correct, yes. 5 MS McCARTHY: And then the other point that I would make, which, again, please, correct me if I am incorrect, is that the relevant numbers are really the green, because the yellow and the red are percentages based on the green. Is that correct? The contingency and the funding they 10 worked out by adding a percentage of the green figure? MR McFADYEN: The base estimate is the green. That is what we have worked out. 15 MS McCARTHY: Yes. MR McFADYEN: It is what we know at this point in time. MS McCARTHY: And that is the figure that we find at the end of each of 20 these – so if you were going to take some – the green – bridge off for example, you take off the green figure, not off the combined figure to get a comparison between those base costs? MR McFADYEN: Well, it is dangerous just to take base costs. I mean there is 25 a lot of unknowns, and especially in turning work where - - - MR KENDERDINE: I think that a very important point is that the expected is exactly that. So while you have got a discreet amount of work that you have – as it has been discussed – a certain quantity times a certain rate 30 gives us a certain number. You then assess a level of risk associated with that number both in terms of the quantity of the work required - - - CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but would you not just deduct it from the base cost and then find out the new percentage and put a new percentage for your 35 yellow and red? MR KENDERDINE: Well - - - CHAIRPERSON: As a percentage of the base cost. 40 MR KENDERDINE: That is why I was sort of saying about a reforecasting today of an A - - - CHAIRPERSON: Well, I know there is a difficulty because when adding 45 Option A and H you are adding an old costing to a new costing and that causes difficulties in itself as well. I understand that. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8035 [3.40 pm] MR McFADYEN: But I think also Option A is probably was a scheme 5 estimate as opposed to our Option X, which makes a difference as well. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it makes a difference. MR McFADYEN: So Option A is more known, we have got a lot more 10 unknowns in Option X. Sorry? CHAIRPERSON: All of these figures are not apples? MR McFADYEN: No, they are not. 15 CHAIRPERSON: They are the same apple, if you like. MS McCARTHY: The point about the scheme in the Option estimate – that is why I dragged up the Option A from 2009, it is just to make a 20 comparison between the detail in this and the scheme estimate of Option A and the detail of Option X which is far more detailed than this level of scheme estimate. So the point, I guess, I was making is if someone is going to add on the cost of the Northern Gateway Building, they will add it on to the green and then – because that is without those 25 percentages? MR KENDERDINE: I think - - - MR McFADYEN: Yes, but then you will get uncertainties added as well to 30 that gateway building. It is not just one price, you can’t - - - MR BAINES: I think the point has been made though, is it not? Is that if you look at that figure, Annexure G, it would seem like the yellow is, if you like, the same percentage increase, it is an estimate, whatever it is, it is 35 add 10 per cent or something or 11 per cent, or what have you. And there seems to be – as you get a bigger base cost you get a bigger incremental in contingency. You also, as you get a bigger base cost you get a bigger incremental in funding risk. 40 MR McFADYEN: Sorry, I think if you look at - - - MR KENDERDINE: It all depends on the nature of the work, too. So if you look at Option A it is a smaller percentage contingency than Option H directly below it. And that reflects the level of certainty because of the 45 amount of work you have done at a given point in time. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8036 MR BAINES: Right. MR KENDERDINE: In an ideal world your expected outcome would stay about the same as you went through the process, but your level of risk 5 and funding risk would decrease. MR BAINES: Right, okay. MR KENDERDINE: And I also I think Selwyn addressed the matter of how 10 the Northern Gateway Building was addressed in terms of the funding risk being in that contingency and funding risk. MR COLLINS: So what Annexure G seems to show is that there is more uncertainty than Option X because it has not been costed and designed 15 to the level of Option A, but it is shown as being significantly more expensive, like not as much as twice as much, but a lot more expensive than Option A? MR McFADYEN: Yes, significantly more expensive, yes. 20 MR BAINES: And then if you assume that Option X does not need a gateway building, this one for Option A does not include the gateway building does it? 25 MR KENDERDINE: That is where I think that Selwyn took to the fact about whether that would be justice or a risk element at the time that this was formed in terms of its certainty of occurring - - - MR BAINES: Oh, I see, but we do know now, we have had an estimate on an 30 order of magnitude of what the gateway building might be? MR KENDERDINE: Yes. MR BAINES: That is the one of 20 with the likely of five, or something, is it 35 not? MS WEDDE: Just so everyone is clear on that – that reference came from the Scheme Assessment Report, so that was the estimate of that cost at that time. 40 MR COLLINS: And similarly you could have a pretty rough idea of what the green bridge was going to cost if we have had, you know, two wildly different estimates before $14 or $15 million, so it is in the middle that would come off Option X. So these sorts of adjustments could be made. 45 The other one, I think, what was the question of the fire egress safety, if Option X included a continuous tunnel connected to the existing tunnel, Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8037 I take it that these numbers include that. There is quite a big cost to that. But if it was not a continuous tunnel, if it was an open section, then it is not needed. So there are lots of – I am not asking for a number, but there are lots of these things that could be altered on both 5 Option A and Option X. But the bottom line really is of you saying it is significantly more expensive, but it is not double? MR KENDERDINE: That would be definitely how you would read this, yes. 10 MR COLLINS: But it is not 10 times as much, it is not suitable to - - - MR KENDERDINE: Yes, okay. CHAIRPERSON: Are you satisfied, Dr McCarthy? Are you? You are never 15 going to be satisfied? [3.45 pm] MS McCARTHY: I think that is sufficient conversation on that point, thank 20 you very much. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and you can play around with those figures and put them before us in a submission. Have you got anything to add? 25 MS WEDDE: I don’t think so. Bearing in mind your initial comments, I have a few things, but I think that can be addressed through submissions, so I think I’ll leave that there. There is just one question that perhaps I should ask. I’m not sure that it’s a particularly relevant question, but, just in case. 30 CHAIRPERSON: I saw you get a stare. 35 MS WEDDE: Mr Kenderdine, you started to explain some of the difficulty of giving precise cost estimates for building Option X today, if that was what we wish to do. MR KENDERDINE: Yes. 40 MS WEDDE: Can you please just provide more details about what would be involved if we were building Option X today and what the cost implications are of that? 45 MR KENDERDINE: Well I guess it goes to some of the items like Mr Brabhaharan raised. So, while we can think of, for instance, taking Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8038 out fire and life safety, if it’s a trench, or reducing volumes, we do need to add back in items like the tension piling that I talked about that we now know we’ve had to under the underpass and we would need to continue on. So, my calculation of that was in the order of $1.1million 5 for Option X alone. So, I guess that comes to the point, is once, there’s always an issue, you get a certain price, you take stuff out but you put stuff back in and within the intent of what you’re trying to achieve you often end up back where you were. 10 CHAIRPERSON: All we want is a ball park figure and he’s covered that in saying that these options are subject to change as you go through the design process and get more certainty. I don’t think we need any more than that. 15 MR KENDERDINE: Thank you. MS WEDDE: I’m happy to leave it there. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Right, we’ll have a quick break for afternoon tea and come 20 back and hear some representations. ADJOURNED [3.47 pm] RESUMED [3.58 pm] 25 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Smith is it? DR SMITH: I am Glen Smith. 30 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, welcome along, Mr Smith. DR SMITH: I am a GP so I am not an engineer or an architect or anything. CHAIRPERSON: Oh, sorry, Dr Smith. 35 DR SMITH: I have an interest in transport mainly to the Eastern suburbs and I have major concerns about the bridge going ahead and what that means for the future of transport to the Eastern Suburbs. In terms of transport what happens at the Basin is just a small part of the total picture in 40 Wellington. CHAIRPERSON: You can be seated if you like Dr Smith. DR SMITH: I was going to spend just a little bit of time for what the future I 45 think is going to bring for transport in Wellington and how the Basin fits into that an in particular transport to the east. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8039 [4.00 pm] A lot of the studies that you’ve had done are done on a short term basis, 5 in other words up to 2031, 2041, but history tells us that in actual fact, whatever you put in place is going to be there for a long time. Mt Victoria Tunnel, 1930 it was built, Hataitai Tunnel, 1907, and, of course, our Railways date back to the 1870s, which is 150 years ago. 10 So we have to make sure that whatever we put in place is fit for purpose, not just now, but in 50 or 100 years’ time, really. The short term time scale that a lot of these reports really is, to me, foolish. And what will happen over that time? Well, things will change. This is 15 one of our suburbs, this is the airport. This was only 50 years ago the airport was starting to be built. It looks pretty different these days. I see that they’re going to have from 5 million to 10 million passengers within 20 years. Downtown, low rise buildings giving rise to high rise. So, things change and things change pretty quickly in actual fact. 20 So we have to think long term and strategically, rather than just over the next 20 or 30 years, in my view. That’s my view anyway. So, what’s that going to bring. Well one of the big things to find out is 25 population. What’s the population going to do? This is 2001, they thought it was going to level out below 5 million. They didn’t get that quite right. It’s already over 4.5 million and climbing up, and the latest ones Statistics New Zealand show our population pretty much carrying on. 30 The question is, how far will that go? Well, I haven’t seen any reason why that is going to stop growing any time soon. Certainly in terms of resources, we’re just going to carry on, I think. 35 Where will those people go? Well, we know that people like living near cities, so this is a graph just showing the rural to urban drift. People moving away from the rural areas and towards the urban areas, so we can expect that Wellington is going to get quite a bit of growth. And, if this is true, not only do people like living near a city, but they like 40 actually living in a city these days, so we can see the areas around Wellington, areas further out dropping off, but Wellington city itself climbing up. So, where will those people go and what transport things are we going 45 to need to put in place for those people. Well this is the PTSS one and we can see big growth in the middle of the city. People like living Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8040 down town now in big high rise apartments and they’ve gone ahead rapidly. There’s big growth up to the north, where there is still a fair bit of land. But then we see that tail coming out down into the east, 20- 50% growth, this is by 2040, I think. So, big growth out to the east. 5 And that is not really surprising, if you live in a city that has not got much flat land, big lots of land out there with fairly low density housing, and that’s going to change over time, I think. We see that with Petone, the first nine storey building going ahead and we see in the paper the week before last, the first big hotel going up in Lyall Bay. 10 That is just going to carry on, really, over the next 50 to 100 years really, isn’t it? So, when we come back, we just come back to later this century, we are going to see quite a different eastern suburbs, I think, with big high 15 rise, semi high rise or high rise. People have to go somewhere and the east is one of the places where they’re going to end up, I think. So, those people are going to want to get to town and, not only get to town, but they’ll want to get to the coast and up the Hutt Valley. So, the 20 question is, how are they going to do that? Well, the NZTA tells us that they are going to do that by road and, so they are planning a tunnel through, two lanes each way. And they’re going that’s fine, that’s all we need to do, that’s great. Let’s have a look at that. That hasn’t shown it very well. 25 [4.05 pm] This is the TN24 Baseline Forecasting Report. We can’t see it very well, but on the eastern in and eastern out by 2041 it is up 57% on 30 current, MR BAINES: Whereabouts are we looking at on that? DR SMITH: Sorry, I haven’t got a pointer. 35 MR BAINES: Top, right, left? DR SMITH: This is eastern in, 157% and eastern out 154%. So, within 20 something years, already up to 157% of what we are at the moment and 40 other areas, the coast, up the north, huge increases in transport. MR BAINES: Can I just ask you there, you’ve got modelled car screen line. Is that actually people moving in or is it vehicles? 45 DR SMITH: I think it’s vehicles. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8041 MR BAINES: On the assumption that … DR SMITH: I don’t know which model I used for that one, to be honest. I’d 5 have to go back to the. This is the Opus 1024. MR BAINES: I beg your pardon. I’m with you. That’s the Watson model, isn’t it? 10 DR SMITH: And this, of course, is just going to carry on, isn’t it? The population is not going to stop in 2041. It’s going to continue, as we saw by that population growth, this is going to keep going up higher and higher. 15 So what does that do to our city? This again is the TN24 report. So going from top to bottom, it is getting more congested. Red his highest congestion, so you can see congestion where the Terrace tunnel comes through, and that is basically traffic sitting going along at 10-15 kph a lot of the time. So it gives you an idea of what it is. If you look at the 20 city, the city is pretty good. We have greens, yellows, whites. So our city itself is actually pretty reasonable. What happens over time? Before they built the tunnel, congestion gets worse. And this is 2031, this is after they’ve built the tunnel, so the 25 congestion around Mt Victoria tunnel and the Terrace gets lighter. Then we have a look at what’s happening to our down town. Red appearing across a large number of areas down town. And then 2041, things getting worse and, in particular, we can see the 30 red that comes out from the Basin heading west, that’s over capacity. That’s traffic going along at 10-15 kph. Is all the traffic behind that going to be going? Well, I don’t think it is, I think it is going to end up looking like this. And this is only 2041. What about 2050, 2060, 2070, 2080, 2090, 2100, 2110? 35 This is what it does to congestion. This is again a TN24 report. So you can see Wairarapa coming in. Congestion up to 288%. This is time spent in congested conditions. Up to 288%. From the Hutt up to 405%. So if you think you’re going slowly in from the Hutt at the moment, 40 well you haven’t seen anything yet. It’s going to get a whole lot worse. And overall a 96% in the am, 116% increase in the inter-period and 79% increase in congestion in the pm. And this is only 20 something years away. This isn’t 50 years away or 100 years away, this is 20 something years away. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8042 So the question is, how long is it going to be before our city looks like this? And it’s going to happen, really. Growth isn’t stopping. The number of cars isn’t stopping. You can argue about how long it is going to take, but it is going to end up looking like this, basically, in my view. 5 [4.10 pm] And we know what that looks like. We’ve seen it overseas, in America. We see it in Auckland, thanks to the NZTA. A nice bit of building for 10 their roads. And really, we’ve seen it in Wellington, haven’t we? Realistically, we know what it looks like. And that’s the trouble, we know what it looks like and we don’t want it. Basically we don’t want this. This is what we don’t want, and yet this is what the NZTA. We keep saying we don’t want it and yet the NZTA keep foisting this upon 15 us. So, this is what we don’t want, and yet they’ve put it together and this is what we’re going to end up with, when you put the bridge through. How can I say that? When you look at one little bit of the transport 20 thing. Well, to do that, you actually have to look at what the solution is. What is the solution? We all know what the solution is really, don’t we? And that is, if you’re over congested, you put in something that is more efficient and has a higher capacity, so you can put a far higher 25 number of people along the same number of corridors. And it’s not rocket science, really, is it? They’ve done it overseas. This is the London Underground, it goes back to the 1860s, the American Metro, Kuala Lumpur, there are dozens of them worldwide. And it’s making a comeback. People overseas, they have looked at it and gone, hey, we 30 keep building more roads and keep building more highways and everything just keeps getting more and more congested and they’ve gone, this solution doesn’t work, let’s go back and try something else. And you see light rail and rail going in all around the world. Go and look on the web and you’ll find hundreds of them worldwide now, 35 however, going on around the world. So, well BRT to the rescue. You know, the cavalry has arrived, BRT. Wait a second, we look at that. BRT is over capacity from day 1. So, from day 1 you’re having to run 29 units along the second spine and 40 that’s BRT and LRT. So, really, what we want to be doing is as the population goes up, increases, we want to shift a whole lot of people. If we want to keep congestion down, we want to shift a whole lot of people from road on to the more efficient one. 45 So, this has no capacity to do that. It’s going to fail, basically. So, it’s not such a wonderful cavalry after all, really. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8043 And how are they going to do that? Well, we’ve got all this extra ones we’ve got to run, where are we going to run them? Well we’ll run them down here, somewhere, down this road and we’ll run them back there. 5 And, well, actually we’ll just have a think about it later, we won’t bother thinking about it now. Some of the details need to be considered in relation and we’ll re-examine it at a later stage. We really want to be thinking about that now, shouldn’t they? 10 So BRT is going to fail. You can argue about how long away it is, it is going to fail, but it is going to fail, basically. You’ve seen the population growth, you’ve seen its overcapacity already, it’s not going to do the job. 15 So, how much capacity do we need and what do we need in place to have that capacity? At the moment, public transport runs at about 15- 20%, which is the bottom one there. And that is predicted to continue at around 15-20%. Not producing much increase. Overall transport in cars expects to increase by about 20% and this is within the next 20 20 something years, this is by 2040. So, if we do simple maths on that. We’ve got the car in one row about 80, public transport about 20, I think if we put all that increase into road, and public transport staying the same, then we have to bump up the road part of it, that’s where we get the congestion. 25 [4.15 pm] We wanted to make a philosophy – you know, a point that we wanted to keep congestion the same, and I’ll put it to you that in actual the fact 30 the congestion at the moment is reasonably high already, I wouldn’t want to have – if I was coming from the Hutt I wouldn’t want it to be too much more – I want to put that 20 percent into public transport, we actually have to double the amount of public transport that we’ve got, so not talking small amounts, talking about big amounts of increase in 35 public transport. At the moment the Golden Miles a hundred percent over capacity, by putting in a BRT we get about an extra 30 percent capacity out of that, and that’s only by actually making people change from one transport 40 form to the other, the only way of doing that is to actually get people, get them off whatever they’re on and go into a bigger bus to run across town, so in actual fact that imposes a time penalty on them, which I come onto in a second. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8044 In fact, if we want maintain current congestion levels and we want to bump up public transport to do it, we actually have to double that public transport as I say. 5 So you can see the Golden Mile down the bottom, we actually need a huge amount of extra public transport if we’re gonna actually maintain – keep congestion in Wellington and keep the environment in Wellington down to a reasonable level. 10 So basically BRTs going to fail – and so if we want to stop it looking like this, we actually have to put in a second public transport spine, and I put it to you that that is inevitable, it’s going to happen. If we don’t do it now it’s going to be inevitable by later this century – and you can argue again about how long it’s going to be before we have to do that, 15 but you can’t, I think argue the fact that we have to do it, this is of course what they did with cars. This is the Ms Thorndon sitting innocently in the foothills above Wellington – not for too long – and in came the bulldozers, ploughed a 20 great way through – so when cars had trouble in the 60s, trying to get from one side of town to the other, they didn’t mess about, they got in and spent millions and millions to make a nice road plus, at the end of that, if once you go through, cars are going to have 16-18 across town mains, including 12 high quality lanes across town. 25 In comparison, public transports going to have two lanes and it’s going to be down the most crowded congested road in the whole of the city. So how is it that they manage to do that, you know, surely this is the 30 process and the Public Transport Spine Study, how is it they managed to get to a situation where our public transport is going to be so under capacity that we can’t actually do what we want to do and they just shift capacity onto the public transport to get it off the roads. 35 Well, basically what they do is they started and they went down the list, but when they got to here, instead of – well they got to here and then they cut out all of them except for those ones down the central spine, they cut out the waterfront completely. 40 Then they got to the end of the town – actually that doesn’t have enough capacity. What they should have done at that stage is then go back and go, “Oh, well you can’t actually flick everything down the central spine” and they should have gone back and reconsidered these options again, but they didn’t do that, they just said, “Oh, we’re gonna 45 plough ahead, just for the central one”, so, a second spine across town is inevitable. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8045 The BRT is going to fail, whatever way you look at it, it’s not going to have the – it’s not going to have the capacity, even it got to public transport, if it just increases as it is, it’s certainly not going to have the 5 capacity to actually take what we want it do and that is to move a substantial part of capacity off the roads and into public transport. So, the second spine, what’s that going to look like and where’s it going to run and how will that affect the Basin because that’s what 10 we’re here about today, what’s going to happen at the Basin? Let’s start with the main public transport, the most people live north of Wellington, most of them – 75 percent of the population is north of Wellington and you can see this is the cordon of – so picking up people 15 as they come into town, you can see the number of people that arrive into Wellington by train, so where do those people go? This is a scattered diagram and you can see that the downtown Morven area of the city is pretty well covered. The southern part of the CBD, 20 nowhere near as good, so the trains actually don’t service the southern part of the CBD very well at all. [4.20 pm] 25 And the surprising thing here is how many people walk and how few people actually take public transport from the Railway Station. The blue is the public transport and the red is people who walk. So, really, a huge gap down here. 30 Now, if we go further afield that is even worse. We see hardly anybody actually catching public transport across to other parts of the city. So how many people would actually, if public transport was better, would want to go across town like that? So, the Regional Council 35 concluded, it said, the majority of future forecasts shows people walking into the CBD travel into the CBD, rather than travelling through. And they said this applies for all modes, including cars. Now, I’m not sure how they got that, because when I come in from the 40 north, I follow a huge great trail of cars through the city and out the other side. So, they did look at that. They said, how many people actually go across the city from one side to the other, and, pointing out here is that 45 from the western, we look to the east and south. But they haven’t actually looked, going from the west up to the north, at all. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8046 And the other thing is that they have looked at people coming from the rest of the north, they haven’t actually looked at the yellow area, they haven’t looked at that at all. So they haven’t looked at how many 5 people actually want to get across to the far side of the CBD. These are the figures. The ones we’re looking at. The total number of trips through is the white, and on the right that’s the green. So people from southern and eastern, 30% of them actually don’t want to go to 10 the CBD, they want to get through to the far side of town. And yet the number that actually use public transport to do that, which is the green one above that, is tiny. So, a lot of people want to get across town, very few people actually use public transport to do that. 15 From the north it looks pretty low. 10% only want to go across town. But remember that cuts out the big central part of the CBD. And the one again to the west, Karori and that, again cuts out the people who want to go through into the north. 20 So, have we got a better way of looking at how many people actually want to go through the city? This is the WTSM. I forget which one this is, I think it is Stage 3 Report. I’ve done the numbers bigger, so you can see. So, the people coming in from the motorway on the north, 5,840 of them and I think that is per hour in the am period, because that’s the 25 figure’s about right. How many of them want to go to town and how many want to go through? Well, 3,410 of them actually go out the far side of the city. If you work that out, that’s 58%. So 58% of the people who come in from 30 the north don’t want to go to the centre of the city, they want to go to the south or out to the east or west. And yet, when we go back to those figures here, only a tiny number of them actually go on public transport. This is pretty remarkable, so 58% 35 of them actually bypass the CBD and exit to the south. So, those figures are pretty remarkable. It’s almost like we’ve got a wall across our public transport. People come in from the north, they hit the wall, and then only those people that are actually stoical enough to walk actually carry on from there. All the other people are in their cars 40 driving along our roads in the congestion. We have to go over this more, really, don’t we? If we’re going to have a city that’s liveable. We actually have to get more people on to public transport as a through process. 45 So, what is that wall, what does it consist of? It’s obviously not actually a wall there. First is mode change. So people come from the north. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8047 They have to get off the carriage that they’re on, walk around to pick up all their things to carry across, wait around for a while and get back on to another carriage, which looks virtually exactly the same, carry on exactly the same direction as they were going before. 5 [4.25 pm] If you imagine a car doing that, you have to go and park your car, get out, carry your things, get the kids out, drive and go across and get into 10 another exactly identical car and drive the rest of the way. Well, I think there’d be an outcry if that happened. And yet, public transport people are expected to do it all the time. How much is that mode change? Well the Australian Transport Council 15 guidelines says that that is valued at about 7 minutes. The WTSM thought it was more about 5.5. In fact international ones put it at 9 minutes. MR BAINES: So what is it they put up? 20 DR SMITH: This is a time penalty for moving CHAIRPERSON: From one transport to another? 25 MR BAINES: If it’s above that, it’s a wall, it’s a barrier. And if it’s less than that then it’s not so much. Is that what you are saying? CHAIRPERSON: This is the wall? 30 DR SMITH: Part of the wall is the time it takes to get to move across transport. And Brett Everett did some work on it and he actually estimated that it’s around 10 minutes. So, these are huge numbers. 5 or 10 minutes. I’m not quite sure what 35 they are estimating this is going to save out here, I think something like 90 seconds. It is just huge. These are not small times you are talking about. And, so, it is not surprising that people are not taking public transport. 40 We need to get rid of this, if we can, really. Ultimately, if you are doing that, you have to run rail. I think at some stage, is this going to go on for ever, in 50 years’ time is everyone coming from the north still going to be waiting 5 or 10 minutes, in 100 years’ time, 150, 200 years’ time. 45 Transport planners at some stage have to bite the bullet and actually get rid of this, in my view. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8048 The other part of the wall is the across town time penalty. So, you just want to get from one side of town to the other, but in actual fact, you’ve got to go along the busiest streets in Wellington at 20 kph to get 5 from one side to the other. How big is that time penalty? The public transport study estimated 10 minutes, then they reckon they’d get it down to 7 with BRT and LRT. In actual fact, if you look at the actuals, this is 2009 Bus Review, 10 10 minutes would be 600 seconds, and you see a basic wall well above that. And really the range is about 12 to 16 minutes across town. Bit better is the northbound, southbound, a bit better. But still more than 10 minutes. 15 And the other thing that is a big one is the variability. So, if you are travelling across town, it might take you 10 minutes, it might take you 20 or 30 minutes, in actual fact. So you have no idea exactly how much time it is going to take you across town. If you are lucky it will be 20 shorter. And so, it is that unreliability in actual fact puts people off. Will BRT be any better? Still going along the same streets, still buses, still at the same lights and the same number pedestrians in the way. I’m not convinced it is going to make a huge amount of difference. What 25 we really need, so that is the southbound one, the same. In actual fact, this is Darryl Coburn and Neil Douglas (ph 3.45) that they presented to you they put forward a proposal for a light rail service, running along the quays. They reckoned they could halve the time easily from 14 minutes down to 7 minutes. 30 So if you add together those two, the mode change penalty and the time across town, you end up with something like 15 minutes, which is huge. That is an order of magnitude above what we are talking about here. 35 So, I think it is inevitable that we-, so, if we’ve got to break down the wall we have to run rail; and if we want to attract people on to public transport we actually have to have a high quality bypass route, rather than running down the main routes. 40 What sort of rail will it be? Will it be-? MS GIRLING: (INDISTINCT 04.45) 45 DR SMITH: Yes. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8049 MS GIRLING: (INDISTINCT 04.52) DR SMITH: Don’t know, what time, how much time have I got – I thought I had half an hour? 5 MS GIRLING: Yes- - - DR SMITH: How long have I been- - - 10 MS GIRLING: (INDISTINCT 04.52)- CHAIRPERSON: No, no, just let me control that, please. MS GIRLING: (INDISTINCT 04.52)- 15 [4.30 pm] DR SMITH: I’ve been quarter of an hour. 20 MS GIRLING: (INDISTINCT 04.52) DR SMITH: It’s half past and I came out at quarter past. MS GIRLING: I was just wondering if - - - 25 DR SMITH: I’ll see how I go through. I am happy to stop any time you want me to. CHAIRPERSON: No, no. 30 MS GIRLING: (INDISTINCT 04.52). CHAIRPERSON: You carry on. 35 DR SMITH: So what sort of rail will we run? Well, there’s this debate about whether it’s light rail or heavy rail, and they like putting things into boxes and, you know, there’s light rail, make a lot of assumptions about that and putting heavy rail, make assumptions – in fact rail doesn’t – and they do the same with medicine if someone’s 40 schizophrenic and they put them in a box and then they make a whole lot of assumptions about them. Rail doesn’t fit into that at all. You can basically say it goes from simple rail up to heavy duty rail. The simple one is lighter, slower, lower voltage, rapid acceleration, 45 lower acceleration, and on the other side, heavy rail, heavier, faster, but there’s a whole range in between. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8050 So this, for example, this is a tongue unit, it’s defined as a heavy rail, but if you look at docklands, this is classified as a light rail, if you look at the specifications they’re virtually identical, there’s the 5 (INDISTINCT 1.18) in America, again specifications are virtually identical and yet ones called heavy and ones called light. They can be run, the lighter ones, the ones that we run through town onto our rail network and they decided they probably couldn’t for a 10 number of reasons, which we haven’t time to go through. The question is can we run the heavier ones through, and I think we probably can. 15 The question is what route will we use? The logical route is waterfront, and this is what I think we should be doing, running trains out of the station, following the waterfront route, station at Queens Wharf, a station at Civic Square, decided to put this out before they decided they were going to put a convention centre there, imagine that convention 20 centre with a high quality rail station right at the base of it going to the airport and out to the north, and around the Courtney Place. So I have been proposing this for a couple of years, it hasn’t had much uptake. 25 If you were going to do that you’ll actually get problems obviously with rail and pedestrians. The ideal is to separate them. We’ve separated them here very effectively. Why don’t we do that elsewhere? Across town, so there’s a number of places where you could in actual 30 fact look across town. And with traffic, you can control things pretty well, as long as you’ve got well controlled intersection, these are on our current line, that’s at Khandallah and that one is at Upper Hutt. So we have crossings on our 35 rail lines anyway, and you can have a lot more sophisticated ones, overseas, Japan, where they have a large number of crossings that are well controlled and trains just run through the middle of town quite readily, and another one overseas. 40 Then Darrel Coburn and Neil Douglas in their Scoop article propose exactly this. So Darrel Coburn is a civil engineer – no, what is he – yes, I think he presented for you, Neil Douglas has got huge experience in public transport, and they’ve suggested exactly this, independent of me, and stations in exactly the same places basically. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8051 So in my view this is going to be inevitably going ahead. They actually put a cost to it, because he’s a transport economist, so he put the cost of that at $93 million for the stage from the railway station through to the Embassy, which is pretty cheap really. A lot cheaper than the ones 5 they’re doing for the LRT. So running across town, and can you imagine if you took those scatter diagrams that we had of people leaving the railway station and put them at each of those stations we would have a pretty good coverage of 10 the whole of Wellington. But are we going to stop there? Are we going to carry on or – yes, we’re going to carry on. Neil Douglas himself thought – this is an email – thought, he hadn’t actually thought much past the Basin, but he admitted that if he only got that far 15 it probably wouldn’t stack up in terms of economics. So we actually want to go further if we can. [4.35 pm] 20 Where do we go? So from Courtenay Place, the obvious one is down Kent and Cambridge Terrace, and where do we go from there, well, public transport spine had this fixation on getting to Newtown, are we going to be able to run a good quality railway down there and still have a place for cars and stuff, I don’t think so. If we got to Newtown, can 25 we run one through there, this is what the Generation Zero want to do, I don’t think so either. Can we run it up Constable Street, I don’t think so. Can we run it to Island Bay, I don’t think so. Really the place you want to get out to is the east where that growth is and out to the airport if we can. 30 Well, the public transport spine said, yes, we can do that, we can run a rail, separate tunnel through to the south of the proposed tunnel, and of course it’s going to cost $380 million. Nobody’s going to pay that, unfortunately. So we’re kind of stuck, we’re stuck on the city side – 35 wherever we put that tunnel it’s going to cost the same, isn’t it, and that cost is going to put off this thing for years and years. So we’re kind of stuck, we have no other options, or do we? They’re running cars and people in the same tunnel, why can’t they run 40 cars and trains in the same tunnel? Well, can’t do that, they say, and they put out a great long thing saying how they can’t mix cars and light rail and road in the same tunnel, and they put out a great big long list of reasons. 45 If we look at this, this is all rail and cars on the same corridor. In other words, car come in, the rail come in, so they go along the same corridor Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8052 and then they separate out at the end. What about separate corridors, which is called a mode segregated tunnel? Well, they said, no, road and rail is always located in separate tunnel bores. They don’t mix in the same tunnel bore. This, as far as I can see, is a deliberate lie because 5 naturally on Google I just put in dual road rail tunnel and it come up with a whole lot of examples. This is Yerba Buena tail in San Francisco, dated back to the 20s, this is in Rio, this is in Sweden, this is the (INDISTINCT 2.24) Tunnel, that 10 one is from America, and then I came across this one, this is (INDISTINCT 2.29) Tunnel, this is an amazing tunnel, if you get a chance go online and Google it. This is cutting edge stuff. If we brought a tunnel through Mt Victoria, a dual tunnel, we’d be going about 700 metres, their tunnel is going 17.6 km, that’s like here to 15 almost Upper Hutt, and they’re not going through rock, they’re going under up to 40 metres of water. How they do that, I have got no idea, it’s a miracle really. How they get rid of the fumes, if you’re halfway into the tunnel how do 20 you ensure safety? They’re doing it. So these guys are cutting edge tunnel builders, state of the art stuff really. So I said well, if they can do it, why can’t we? So I wrote to this guy, Allan How, he’s the head honcho of tunnels for 25 the Rambolt Company, and I said why can’t we do it here, and I wasn’t expecting him to reply actually because he must be pretty busy, there must be a few billion dollar contracts over there, but he did – and I said to him, why don’t we just do this, and instead of having this having things with points, going through a single one and coming out the other 30 side with a single line through a tunnel and I worked out in actual fact the average delay on that would only be about 8-10 seconds because of the way the tracks – I can go through the maths on that if you want. He replied, well, in actual fact there’s no reason why a tunnel can’t 35 have multiple uses, this is his email, and in fact they had just been bidding on a multipurpose one over in Copenhagen, so – and then he sent this through, so he did obviously put a bit of time into it, this is his proposal for a combined traffic tunnel for Wellington. He obviously did it by – he hadn’t seen the area so he can’t say exactly, but he said, well, 40 we could put a tunnel through, it would be a short tunnel, and remember he’s dealing with 17.6 km tunnels, 700 metres is like a walk in the park really, contains several modes, light rail and road, longitudinal ventilation is the obvious, albeit rock. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8053 [4.40 pm] Key issue is the place of safety, so I think I emailed this on to you, and no difference really whether you use road or other modes, the idea is to 5 make sure that you have a safe place for people to go. I said, in the original one, well, we could always run safety tunnels across from one tunnel to the other, and he said, well, it’s such a short tunnel you probably don’t even need to do that to ensure safety. 10 I said well, why don’t we have a single one with road and rail beside, he said well, if you’re going to do it, why don’t you do it properly and have a stack tunnel, have two roads at the bottom and rail at the top, and he gave a number of examples of combined road/rail tunnels around the world, and ones that are stack tunnels, these are mainly car 15 on car tunnels. So in conclusion, you can put actually several things in one tunnel, you just have to separate the flows, you have to have longitudinal ventilation and he was pretty confident that they could put this in this 20 location. These are mine, I suggested a layout either side for entry and exiting, in actual fact you probably won’t be able to do this because there’s a gradient issue here with trains, you’d probably have to have trains at 25 the bottom rather than at the top, but that’s neither here nor there I don’t think. Then we can carry that on down Ruahine Street, short cut and cover tunnel round to a – missed a slide out there – there was going to be a 30 station in the spare land beside the road there by Wellington Road, and along through to a hub at Kilbirnie, on to a small centre station, across the airport and out to the airport. If you did this you’d end up with this sort of picture, you’d end up with fully integrated train rail that went basically all the way through to the airport, and I think all of that route 35 could be made high quality to run the same sort of trains that we run on the main rail network. Well, certainly no one’s told me why it wouldn’t be possible. The rest would be buses. So the thing about this is you can actually 40 keep buses and rail at the same time, and in fact I would suggest that this is – as is bus routes, supplemental routes, so to cover those areas which aren’t – the circles are the areas that are covered by stations, the rest of it’s not covered very well, so you run buses to those, and I’ve actually run buses through the town. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8054 Why did I do that? Well, in actual fact that’s what they do overseas. This is Sydney, they run trains and trains all the way through, and they also have a complete, a very extensive bus network that sits on top of it and runs through the city as well. The same in London, they have – 5 what does it do, well that gives people huge flexibility. So it helps. So if you’re in the north of Sydney and you want to get down, and you’re outside the bus route to get to town, you can get off at a train station if you want to go way across town, and if you’re going to the 10 city you just stay on the bus all the way into town, and we could do exactly the same thing here. Buses, if you’re in Island Bay, head into town, if you’re going out to the Hutt or out to Kapiti, jump on the train, head through. If you’re going to the city, you stay on the bus and you don’t have to suffer a mode transfer or 5-10 minutes. 15 So if we’re going to do that, if we were going to have a dual road rail tunnel we have to have a corridor up Paterson Street. Do we have a corridor? Well, I think that we do actually, and there it is. We’ve got an existing corridor beside St Joseph’s Church between that and the road. 20 Either that narrow corridor, if you did a little bit of surgery on St Joseph’s Church you could make it a bit wider, the distance there of 24 metres or 29 metres. Can we fit things in? Well, yes, we can. A rail corridor 3.5-7 metres, 25 road four lanes at 3.5, 14 metres, a couple of shoulders at 2.4, a medium at 0.6 gives you 24 metres. So this, I think is the transport corridor to the east, and you guys need to protect it in my view, because this is the way we should be running 30 the high quality transport to the east that we are going to need later this century. Don’t need it now, we could probably get by with BRT, but we’re going to need it later this century and the time to put it in place is now. 35 [4.45 pm] CHAIRPERSON: Well, doctor, I think you’ve made your point very well. I think we’ll have to end it at that. 40 DR SMITH: Sure. CHAIRPERSON: Because we’ve got other submitters who wish to - - - DR SMITH: Sure, all right. I did have an alternative, just very quickly, these 45 are things I have done. Basically this is saying that nobody’s actually looked at this, I sent it off to – this is the NZTA, they’ve said, no, we Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8055 haven’t actually looked at a dual tunnel. We sent it off to regional council, the regional council haven’t looked at it either. Nobody’s actually looked at the proposal. 5 You want me to stop? CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we’ve got your point very well and we’ve also read your submission as well. 10 DR SMITH: So I will just very quickly look at the - - - CHAIRPERSON: It’s just that there’s other people waiting. DR SMITH: Sure. 15 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. DR SMITH: All right. So, yes, basically a design is a failed design for the Basin as well, I was going to run through that, why it’s a failed design 20 and I had an alternative design, which I think I’ve sent you an email. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. DR SMITH: No worries. 25 MR PEREIRA: Good afternoon. CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon Mr Pereira. If you could just give your full name and who you represent. 30 MR PEREIRA: Yes, my name is Jonathon Pereira. I am just representing myself. I made a written submission previously online, reference NSB026, it’s pretty short. I have just handed out the papers because I don’t propose, given timing, to go right through everything. 35 Essentially I am opposed to the flyover for a number of reasons, and I acknowledge lots of people have made submissions on the same or similar matters, and some of what I will say has been said before, and no doubt you will have heard most of it, but I felt it important to 40 actually make the submissions in person. Five main points. One was splitting the city at a historical junction, both with the Basin Reserve and the War Memorial nearby and the future construction of Memorial Park. Others have made submissions 45 on this and I support those. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8056 The risk to the Basin Reserve, both as a local park and its status as a test cricket venue. The disincentive to pedestrian traffic in the local area and effect on the main residential part of Mt Victoria. The eye sore and safety - flyovers are structures that generally are ugly and 5 utilitarian and I believe would attract graffiti, tagging and damage. Then the disruption to the local area, as mentioned, to residents, churches, businesses and ultimately to the War Memorial and Memorial Park just alongside it. 10 By way of background, I have lived in Mt Victoria since 1996 and prior to that I had gone to school at St Patrick’s College as a third former in 1977 when it was sited over the road there and was bounded by Tory Street on the western boundary and Cambridge Terrace on the eastern boundary. I was there when New Zealand won the first cricket test 15 against England in 78, we were allowed out to see Sir Richard Hadlee take six wickets in the second innings to take us to that historic win. I also remember I was at the Basin to see Brendon McCallum pass 300 runs to secure a memorable series win by concluding a drawn test at the 20 Basin against India. The school was moved to its current site in Kilbirnie in 1979, and one of the reasons was that there was an intended road extension. This had been in the planning for the better part of 40 years. Given we’ve waited 25 this long it is important that we get it right before embarking on something that we may regret, both as a structure and more importantly for what I believe will be the detrimental effect it will have on our city. I believe this is meant to be a 100 year plus investment. 30 I am a high user of this area, my family drive round the Basin Reserve every day, and usually more than once a day. I walk regularly through the area when taking my children and the dog for a walk or going through to Newtown. You probably see me from time to time if you keep up with the square, because I walk around here regularly. 35 [4.50 pm] The Basin is a favourite area here for many local residents of a number of surrounding suburbs, and passing pedestrians both during the week 40 and on weekends, myself included. This will be impacted by the proposed flyover. I say this because while my submissions are anecdotal they have come from a long time of having been part of this community and previously 45 as a school boy for five years. In addition, I have also travelled to many large and not so large cities where the planning has not always been Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8057 sympathetic to the environment or the local population, not to mention visitors. My view is not anti-progress, I just don’t believe that if there is actually 5 a problem that this is the best way to fix it. On the other hand, I am fully in support of Memorial Park because of what it will add to the city and I am concerned about the impact on the War Memorial and the completed Memorial Park that will be caused by the flyover. It would be akin to building a flyover alongside one of the many memorials in 10 Washington DC, it just should not and would not happen. Splitting the city: The flyover will physically and imposingly split the city. The height and length of the structure cannot but split the area in two. 15 Mr Tim Kelly, who I know has made submissions to this Board, on 25 October 2013 at paragraph 4.31 in response to a submission that the flyover will split the city says, and I quote in part, that as the severance will be largely removed allowing the area to operate more cohesively, 20 that essentially there will be a substantial reduction in the State Highway traffic that pedestrians and cyclists will be required to negotiate, resulting in improvements. I think Mr Kelly ignores the likelihood that some of the pedestrians and 25 cyclists will simply not use the area for reasons others have already expressed. The cycle path on the flyover will be unsafe and subject to wind gusts, a similar issue will exist for pedestrians. The cyclists and pedestrians going through the Basin to and from Adelaide Road may now avoid this area altogether, particularly at night time. 30 The Basin Reserve: Others have spoken of the risk to test cricket, I am a keen, if somewhat average, cricketer but I am a passionate follower of the game. It would be an incredible shame to lose the Basin’s test status. I read that Sir John Anderson has given evidence that the Basin 35 losing its test status remains a risk if the flyover is built. Others, such as Martin Crowe, have also indicated the same. In addition to the concern about its test status, as mentioned I walk my dog and take my children there regularly, and I am not sure that it will 40 remain as peaceful a place to enjoy for many on a daily basis as it is now, particularly if there was a flyover looming with cars and trucks whizzing past directly above with the associated noise and exhaust fumes, let alone the shadowing. 45 Pedestrians and traffic: I am no different to many other local residents who feel that the changes to our local area will now become busier with Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8058 vehicular traffic. I know what happens in Mt Victoria and I expect the same will be true for parts of Mt Cook and Newtown. I travel daily down Pirie Street each morning and there is admittedly some congestion there, though not in a manner that upsets me too much. 5 From memory this mainly arose from the last significant work on the area with the bus pull in at St Mark’s College. Currently in the morning peak times the lanes on Kent Terrace generally appear to me to have been bogged down with the one lane closest to the Basin Reserve only 10 becoming accessible to traffic after going past the bottom of Kent Terrace. I am no traffic expert, but sorting this issue would have gone a long way to fixing the morning traffic. I expect that Pirie Street and Elizabeth Street traffic will increase 15 significantly when Ellice Street is closed off in the event that the flyover proceeds. I don’t share Mr Kelly’s optimism as stated in paragraph 4.37 of his evidence where he says, I consider that any inconvenience experienced 20 by residents in this area arising from the additional travel distance will, at the very least, be partially offset by the improved safety of the journey and reduce delays at the intersections around the Basin. I can only assume that Mr Kelly was limiting this comment to those 25 residents who would also be driving and walking in the area and not to those who simply live there and will have to endure increased traffic noise and pollution. Pedestrians will not feel as safe and in fact may not be as safe when 30 walking around and below the flyover, particularly at night time. No matter how well lit the flyover will be, it will be imposing and intimidating for pedestrians. This is a real fear. My wife has already indicated to me this concern. 35 The footpaths proposed for the flyover have been the subject of other submissions and I share their concern for safety, and the same applies for cyclists. Eye sore and safety: Others have made the point already that the 40 structure itself will be unattractive and imposing. Flyovers by their nature are. There will be the usual safety concerns for the footpaths as mentioned. In this regard the Kelburn Viaduct is an example of the risks I refer to. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8059 [4.55 pm] I tend to share the view that the flyovers are outdated and are being removed in many cities. I have provided copies to the submission with 5 an article from the London Evening Standard, from last year I believe, showing that there is a proposal for a fly under to replace the decaying Hammersmith Flyover. We can learn from others experiences without having to experience the pain for ourselves. 10 Mr Tim Kelly’s statement of evidence on 25 October 2013 states at paragraph 4.32 and 4.33, in response to a submission that flyovers are outdated; he refers to the City to Sea Bridge and the Newlands Overbridge as examples of specific problems being resolved by flyovers. 15 With respect, the City to Sea is a pedestrian walkover and the Newlands Overbridge was added onto the Ngauranga Gorge Road, a pre-existing three lane, 80 km roadway leading onto a motorway. Neither are really analogous to this proposal. 20 The area directly around the flyover will be viewed as unsafe and imposing for pedestrians, and the flyover will shade the surrounding area, particularly the southern end. It is likely to create wind tunnelling in both directions. Anyone who has walked down Kent and Cambridge 25 Terraces knows that these streets are very noisy and windy when there is a strong northerly or southerly wind. It will create noise at a higher level than exists now. I am not sure whether the commission noise and contamination studies covered the 30 broader surrounding areas that are likely to be affected. There will also be the inevitable fear of crime. Disruption to the local area: I simply wish to repeat briefly what I said in my online submission, specifically that there will be a significant 35 disruption to the local area that is obvious. The disruption will be during the construction period with all the issues that have previously been raised by others. There will be ongoing and permanent disruption with the increased pollution from noise, exhaust fumes and at night time, lighting. 40 It is accepted that a level of disruption will occur regardless, even if a different option was chosen. It would be tolerable, I believe, if the outcome was a good one. This is not a good option. 45 My final conclusion and request: If there is a genuine problem then it needs to be addressed, perhaps a tunnel leading to the underpass that Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8060 would be far less intrusive given that this is a 100 year plus plan and a road of national significance. The financial cost is only one issue, and if the financial cost is higher 5 then maybe the price that we locally and nationally have to pay for lowering the social and community costs. We did it for South Canterbury Finance, where the government took the view that the social and economic costs needed rescue. 10 I am fully opposed to the current proposal as it is not clear that it will fix the problem, despite the many expert projections there appear to be as many counter projections by equally qualified experts. Others have made submissions noting that the modelling for 15 projections may be flawed because it does not take sufficient account of the likely reduction in traffic from better public transport and the lessening reliance on cars which will in turn reduce traffic flows in the future, and the previous speaker also alluded to this. 20 In the peer review by Abley, the reviewers comment that options C and D may have been dismissed for reasons outside of the project objectives. There is therefore opinion by experts that some of the alternatives were not fairly considered. 25 I urge you to at least recommend that the alternatives are reconsidered. I obviously favour the tunnel option. A flyover through the heart of the city is not something to be encouraged but something to be avoided if possible. This is particularly 30 the case when there are viable alternatives. Even if everything else was equal, other than the visual impact, it would be worth taking the alternative that had less visual impact, even if that was costlier. The Wellington community and the national community, the War 35 Memorial and Memorial Park will have to endure this for the next 100 years. I therefore ask the Board to reject the proposal and send it back for reconsideration of the alternatives. Thank you for your time. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much Mr Pereira. We do appreciate you coming and I am sorry for the wait that you had today. MR PEREIRA: No, not at all, thank you. 45 CHAIRPERSON: I’ll just see if there are any questions first. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8061 MR PEREIRA: Sorry. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much indeed. We do appreciate you 5 coming. Mr Devenish, is it? MR DEVENISH: Yes, sir. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes. MR DEVENISH: Do I have to say my name or anything? 15 CHAIRPERSON: Well, you could say your Māori introduction first, if you like? Kia ora. [5.00 pm] 20 MR DEVENISH: Thank you, I will. (Māori content 00.00). So good afternoon, my name is Charlie, I live in Hataitai, I am from Christchurch originally, but Wellington is now my home. 25 Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before the Board and to speak in support of my written submission to oppose the construction of a flyover at the Basin Reserve. I don’t need to tell you that this has been a long, and I am assuming a 30 very costly process, as I have seen from watching today it can get pretty slow going. In light of this I don’t intend to take much of your time and I am assuming that you’ve seen my submission and I won’t be referring to that. I’d just like to present a couple of points. 35 So one is that – I’d like to make the suggestion that if the New Zealand Transport Agency continues to design and seek consent to build infrastructure in a piecemeal way, it lacks a strategic approach to transport planning, as is the case with the flyover, then they should begin factoring into the costs of their projects the bill to the country of 40 the extended legal processes that will continue to accompany each of these ill-conceived proposals. This would give the public a truer sense of the expense for building the governments so-called roads of national significance. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8062 We would also all be clearer about just how significant a cost these roads are to our society in a time when families are struggling to make ends meet. 5 Furthermore, with these costs included in the projects analysis of costs and benefits I’m sure we’d see a further weakening of what is an already frail benefit costs ratio for the project. As I have said, I don’t intend to contribute to this ongoing cost of the 10 project, rather I would like to take this opportunity to share with you some examples of why some members of the community oppose the flyover. I certainly don’t want to say that I speak for these people but I do want to point out that participation in this forum is not everyone’s cup of tea. 15 It is important to acknowledge the people that could not or did not want to participate in this process. Some of these people are as opposed of the proposed flyover as those that have presented before this Board, but for whatever reason they have chosen not to present their opposition. 20 In light of this, and if it is permissible, I would like to present the Board with a collection of photographs and artworks from members of the community that illustrate their opposition to the flyover, and I am sorry I don’t have 10 copies for everyone. 25 In particular I would encourage you to read the story here from Johan, who is a nine year old resident of Mt Victoria who is opposed to the flyover. Johan’s story is not only amusing, but is also a stark reminder that the effect of the flyover, should it be built will be severe for local 30 residents now and well into the future. If it is built it will have irreparable damage to what is currently a much loved part of our city. This is Johan’s story and we can leave it, I can give you all of these at the end if you like. 35 CHAIRPERSON: You’ve just got one copy of each? MR DEVENISH: Yes, I am sorry, I do. CHAIRPERSON: That’s all right, that’s fine. 40 MR DEVENISH: I don’t have the money to do coloured photocopies of all of them. CHAIRPERSON: That’s fine. 45 MR DEVENISH: I would also - - - Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8063 CHAIRPERSON: If you don’t mind we’ll take them out and read them later? MR DEVENISH: Of course, yes. I’d also encourage you to notice that the 5 Basin Reserve was the August pin up in the UK Roundabout Appreciation Society’s 2014 calendar, in which they celebrate the Basin Reserve as the Southern Hemisphere’s largest roundabout, as well as, among other things, the site of Sir Richard Hadlee’s 300th test wicket in February 1986. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Foote also gave us that as well. MR DEVENISH: Great, okay. I would also encourage you to read the song written by William, which is his take on the special place that the Basin 15 Reserve holds for cricket fans. Finally, I suggest you take a few moments, if possible, to read through the love notes to the Basin Reserve, these messages were written by members of the community at an event I organised at the Basin Reserve 20 on Valentine’s Day this year that was called Love the Basin. A few love notes stood out for me, in particular this one, which says that I love the Basin because it’s a green oasis when I ride my bicycle through town. 25 Then of course there’s one that says I love the Basin because it’s one of the most beautiful cricket grounds in the world and it deserves to stay that way. Another one says I love the Basin because it’s a historical feature of Wellington, while another says I love the Basin because it’s been a home for cricket since I was a baby. 30 I also remember the gentleman from Christchurch who said that his annual trip to the Basin Reserve to watch test match in full is his, and I quote, one week away from Christchurch to enjoy cricket, sun, relaxing and the view. 35 Another message from another out-of-towner said I love the Basin because on my trips to Wellington I always take the time to get down to the Basin to have a wander around or take photographs of the ground from outside the gates. The Basin holds a special place for me, since I 40 like cricket. [5.05 pm] As I said, I certainly don’t want to suggest that I represent all of these 45 people who cannot be here, but I do urge the Board to acknowledge that, as the quotes I’ve just read out point out, this truly is a place of Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8064 significance for people from across the country. It is, as a love not writer has said, a massive Kiwi icon. I would like to thank you for your time and I hope that in your 5 deliberations you give due consideration to the less tangible effects of this proposal. The social, cultural, environmental impacts. Because if the flyover is built, we will soon forget about the economic costs, we will soon lose any projected savings in travel time, but what we will never forget is that irreparable damage to a site of national, social, 10 cultural and historical significance. (MĀORI CONTENT 1.07) CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, thank you very much indeed for your presentation and for bringing along those appendices, we will call them. 15 MR DEVENISH: You are welcome, there’s a bunch more. CHAIRPERSON: It reflects what a number of other submitters have also told us, namely that their representation is not just on behalf of themselves, 20 but on behalf of many others who support what they have to say. So, thank you for that. MR DEVENISH: Can I leave this with the staff? Thank you very much for your time. 25 CHAIRPERSON: Now, who have we got? MS PANNETT: I’m Councillor Iona Pannett. I’m here in three capacities tonight. One is the local Councillor for this area, second is a co-founder 30 of Save the Basin, and three, as a parent and long term resident … CHAIRPERSON: Well, welcome along, Councillor Pannett. MS PANNETT: Thank you, and I do appreciate your time. You have had a 35 very arduous task. CHAIRPERSON: And I do apologise for keeping you waiting for so long. MS PANNETT: Not at all, not at all. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Like the others. MS PANNETT: So, as I was walking here today, it caused me some pain, because it’s actually been 15 years since the green light was given to 45 the inner city bypass. It’s been seven years since I knocked on the door of the Judge that gave that approval, who warmly congratulated me on Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8065 taking a proactive stance on climate change and, yet, we are still here, hearing the same arguments. The real only difference is that the road has moved and it is an elevated structure, rather than an at grade structure, as with the bypass. 5 But what has changed is that there is now a wide acceptance of the reality of climate change and the negative impacts on community and public transport systems of building such roads. 10 So, it should be obvious I oppose this application and ask that it be declined. I’m not going to repeat the many excellent arguments why people oppose it. You’ve already heard much about that. So, what I want to 15 focus on today is the history of opposition to this project. The role of the City Council, because there has been much said about the City Council, and I think it would be useful to hear from someone who has been very active in this issue, and thirdly, just to look at how I do not believe this project is consistent with the policies and projects that, as a 20 Council, we have passed. I am quite a senior Councillor, I am the Chair of the Council’s Environment Committee and the Building’s Portfolio Leader. I have some expertise, but I do want to make it very clear that I am not only 25 speaking in my capacity as a Ward Councillor, given that I oppose the Council’s decision. Although, in saying that, I will get in to the stance of the Council is, of course, a little bit more complex. As you know, now after many months, the flyover was first analysed 30 and discussed in 2001. It was 2006 when it first made its formal entre into the public domain. This document here, the Regional Land Transport Strategy, where it is definitely called a flyover, and was only a modest $27 million. 35 I was one of the first people to raise the alarm and we mobilised people to lobby the Regional Council. 1,300 submissions were received on that document. 1,200 of those opposed the roading projects. So, I just want to be clear, from the moment it has been mooted there 40 has been strong and organised opposition. I understand that you don’t come from Wellington, so to explain that transport is the most contentious issue in the city. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8066 [5.10 pm] We agree on many things. We agree on the need to take action on climate change, but we can’t agree on how we manage our transport 5 system. And every time there is a vote there will be a split vote. There was a split vote on the inner city bypass and there were two split votes on the flyover. And so, in a sense, the Inner City Bypass was the predecessor. There 10 was long and intense campaigning. I was one of the leaders in that campaign. We spent many years trying to oppose it, but, obviously, were not successful. We mobilised again in 2008 when the Ngauranga to Airport corridor 15 plan was suggested. It has some merits in it. I fully acknowledge that. But, from my point of view, it was a huge road building project. So many groups got together, Cycle Aware, Living Streets, the Green Party, to try and stop these further road building projects. There were over 3,000 submissions. But they were again ignored, because they 20 were seen as being form submissions and were not legitimate public opinion. I co-founded Save the Basin with Kent Dunstan in 2009 and we quickly attracted over 2,000 friends on Facebook. I had my first baby that year, 25 so it wasn’t the most auspicious time to launch, but we were the voice and still are the voice of those who are opposed to the flyover. Now, the Council’s support for the flyover. I just want to make sure that the Board is absolutely clear on this point, because, when I read the 30 cross examination of one of our officers, it seemed to me that he was advising the Board that the Council had changed its views. That is not correct, so I just want to go through that a little bit. The Council, of course, has many roles in this project, although I would 35 not argue that we have been a partner. NZTA has worked with us where it is convenient, but not as a full partner. The Council has had a number of discussions on this project, but its position is still the same. The wording exactly is, note that the 40 Council’s preference is to tunnel State Highway traffic away from Buckle Street to the approach of the Mt Victoria tunnel in order to preserve the integrity and heritage of the National War Memorial, the Basin Reserve and Government House. 45 Now, when that later came up for debate in August, it was acknowledged that that was still the position, but that that was not the Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8067 application on the table. It is not correct to say at all that the Council has changed its position. The position is to tunnel, not to support this particular project. 5 It is slightly unfortunate that if the debates around the flyover had taken place a year later, we would have been in quite a different position. In 2013, there was quite a big sea change on the Council. A number of people with strong environmental credentials were elected and some who were more pro-roading left for various reasons. The vote, and I 10 accept that it was a majority vote and it was a win, but it’s not a safe win, highly contentious, and you can pretty much guarantee that half the city might congratulate you if you grant consent, but half will be disappointed. 15 So, the Council has been quite consistent, while it’s gone through a number of processes, that the idea has been to support a tunnel. The relationship between the NZTA and the Council has been rather complex and quite difficult. I will soon discuss the MoU that was 20 signed on the 28th March, which is deeply problematic and which I wish to argue should be disregarded. One of the lawyers talked about a gun being held to the Council’s head on the 19th December 2012. I think that’s probably a bit of an exaggeration, but I don’t think it is too strong to say that there have been some mild threats, politely put, but 25 mild threats and some bullying, and even yesterday, the NZTA came along to a hearing of the Committee that I Chair, to argue that we should make changes to a proposed Bill around the Town Belt to make it easier to negotiate land for their next roading project, very much with the idea that, if you don’t, we’re going to give you a very poor quality 30 land swap under the PWA. [5.15 pm] And it has been difficult. Sometimes it has been more positive and, 35 obviously, we work together on public transport and cycling projects. But it has been difficult and, I think, while this, obviously, this is not the place to resolve those issues, I did want to highlight that. As you will have heard extensively, the support for the Ngauranga to 40 Airport corridor plan did not actually include specific reference to a flyover. Now I opposed it, because I knew that’s really what the intent was. But it very clearly does not say a flyover. And so, it talks about grade separation, which, of course, can be achieved in a number of ways. 45 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8068 On the 19th December, this is where some interesting politics happened. We received a letter from the Chief Executive of NZTA saying, basically, that they would pull money for projects around the city, roading and public transport, if we went ahead with our move to look at 5 alternatives to the flyover. Now, I’m not frightened of the NZTA, but nevertheless, it was a little bit unpleasant and I think there are some questions to ask about the appropriateness of public servants writing letters to democratically 10 elected officials. It seems to me, it is quite interesting that the Board, I don’t want to labour the point, but the Board spent quite a lot of time and lawyers on cross examining Mr Swainson on whether he had received the letter. 15 Now, I have a great deal of respect for Mr Swainson and I think he is a man of high principle, but I do find it extraordinary that any Council official would not have known about that letter. That night, I just went back and looked at the Minutes, we had two contentious debates on the table. The debate, finally, on the flyover happened at 10 o’clock at 20 night and finished past eleven. But we actually had access to that letter much earlier in the day and the denial that that letter wasn’t seen, I think, is interesting. The officials, while they are supposed to remain politically neutral, must understand what politics are. 25 That letter did not have its due effect. We decided to go ahead and look at the alternatives. And I am very glad we had done that and I wish to thank the Board for commissioning some further work into that. And I take great heart from Paul Durdin’s work which does say that the consideration of alternatives, obviously, a key test under the RMA was 30 not done to the extent that it should have been. And I would, obviously, encourage you strongly to spend quite a lot of time on that because we only had $50,000 and a few months to look at those alternatives, but nevertheless, someone backed us up that that was necessary. 35 We had two debates, in March and August, on the flyover. Again, they were both won on the casting vote of the Transport Portfolio Leader. So, I accept, again, a majority view, but only by one vote. By one vote. And I think it is interesting that the Transport Agency haven’t been able to convince the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor of the rightness of 40 their cause. The leaders of our city do not agree with this project. And, as I said before, it is absolutely not true that we changed our view. The only acceptance in August was to say, look, the application is not for a tunnel, it is for a flyover, and we are going to submit on that point. 45 But we have not changed our mind on the tunnel. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8069 The signing of the MoU in March 2013. I wish to raise this and discuss this, because it was quite shocking. In fact, the only reason I found out about it was through the diligence of Save the Basin. The Mayor also did not know. 5 The Chief Executive, under our old delegations, did have authority to sign this MoU. We have now changed those rules, so that they must alert the Mayor. But, what the Chief Executive did and, I believe, was not correct and I’m sure I don’t wish to cast any aspersions on his 10 character, but he actually made a commitment to the Northern Gateway Building and he was not able to do that. That went well beyond his powers. If you look at the recommendations from the March meeting where we debated the flyover, we had a number of issues that we thought needed to be looked at in terms of mitigation, but that was not 15 there. And yet, we have a rather extraordinary document, basically saying that the Chief Executive has the full authority to represent and bind their respective organisations. That is not correct. [5.20 pm] 20 That this MoU was signed in the week that our CEO was departing from the organisation, that only one Councillor knew and that Councillor is now a former Councillor, but was also a member of the Basin Reserve Trust. But the issue of conflict of interest, I think, does 25 need to be there. Because, while it might have benefited the Basin Reserve Trust, from a city perspective that was a more complex question. The mitigation was only seen in terms of the building, even though, we 30 had just, literally days before, agreed that the mitigation needed to cover quite a wide variety of areas. The argument that we would work together so the bridge could be built and mitigation would be no impediment seems to be quite 35 extraordinary on such a contentious and political issue. There was agreement to get Resource Consent for the building, agreement to provide expert evidence, in spite of the fact, of course, as you know far better than me, expert witnesses must provide assistance 40 to the Court, not to act as an advocate for a party. I am still quite shocked that that was done, so I ask two things: one, that it does not form part of any decision to grant or decline consent; and secondly, it does raise questions around some of the conduct of the 45 parties, because, of course, this was also signed by the Transport Agency without the Mayor’s knowledge. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8070 Now, in November 2013, of course, there is another MoU. Confidential again. Much tightened up. And I think, clearly, someone had realised that the first one had many problems with it. Again the mitigation work 5 is seen in very narrow terms. Construction of a new structure, relocation of the CS Dempster Gates. Even if you accepted that this project was valid, there are many things that you could do to mitigate it and those are only two or three things. 10 I now want to go on to whether this application is consistent with relevant Council plans, which I do have some expertise in. The difficulty for you, I think, is that some of the thinking in our documentation is confused and sometimes contradictory. Now, that is 15 perhaps not surprising in a political process, where you have to make many compromises. But as you’ve heard on a number of occasions, we have made enormous commitments to being a compact city, to having a growth spine, to being an eco-city, to encourage dense urban development, people living in the CBD and yet this does not support 20 that. I’ve raised these inconsistencies, but haven’t got very far. Just to help you, we actually have no formal Council policy architecture. While we do have seven strategies covering the various areas, you can’t say one policy is more important than the other. So, 25 when you look at the Wellington 2040 or the Climate Change Action Plan, it is not actually clear which document has right of first consideration. I do not believe in any way that this project is consistent with the 30 walking and cycling plans of 2008 … MR BAINES: Excuse me, can I ask you something? You say, it is not clear whether some are, are you actually saying that the Council hasn’t expressed the priority of one over another? 35 MS PANNETT: Basically. So, it’s a bit more complicated than that. So, we have got the Wellington 2040 document, which a kind of a very broad strategy, which doesn’t actually have much content in it. We have seven strategy areas, arts and culture, environment. And then we have a 40 whole lot of policies and action plans. But there is nothing stipulated really in our documentation which says that you must take that document and then that document and then that document. So, this is an issue that we have raised and we need to get on to, but it has sort of slipped down the list of priorities. But I think that is actually quite 45 important. Because, when you come to weigh up, well is Wellington Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8071 2040 more important than the Climate Change Action Plan, it is quite tricky. So the Walking and Cycling Plans are developed in 2008, very good 5 documents, engaging in the question of major roading projects. And when you look at the strategic intent, where walking is considered to be safe and convenient, I do not see how that is compatible with a large concrete structure and what is already a very hostile environment. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Are all of these documents established pursuant to the District Plan or independently? MS PANNETT: Yes. Really they should actually marry up. 15 [5.25 pm] CHAIRPERSON: They are not actually resource management documents, are they? 20 MS PANNETT: No. No. They’re policies. But, as I understand it through the RMA process, it is still relevant to consider them. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well they are other matters we can take into account. 25 MS PANNETT: So, I’m not going to labour them. I know you need to get home. Wellington 2040 is interesting, because it is supposed to be the City’s document. One of the key aims, of course, is that we aim to be an eco- 30 city. The central focus is on climate change, resource scarcity and resilience. Now, while it emphases the need to be connected, there is no strong advocacy for roading projects at all and, of course, to have done so would have been quite contradictory, given we know the impact of road transport on the environment. 35 The Long Term Plan, I do want to read this out to you, page 109. Our roads are near capacity at peak times and building new roads isn’t a viable or desirable option, so, other ways have to be found to maintain the efficiency of the roading system. 40 So, the Long Term Plan, this is our big budget every three years, has made that statement, which is quite interesting. While it might not have statutory force, I think it is still relevant. 45 The Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Plan, as I’ve talked about, doesn’t actually support a flyover literally and has some curious statements Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8072 about oil prices, which I would argue will have a dramatic impact on our transport choice over the next 20 to 30 years. The Public Transport Spine Study, and look you’ve already heard a 5 great deal about that and I would like to support some of the questioning by Mr Bennion, who raised the issues around whether BIT was actually going to give many benefits. And I know the Board has been concerned about this. 10 The work and analysis by Arup and Opus, which basically shows that, because of the RoNS, public transport use is going to decline. And, as someone who has spent my life, and does this professionally, working to increase public transport use, I almost beg you not to make a decision which will decrease the use of public transport. It is so 15 important, we have worked so hard. And to have this undermined by Government policy is very disappointing. The cross examination of Mr Swainson didn’t establish any clear guidance about whether this particular road might actually lead to a 20 decrease in public transport, but I guess you’ve got to see the RoNS as one whole project, so you can’t just sort of isolate bits. But, nevertheless, even a small time savings of one to two minutes from Miramar, Seatoun, the airport and Kilbirnie might have an impact. 25 So I think this has got to be considered quite deeply. I think the previous submitter talking about that the system BRT will be at capacity on the day it opens, is a pertinent one. Nearly there. 30 Climate Change Action Plan. This is quite extraordinary. The emissions from the Land Transport Sector in Wellington 34.8%. So, over a third. So, this is a serious problem for us. We know conclusively that the provision of more and more space for private vehicles increases 35 emissions and yet we are faced with these RoNS. Action Area Three, you will have noticed, actually includes support for the flyover, which I think is extraordinary. It is inconsistent and I have raised that many, many times. It is not consistent because, if this is 40 built, more roads will be built and we are going to see more people driving, rather than using public transport. Remember our ambitions to reduce our emissions, extremely ambitious, by 2050 we want an 80% reduction. To do that we need 45 more than BRT, we need a massive investment in public transport, walking and cycling, and working from home. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8073 I now just want to finish off with a slightly personal reflection. I have been fortunate to live in Mt Victoria for the last ten years. This is where I raise my children, where their preschool is. And, in my job, part of 5 my role is to make sure that children in our area are safe, and other pedestrians. So, I am engaged with the schools, the kindergarten and the crèche about looking at safety around the school. And yet this project directly undermines some of that work. Because what we often find with big roading projects is we get rat running, and that is already 10 happening in Mt Victoria. And I would not like to see any more of that happening. [5.30 pm] 15 The Basin, of course, is a deeply hostile area and I have had personal experience of that when my son was going to St Mark’s for a term while Clyde Quay Kindergarten was being strengthened. It is an appalling area to take a young child. It is not safe. And, while NZTA might be trying to make the area more attractive through a variety of 20 means, it is fundamentally not a pedestrian and cycling area. Fast moving traffic, large concrete structure, this is not the kind of environment that you need to make sure that children can actually walk and bike. And while in Mt Victoria, we choose to live in a suburb that is right next to the CBD, our kid have the same right as any other kid in 25 any other suburb in Wellington. The Council is currently considering whether we have a 30 k speed limit in the CBD, which I strongly support. And we have actually talked at other times about putting some suburban speed limits around 30 40 k, and I will be advocating for that. And yet, again, we have these projects which undermine our attempt to make our streets much safer. The crossing between Kent and Cambridge Terraces is extremely hostile and it will only be made worse as people see that there are more 35 roading options. A child should be able to cross that road safely and I don’t have that confidence at the moment. So, finally, thank you very much for your time. I am not going to ask for any conditions, because I think you will have gathered that I just 40 find this project so repugnant that I don’t think it can be mitigated. But I will support my community. The one page I have given you. I felt you had too much paper, so I gave you one page. There are some additional conditions which they have suggested and I would just urge 45 you to have a look at them and see … Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8074 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we already have this. MS PANNETT: Okay, so I just wanted to make sure that … 5 CHAIRPERSON: It is with our Planner at the moment. MS PANNETT: Excellent. CHAIRPERSON: When I say our Planner, the Board’s Consultant Planner. 10 MS PANNETT: And I just want to ask you, in a most respectful way, to not inadvertently undermine the good work that we are doing in this city. We are working so, so hard. We have worked really, really hard for many, many years and we cannot make this decision in a vacuum of the 15 understanding of the devastating impacts of climate change. It is our job, as decision makers, as adults, to protect our children’s future. They will be alive when the full impact of climate change hit and we have not guarded their interest properly. And I hope that this is 20 the beginning of where we will do so. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, thank you very much, Councillor. Thank you for 25 taking of your time to come here. We know you are a busy person and it’s good to get it from your perspective as an individual and as a Councillor. MS PANNETT: Thank you. 30 MR COLLINS: The only thing I was going to ask you is, I’m just trying to find my copy of the Review of Options A, X and F, that was done by the City Council and at a very late stage. After that meeting you mentioned when the (INDISTINCT 3.37) business was on you 35 resolved to ask officers, gave them $50,000, and to do a very quick look at it. At the end of that report there is a statement that the Council is hoping in the longer term, I think it said in the medium to longer term, that Vivian Street would be returned to a local road. Do you recall that, no? 40 MS PANNETT: I am very aware of that and I agree with Save the Basin, what does that actually mean? If it is returned to a local road, does that mean we are going to get another flyover? I’m extremely concerned about that. 45 MR COLLINS: I am just wondering what it meant. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8075 MS PANNETT: That’s exactly what it means. And that’s what the concern is. So, no, I wouldn’t support that. Well, of course, I would argue for as much traffic calming as possible and provision of public transport, but, 5 no, I would be very concerned if that was returned to a local road. MR COLLINS: Is the issue of demand reduction still alive. I know the Council has changed the policy about parking for new commercial developments, but we’ve been told that one of the issues is the 10 availability of parking, or really all day parking, is one of the reasons that makes it possible for people to drive into the city and park all day and drive out again at the peak hours. Is that still a live issue that the Council is looking at, to try and reduce that supply? 15 [5.35 pm] MS PANNETT: Well, absolutely, and that’s business as usual. Now, of course, you’ll be aware that as a result of the earthquakes last year, we actually lost a lot of capacity in a couple of parking buildings. And I 20 note that, when Transmission Gully is built, the projection is that we are going to need thousands more car parks. Now, that is just a disaster. What we should be doing is pricing people, making it expensive to come in by car, but making it cheap to come in by bus or rail. And 25 some of that, I mean, you might even look at a congestion charge for that, of course, which is national legislation. But, absolutely, we are always looking at demand management. The problem is, though, it’s very difficult to do the demand management if 30 you are at the same time promoting the construction of large scale roads. MR COLLINS: But this is a live issue at Council, from the top? 35 MS PANNETT: Absolutely. Yes, right from the top. MR COLLINS: You are still trying to keep considering those options? MS PANNETT: Yep. 40 MR COLLINS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Councillor. 45 MS PANNETT: Thank you very much. Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14 Page 8076 CHAIRPERSON: And we’ll adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9.30. MATTER ADJOURNED AT 5.36 PM UNTIL THURSDAY, 29 MAY 2014 Basin Reserve, Wellington 28.05.14