TR5 RECREATION REVIEW RECREATION REVIEW: EFFECTS ASSESSMENT AND FUTURE RECREATION VALUES
Quality Assurance
Prepared by Rob Greenaway & Associates (R&R Consultancy (NZ) Ltd)
Revision History:
Revision Author Approved for Issue Name Signature Date
Rob Rob Final 19 September 2020 Greenaway Greenaway
Quality Information Document Title: Te Ara Tupua - The Ngā Ūranga To Pito-One Path - Recreation Review: Effects Assessment and Future Recreation Values
Version: Final
Date: 19 September 2020
Prepared by: Rob Greenaway
Reviewed by: Susan Rawles and Simon Kennett (Waka Kotahi), Max Pocock (Beca) and Buddle Findlay.
Disclaimer This report (‘Report’) has been prepared by Rob Greenaway & Associates (R&R Consulting (NZ) Ltd) exclusively for Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (‘Client’) in relation to the Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One project. R&R Consulting (NZ) Ltd accepts no liability whatsoever for any reliance on or use of this Report, in whole or in part, for any use or purpose other than the purpose for which it was prepared or any use or reliance by any third party.
Executive summary
The Ngā Ūranga ki Pito-One Shared Path Project (the Project) is part of the Te Ara Tupua Programme which aims to deliver a shared path between Melling and the Wellington CBD. This Project involves construction of a shared path from the Ngā Ūranga interchange to just south of the Pito-One Railway Station. The shared path will cater for active modes of transport including walking and cycling, and will provide an alternative for commuters to the deficient State Highway 2 (SH2) cycle path located adjacent to the southbound SH2 carriageway. The primary purpose is not to establish a recreation setting between Ngā Ūranga and Pito-One, or to prioritise recreation. However, recreational benefits will accrue nonetheless, and the Project design aims to maximise dual use within its unavoidable constraints. This assessment considers how the Project maximises benefits to commuters, how recreational value can also be gained as a secondary outcome, and how adverse effects on existing recreation opportunities can be managed.
This report is presented in two parts. The first assesses the effects of the Project on existing recreation opportunities. The second reviews the recreation benefits of the Project. This report has been prepared in parallel with several other complementary assessments, particularly the Technical Report 1: Strategic Transport Assessment, Technical Report 2: Shared Path Demand Assessment and Design Review, and Technical Report 3: Integrated Transport Assessment.
Effects on existing recreation
The study area is divided into three sections: . Sector 1. Ngā Ūranga Interchange and Bridge Crossing.
. Sector 2. Ngā Ūranga to Honiana Te Puni Reserve - Path and Ūranga.
. Sector 3. Honiana Te Puni Reserve and the Pito-One to Melling (P2M) Connection.
Sectors 1 and 2 have limited existing recreation value due to a lack of public access to the coast and seaward of the railway, and the poor state of the existing cycle path on SH2. The existing cycle path will not be closed as part of the Project. Effects in these sectors relate to encroachment into the coastal marine environment (CMA) with the potential to affect inshore fishing, snorkelling and boating activities. For the latter, this includes rowing, waka ama, kayaking and other small boat activity. However, due to inshore hazards, none of these activities normally occur sufficiently close to the shore to be affected by the Project and there will be no change to the scale of local boating opportunity. The new shared path will provide more opportunity to view and administer small boat races (rowing, waka ama and other paddling sports) which typically begin at Honiana Te Puni Reserve (the Reserve) and follow the coast south adjacent to the proposed shared path. Fishing and snorkelling are currently infrequent uses of the setting due to poor access and the availability of superior alternatives. The marine component of the ecology assessment indicates the retention of most of the rocky habitat preferred by fish species and the development of new habitat to address losses. Enhanced access will benefit both activities. Effects in Sector 3 result mainly from the temporary occupation of 34% percent of Honiana Te Puni Reserve for the Northern Construction Yard (and just over 7.5% of all public land owned by either Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o te Ika (Taranaki Whānui) or Hutt City Council along the Pito-One foreshore, not including beach areas). Access along the foreshore adjacent to the Northern Construction Yard will remain in place, but there will be no public access to the existing boat launching site across the beach adjacent to the existing Wellington Water Ski Club clubroom, and limited access for club events. This clubroom and the nearby Wellington Rowing Association building are within the proposed Northern Construction Yard and are proposed to be permanently replaced,
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 3
prior to construction beginning, with a new integrated clubs building in the eastern corner of Honiana Te Puni Reserve.
Remaining temporary effects include the loss of access to the existing public beach ramp for the three-year construction period. Small craft, such as kayaks and rowing skiffs, will be able to be launched immediately east of the Reserve and adjacent to the new integrated clubs building. This beach site is, however, unsuitable for launching large powered craft such as waterski boats, and for the construction period these will need to be launched from existing concrete ramps at Sladden Park, Seaview or Lowry Bay (most likely Seaview). The existing beach ramp at Honiana Te Puni Reserve is unsuitable for 2WD cars with boat trailers (the water ski club currently relies on a tractor) and the temporary effects on public boat launching will be minor and mostly related to small ‘tinnies’ (aluminium dinghies with small outboards) fishing locally, and jet skis. There is adequate capacity at alternative boat ramps to cope with any displaced boat launching activity. Construction activity will also result in temporary occupation of a small portion of the Pito-One foreshore (7.5%), including a popular dog walking area (a temporary loss of access to 7% of the dog exercise space on the Pito-One foreshore and 13% of space west of the Pito-One wharf). There is adequate capacity along the foreshore for displaced activities. Post-construction, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) has committed to rehabilitating the Reserve. Final details in terms of the layout of the Reserve will be confirmed through active engagement between Hutt City Council, Taranaki Whānui, and Waka Kotahi, during the construction period. A visioning exercise with these parties has established the likely main components of the rehabilitated Reserve. Boat launching access to the existing beach ramp will be defined by future reserve management planning exercises beyond the scope of this Project, but is anticipated to include, at least, continued access for the existing watersports clubs. However, the ultimate design, development and maintenance of Honiana Te Puni Reserve is controlled by Taranaki Whānui and the Hutt City Council in accordance with Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Legislation and the Reserves Act 1977, and cannot (and should not) be defined by consent conditions associated with the Project, beyond those which form part of the application.
The assessment indicates that the Project, and its construction process, is fully supportive of the objectives of the NZCPS, RCP and PNRP, and the City of Lower Hutt and Wellington City District Plans, as they relate to recreation and coastal access objectives – considering both the scale of temporary effects during construction, the benefits of improved coastal access provided by Te Ara Tupua, and the rehabilitation of Honiana Te Puni Reserve as agreed with Taranaki Whānui and the Hutt City Council.
Future recreation value
The second part of this report:
. Reviews the plans, strategies and motivations of the three relevant councils and the Great Harbour Way Trust for developing recreation and active transport networks in the Project area. This indicates the strategic nature of the Project and the expectation that it will contribute to a regional network of recreation and tourism access opportunities. It is important to recognise the ongoing commitment by these agencies – and the advocacy groups represented in the consultation for this and preceding scoping reports for the Project – in creating a comprehensive trails complex in the Wellington Region, and the degree to which Te Ara Tupua represents a critical link.
. Provides a review of international and domestic literature which quantifies and provides context for the benefits of physical activity, and active transport in particular. There is strong international agreement that physical activity is fundamental to physical and mental wellbeing, and that there are significant economic gains to be made from physical activity
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 4
uptake. There are numerous examples of where the cost and benefits of active transport developments have been quantified and shown to be substantially positive.
. Considers the degree to which recreation and tourism activity on the shared path will complement the demand assessment in Technical Report 2, and concludes that this assessment is likely to be conservative in its assessment of the likely use of the shared path, noting that the scale of tourism update is difficult to predict, and similarly the scale of benefit from tourism considering the shared path’s connection to an existing national cycle trail. However, the ability to further develop the Great Harbour Way, and to create an attraction in its own right, will open new tourism product for the Wellington region.
The Project will result in significant increases in recreation participation in the study area, and the net outcome for recreation in general terms will be manifestly positive. Benefits from physical activity uptake have been widely endorsed by substantial international research, and quantified at an economic level. A lack of physical activity has been shown to be third to smoking and diet as modifiable risk factors in poor health, accounting for 9.5% of all deaths per year in New Zealand in the early 2010s. Physical activity helps protect against heart disease, stroke, type two diabetes, certain cancers, osteoporosis and depression. It is also important for maintaining a healthy weight and preventing and reducing obesity. Walking, cycling and running are some of the most important forms of physical activity in New Zealand.
Built environments designed to allow and encourage physical activity have been shown to substantially increase activity levels. Without a safe and attractive setting for recreation, the benefits of physical activity uptake are unlikely to accrue, and their wide availability is an important equity issue.
This assessment also finds that the uptake projections used in the Technical Report 2 are likely to be conservative considering potential additional activity on the path from weekday recreational cycling and domestic and international tourism. For the health benefits value assessment described in Technical Report 1, medium per-kilometre figures for the benefits of active transport modes for cycling and walking were used. These are 2008 figures and so present a conservative basis for a 2020 calculation.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 5
Contents
Executive summary ...... 3 Effects on existing recreation ...... 3 Future recreation value ...... 4
1. Introduction ...... 10 1.1. Project Description ...... 11 1.2. Author details ...... 13 1.2.1. Code of Conduct ...... 13
2. Study area and scope ...... 15 2.1. Assessment methodology ...... 16
3. Statutory and planning framework ...... 17 3.1. Statutory documents ...... 17 3.1.1. NZ Coastal Policy Statement 2010 ...... 17 3.1.2. Conservation Management Strategy ...... 18 3.1.3. Greater Wellington Regional Council ...... 18 3.1.4. Wellington City Council ...... 21 3.1.5. Hutt City Council...... 22
4. Description of existing environment ...... 24 4.1. Sector 1: Connection with the Ngā Ūranga interchange and the bridge crossing the Hutt Valley Railway line ...... 24 4.2. Sector 2: Path, reclamation and structures between Ngā Ūranga and Honiana Te Puni Reserve ...... 25 4.3. Sector 3: Path works adjacent to Honiana Te Puni Reserve and connections to P2M and Pito-One Esplanade ...... 28 4.3.1. Honiana Te Puni Reserve status ...... 28 4.3.2. Reserve uses ...... 30
5. Assessment of effects...... 38 5.1. Effects of the proposal on Honiana Te Puni Reserve ...... 40 5.1.1. Conclusion - Honiana Te Puni Reserve ...... 42 5.2. Coastal setting adjacent the Project alignment (sectors 1 – 3) ...... 43 5.2.1. Conclusion – Coastal setting ...... 43
6. Scope of values review ...... 45
7. Plans and strategies ...... 46 7.1.1. Great Harbour Way/Te Aranui o Pōneke ...... 46 7.1.2. Wellington City Council ...... 47 7.1.3. Hutt City Council...... 51 7.1.4. Wellington Regional Trails for the Future ...... 52 7.2. Summary ...... 53
8. Benefits review ...... 54 8.1. Benefits of physical activity ...... 54 8.2. Negative effects of activity ...... 58
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 6
8.3. Activity Friendly Environments and physical activity ...... 59 8.4. Regional recreation and tourism ...... 60 8.5. Projected uptake and economic benefits of Te Ara Tupua ...... 62 8.6. Summary ...... 63
9. Summary and conclusion ...... 64 9.1. Effects on existing recreation activities ...... 64 9.2. Recreation and related benefits of Te Ara Tupua ...... 65
10. References ...... 66
Appendix 1: User Group Workshop Summary ...... 69
Appendix 2: Telephone Interview Summary ...... 73
Appendix 3: Pito-One Beach West dog exercise area ...... 80
Appendix 4: Regional and local recreation participation summary ...... 81 General recreation participation levels ...... 81 Marine recreation activity distribution ...... 83 Shellfish gathering and swimming ...... 83 Fishing and diving ...... 85 Boating and sailing ...... 87 Surfing...... 88
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 7
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project sectors ...... 12 Figure 2: Wellington City District Plan Map 22 detail, Ngā Ūranga intersection and north ...... 21 Figure 3: Hutt District Plan Special Recreation Activity Area 1 – Pito-One Foreshore (teal) ...... 23 Figure 4: Ngā Ūranga ...... 24 Figure 5: Barrier arm at the southern end of Honiana Te Puni Reserve ...... 25 Figure 6: SH2 cycleway wire rope barrier section, Horokiwi. Google Earth image, May 2019 ...... 26 Figure 7: SH2 cycleway on-road section 500m south of The Esplanade. Google Earth, May 2019 ...... 26 Figure 8: SH2 cycleway on-road section 300m south of The Esplanade. Laura Skilton, Nov 2019 ...... 26 Figure 9: Survey result for State Highway 2 cycling use, the Transport Agency (2012b) ...... 27 Figure 10: Honiana Te Puni Reserve (LINZ 2016/17 aerial) ...... 29 Figure 11: Land status at Honiana Te Puni Reserve ...... 29 Figure 12: Honiana Te Puni Reserve features ...... 30 Figure 13: Rowing event at Honiana Te Puni. Google Earth image, December 2002 ...... 31 Figure 15: Waterski and Personal Water Craft (PWC) lanes, Wellington Harbour...... 32 Figure 14: GWRC water skier access lane, Pito-One Beach (west) ...... 32 Figure 16: Boat launching ramps, Wellington Harbour ...... 33 Figure 17: Strava heatmap for water sports 24 months to August 2019, northern half of harbour ...... 34 Figure 18: Strava heatmap for watersports 24 months to August 2019, northern detail ...... 35 Figure 19: Strava heatmap for watersports 24 months to August 2019, western detail ...... 35 Figure 20: Hutt City Council dog exercise areas near Pito-One...... 36 Figure 22: Strava heatmap for cycling 24 months to March 2020 ...... 37 Figure 21: Strava heatmap for running 24 months to March 2020 ...... 37 Figure 23: Proposed Northern Construction yard and Integrated Clubs Building location ...... 39 Figure 24: Great Harbour Way, Boffa Miskell 2009 ...... 47 Figure 25: Wellington City Cycleway Network Plan detail (Cycling Framework 2015) ...... 49 Figure 26: Key Routes Map, Walk and Cycle the Hutt 2014-2019 ...... 51 Figure 27: Remutaka Cycle Trail (nzcycletrail.com) ...... 53 Figure 28: Factors which would influence increase in cycling uptake (Transport Agency 2012b)...... 54 Figure 29: New Plymouth Coastal Walkway benefits analysis (Groundwater 2016) ...... 58 Figure 30: Sport and recreation activities with the highest participation levels for Wellington ...... 81 Figure 31: Participation locations in natural settings, Wellington (Sport NZ 2015)...... 82 Figure 32: GWRC Regional Coastal Plan Coastal Water Classes for Wellington Harbour ...... 83 Figure 33: GWRC monitored marine bathing sites in and around Wellington Harbour ...... 84 Figure 34: SLNZ recommended swimming beaches ...... 85 Figure 35: Surfcasting guide recommendation, Draper & Airey (2012) ...... 86 Figure 36: Windsurf launch sites ...... 87 Figure 37: Korokoro rowing courses ...... 87 Figure 38: Motorway Classic short course. White lines indicate rock hazards. Welly Paddlers map ...... 88 Figure 39: Motorway Classic long course. Welly Paddlers map ...... 88
TABLES
Table 1: Per-kilometre benefits of active transport modes (Genter et al 2008) ...... 57 Table 2: Summary of construction effects by sector ...... 64
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 8
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINED TERMS
Active modes of Forms of active mobility including walking, running, cycling and micro transport mobility which may be utilised along the path
AEE Assessment of Effects on the Environment
CBD Central business district
CMA Coastal marine area
CMS Conservation management strategy
DOC Department of Conservation
DTMR State of Queensland’s Department of Transport and Main Roads
GHW Great Harbour Way - Te Aranui o Poneke
GPS Global positioning system
GWRC Greater Wellington Regional Council
HCC Hutt City Council
LINZ Land Information New Zealand
MfE Ministry for the Environment
MHWS Mean High Water Springs
MoH Ministry of Health
NZCPS New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010
P2M Pito-One to Melling section of Wellington to Hutt Valley
PNRP Proposed Natural Resources Plan
RCP Operative Regional Coastal Plan for the Wellington Region
RMA Resource Management Act 1991
RPS Regional Policy Statement
SH2 State Highway 2
Strava A recreation and exercise activity tracking social media application
SUP Stand up paddleboard
Waka Kotahi Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
WCC Wellington City Council
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 9
1. Introduction This report:
. Assesses the effects of the Project on existing recreation opportunities; and
. Reviews the recreation benefits of the Project considering likely future use patterns.
Accordingly, this report has three separate sections: . This section – the introduction – which describes the Project;
. Part one, which assesses the effects of the Project on existing recreation opportunities; and
. Part two, which reviews the recreation benefits of the Project.
This report needs to be read in parallel with three other technical assessments: . Technical Report 1. This quantifies the economic benefits of the Project, including those from safety improvements for walking and cycling users of SH2 and the health benefits from cycling and walking uptake on the new shared path;
. Technical Report 2. This report provides a forecast of user uptake and reviews the performance and suitability of the proposed shared path width and other design features; and
. Technical Report 3. This considers effects of construction and operation of the Project on parking, and walking, vehicle and cycle movements near and through Honiana Te Puni Reserve and at Ngā Ūranga.
It is important to note that the purpose of the Project is to create an alternative transport opportunity between Pito-One and Wellington primarily for commuters, and not to simply establish a recreation setting, or to prioritise recreation. Therefore, the design of the Project focuses on facilitating the alternative transport modes which best serve commuters (those travelling for work or for other regular activities), while managing adverse effects on existing recreation opportunities. Recreational use is secondary to the focus on commuting, but has been considered, and via a number of methods, actively facilitated in the Project design.
This focus on commuting may limit the full recreational potential of the shared path, but recreational benefits will accrue nonetheless, and the Project design aims to maximise dual use within its unavoidable constraints. The critical issue here is that the benefits of the proposal should not be measured against how it can maximise recreational benefits, but how it can maximise benefits to commuters (or more broadly those using the shared path as a transport link); and how recreational value can also be gained as a secondary outcome, and how adverse effects on existing recreation opportunities can be managed. This report has been prepared in support of the notices of requirement and applications for resource consent for the Project made by Waka Kotahi under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 (COVID-19 Recover Act). In particular, this report supports the assessment of the Project’s effects on the environment as required by the COVID-19 Recovery Act. The requirements of the Covid-19 Recovery Act and an overall assessment of the effects of the Project on the environment are set out in the Assessment of Effects on the Environment.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 10
1.1. Project Description
The Ngā Ūranga ki Pito-One1 Shared Path Project (the Project) is part of the Te Ara Tupua Programme, which aims to deliver a shared path between Pito-One and Wellington CBD. This Project involves construction of a shared path from the Ngā Ūranga Interchange to just south of the Pito- One Railway Station and associated works as shown in Figure 1. The Project will cater for active transport modes including cycling and walking, and will provide an alternative to the existing SH2 cycle path (existing cycle path) located between the Hutt Valley Railway Line and the southbound SH2 carriageway. Works at Honiana Te Puni Reserve provide for the removal and replacement of the existing Wellington Rowing Association and Wellington Water Ski Club facilities at, and adjacent to, Honiana Te Puni Reserve and the introduction of new cultural facilities into the Reserve. The primary objective of the Project is to provide safe walking and cycling infrastructure between Wellington and the Hutt Valley which will act as a catalyst for increased use of active transport modes. The Project will also provide increased transport resilience, improve connections and integration with planned and existing walking and cycling infrastructure in Wellington City and Hutt City and reconnect people with this long-inaccessible part of the harbour’s edge. The Project will provide a 4.5km-long shared path between Ngā Ūranga and Pito-One featuring the following key elements: a. A rail overbridge (shared path bridge) across the Hutt Valley Railway Line, connecting the shared path from Ngā Ūranga to the coastal edge;
b. A path with a 5m surface width, on existing and newly created land and coastal structures, on the seaward side of the Hutt Valley Railway Line;
c. A varied coastal edge which incorporates ūranga (landings), a rocky revetment the intermittent use of strategically placed seawalls along the path edge. The coastal edge treatment provides resilience, reflects the natural landscape, avoids sensitive habitat areas, provides for cultural expression and enhances amenity;
d. Construction of new offshore habitat for coastal avifauna;
e. Connections to the Pito-One to Melling (P2M) path and the Pito-One Esplanade;
f. Construction of a new integrated clubs building at the eastern end of Honiana Te Puni Reserve and an associated car parking area; and
g. A two-stage development of new cultural facilities at Honiana Te Puni Reserve, including:
i) Construction of temporary Tāwharau Pods, consisting of three small building pods designed to accommodate a range of cultural or community uses, at the eastern end of Honiana Te Puni Reserve; and
ii) Post construction, the construction of the Whare to the west of Korokoro Stream, and permanent relocation of the Tāwharau pods to a site adjacent to the Whare at the western end of Honiana Te Puni Reserve2.
For description and assessment purposes in this report, the Project has been divided into three sectors (as shown in Figure 1). These are:
1 This report uses the preferred Te Reo spelling of “Ngā Ūranga” and “Pito-One” even where the official name may instead use “Ngauranga” or “Petone”. 2 The construction of the Whare and Tāwharau Pods is at Taranaki Whānui’s discretion
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 11
Sector 1 Ngā Ūranga Interchange and Bridge Crossing: The Southern Construction Yard and the connection from the Ngā Ūranga Interchange via the shared path bridge across the Hutt Valley Railway Line, to the coastal edge.
Sector 2 Ngā Ūranga to Honiana Te Puni Reserve - Path and Ūranga: The typical shared path, rock revetment, ūranga, seawall structures and off shore habitats between Ngā Ūranga and Honiana Te Puni reserve; and
Sector 3 Honiana Te Puni Reserve and Pito-One to Melling (P2M) Connection: Shared path connection to P2M adjacent to Honiana Te Puni Reserve, connections to Honiana Te Puni Reserve and Pito-One Esplanade, the Northern Construction Yard, integrated clubs building, associated car parking, the temporary and permanent Tāwharau Pods and the Whare.
A full description of the Project including design and operation is provided in Chapter 3 Description of the Project in the Assessment of Effects on the Environment. A description of the potential construction methodology that could be used to construct the Project is provided in Chapter 4 Construction of the Project of the Assessment of Effects on the Environment.
Rob Greenaway & Associates has been engaged to undertake an assessment of effects on recreation and tourism associated with the proposed N2P project, and review the benefits of the proposal for recreation, and the suitability of the path for those uses.
Figure 1: Project sectors
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 12
1.2. Author details
My full name is Robert James Greenaway. I am a Director of Rob Greenaway & Associates (R&R Consulting (NZ) Ltd) and have been since 1997. Prior to this, I was a Recreation and Tourism Consultant for Boffa Miskell Limited in Christchurch, from 1995 until 1997, and before that I held the same position at Tourism Resource Consultants in Wellington, from 1990 until 1995.
I hold a Diploma in Parks and Recreation Management (with Distinction) obtained from Lincoln University in 1987. I have comprehensive experience in undertaking recreation planning and management assessments and have completed more than 400 consultancy projects nationally. I have presented evidence at approximately 100 hearings, many for marine and coastal developments; including several marina proposals (Waikawa, Lyttelton, Bayswater, Waiheke Island), port dredging and development (Lyttleton, Whangarei), marine mining (Taranaki), the wreck of the Rena, marine farming (King Salmon, Port Gore, Kaipara Harbour, Port Levy, Firth of Thames and Mercury Bay, and marine discharges (Waimate, Nelson, Christchurch, Porirua, Wellington, Taranaki). I have worked on many other marine recreation assessments throughout New Zealand for water supply and treatment infrastructure, transport projects, reclamations and recreation developments. I have completed many projects in the Wellington region including the Eastern Bays shared path proposal for Hutt City, user surveys of the Hutt River corridor for the Greater Wellington Regional Council, a masterplan for Mount Victoria (with Megan Wraight), the Wellington airport runway extension proposal, Seaview wastewater outfall and cross-harbour water pipeline reviews for Wellington Water, and CentrePort’s harbour deepening proposal, amongst other things.
I am an accredited Recreation Professional with Recreation Aotearoa (the New Zealand Recreation Association). I am also a past executive member of the National Executive of Recreation Aotearoa, and I am ex-Chair and current member of the Recreation Aotearoa Board of Accreditation. I was awarded the Ian Galloway Memorial Cup in 2004 by Recreation Aotearoa to recognise “excellence and outstanding personal contribution to the wider parks industry”. In 2013 I was awarded the position of Fellow of Recreation Aotearoa.
I am an experienced coastal sailor and own a 10m keeler based in the Nelson Marina, which in early 2019 I sailed solo around the North Island. I am a PADI certified scuba diver (since 1983), although my last dive was on the wreck of the Rena in 2016. I have sea kayaking experience and once owned a double sea-kayak. I was born while my parents were living aboard a yacht built by my father and have substantial coastal and some blue-water sailing and boating experience. I am deputy chair of the Nelson Marina Advisory Group to the Nelson City Council, assisting with development and management direction for the Nelson Marina and its hardstand, boat ramp and watersports facilities.
1.2.1. Code of Conduct
I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses outlined in the Environment Court's Practice Note (2014) (Code) and have complied with it in preparing this assessment. I also agree to follow the Code when presenting to the Environment Planning Authority. I confirm that the issues addressed in this assessment are within my area of expertise, except where I state that I rely upon the assessments of other experts. I also confirm that I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from my opinions.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 13
PART ONE: EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
An assessment of the effects of the Project on existing recreation in the study area.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 14
2. Study area and scope
The study area for this effects assessment is focused on the proposed shared path extending from the Ngā Ūranga Interchange in the south to near the Petone Railway Station in the north. The terrestrial part of the development area – seaward of the railway corridor – is closed to public access and there are no direct effects on existing recreation there. However, Honiana Te Puni Reserve on the Pito-One foreshore is proposed to be partly occupied as a laydown area for the construction period (up to three years), and the study area also includes the coastal and marine area adjacent to the proposed reclamation, which has some marine recreation values which are largely based out of Honiana Te Puni Reserve.
The study area for the effects assessment does not include SH2 and the cycleway there, where no construction work is proposed. I understand that closing the existing cycle path is not part of this Project, and if it remains in place then some limited use of it may remain post-construction, although it meets no standard for a recreation route. This assessment also does not consider adverse effects on recreation between the Pito-One foreshore and Melling Station, as the Project is merely an upgrade of the level of service for existing recreation activities and can only be considered in terms of benefits for users. Standard traffic management procedures will be followed during the construction period. The scope for the effects assessment includes all existing recreation activities which may be affected by the construction of and operation of the Project. This includes tourism, which is a subset of recreation. Tourists often do the same recreation activities as locals, but can be differentiated by their motivations, access to information, benefits and costs they accrue to their host locale, and the fact that they are staying at least one night away from home. However, there are no adverse effects on tourism from the construction of the Project, and only benefits from its operation.
The objectives of this effects assessment are to: . Review the statutory framework which an assessment of effects must advise;
. Describe the physical setting where the proposal is to be located (the existing environment) and review the recreation uses of that setting; and
. Review the potential adverse effects of the construction and operation of the shared path on existing recreation activities, and recommend any necessary mitigations.
The Project will result in significant increases in recreation participation in the study area, and the net outcome for recreation in general terms will be manifestly positive. These benefits are considered in Part two of this report. The focus here is to consider existing recreation uses of the study area and how to ensure they are able to continue, as much as possible, during and after construction.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 15
2.1. Assessment methodology
This assessment is based on:
. Site visits;
. Literature review and review of public and targeted project consultation records from 2012;
. Review of assessment matters required by relevant local and regional plans;
. Liaison with relevant project specialists;
. A workshop with user group representatives (see Appendix 1); and
. Telephone interviews with representatives of the following agencies (or individuals) to identify their use of the coastal setting in the north-west corner of Wellington Harbour as well as the potential effects of the proposed coastal reclamation (a full summary of findings is provided in Appendix 2):
- Greater Wellington Regional Council, Hutt River Ranger
- Petone Community Board
- Lowry Bay Yacht Club
- Seaview Marina
- St James Sea Scout Group
- Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Association (Jim Mikoz)
- Wellington Yakity Yak Sea Club
- Wellington Ocean Sports
- Hikoikoi Waka Club
- Hutt River Trail - Rotary coordinator
- Local spear fisher (Derek Wilshere)
- Windsurfer, paddle board, kite surfer (Bruce Spedding)
- Harbour Master
- TS Tamatoa Navy Cadets
- Heretaunga Boating Club
- Canoe and kayak retailer
- Dive HQ (retailer)
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 16
3. Statutory and planning framework
This section reviews the statutory documents which help define the assessment matters against which positive and adverse effects of the proposal must be measured.
Further analysis of strategic planning relating to the national and roading network is provided in Technical Report 1. Various consultation processes carried out since 2014 have led to the preferred option of the shared path to be constructed on the seaward side of the Wairarapa railway line. Several traffic and scheme option studies also preceded these more recent reports. This early project planning work is not repeated in this report.
3.1. Statutory documents
3.1.1. NZ Coastal Policy Statement 2010
The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS, DOC 2010) guides local authorities in their day-to-day management of the coastal environment. Objective 4 of the NZCPS refers to maintaining and enhancing the public open space qualities and recreation opportunities of the coastal environment by: . Recognising that the coastal marine area is an extensive area of public space for the public to use and enjoy;
. Maintaining and enhancing public walking access to and along the coastal marine area without charge, and where there are exceptional reasons that mean this is not practicable providing alternative linking access close to the coastal marine area; and
. Recognising the potential for coastal processes, including those likely to be affected by climate change, to restrict access to the coastal environment and the need to ensure that public access is maintained even when the coastal marine area advances inland.
The coastal marine area is defined by the Resource Management Act 1991 (Section 2) as the foreshore, seabed, coastal water and air space above the water between Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) and 12 nautical miles offshore, and is considered to include all areas affected by the Project.
Policy 6 of the NZCPS refers to ‘Activities in the coastal environment’ and the need to “recognise the need to maintain and enhance the public open space and recreation qualities and values of the coastal marine area.” (6 (2) (b)).
Policy 16 refers to the need to protect surf breaks of national significance. None are identified in the Wellington Region. Policy 18 refers to public open space:
Recognise the need for public open space within and adjacent to the coastal marine area, for public use and appreciation including active and passive recreation, and provide for such public open space, including by:
a) ensuring that the location and treatment of public open space is compatible with the natural character, natural features and landscapes, and amenity values of the coastal environment; b) taking account of future need for public open space within and adjacent to the coastal marine area, including in and close to cities, towns and other settlements;
c) maintaining and enhancing walking access linkages between public open space areas in the coastal environment;
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 17
d) considering the likely impact of coastal processes and climate change so as not to compromise the ability of future generations to have access to public open space; and e) recognising the important role that esplanade reserves and strips can have in contributing to meeting public open space needs.
Policy 19 refers to walking access, including: 1. Recognise the public expectation of and need for walking access to and along the coast that is practical, free of charge and safe for pedestrian use. 2. Maintain and enhance public walking access to, along and adjacent to the coastal marine area, including by:
a) identifying how information on where the public have walking access will be made publicly available;
b) avoiding, remedying or mitigating any loss of public walking access resulting from subdivision, use, or development; and c) identifying opportunities to enhance or restore public walking access, for example where:
i. connections between existing public areas can be provided; or
ii. improving access would promote outdoor recreation; or
iii. physical access for people with disabilities is desirable; or
iv. the long-term availability of public access is threatened by erosion or sea level rise; or
v. access to areas or sites of historic or cultural significance is important; or
vi. subdivision, use, or development of land adjacent to the coastal marine area has reduced public access, or has the potential to do so.
There is high congruence between the NZCPS and the proposal, considering its ability to deliver safe and practical public access in a coastal setting suited to a wide range of abilities, connecting many open space settings, both coastal and inland.
3.1.2. Conservation Management Strategy
There are no coastal reserve areas in Wellington Harbour in the study area identified in the operative Department of Conservation’s Wellington Conservation Management Strategy (CMS) 2019 (DOC 2019) and there is no specific reference to the study area. The CMS is also generally silent about recreation values and issues in the Harbour, noting (p44, Vol 1): The Wellington coast is an important part of this region’s identity, whether it is as a source of kaimoana, a day spent fishing or exploring the rock pools, diving the many shipwrecks that are found in the area, sailing in Wellington Harbour or just taking a leisurely walk along the beach or waterfront. There are a number of internationally ranked surf breaks along the Wairarapa coast, and it also provides a highly prized recreational and commercial inshore fishery.
3.1.3. Greater Wellington Regional Council Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region
The operative Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region (GWRC 2013) (RPS) identifies that (p21) ‘the coastal environment is important to the regional community for recreation and general enjoyment’ and aims to support the implementation of the NZCPS particularly with regard to the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area (p22).
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 18
Regionally significant issues for recreation for iwi identified in the RPS include the suitability of coastal water for recreation and shellfish gathering (p23).
Recreation values are identified as being managed via, predominantly, providing for access to and along the coastal marine area (Objective 8, p31). Amenity values, more generally, are considered via policies to manage effects on natural character, coastal water quality and ecosystems, and natural coastal processes (p23). While the RPS identifies rivers and lakes with ‘significant amenity and recreational values’ (RPS Appendix 1), the same data are not provided for any coastal areas. Regional Coastal Plan for the Wellington Region
The Regional Coastal Plan for the Wellington Region (WRC 2000) (RCP) identifies coastal areas to be managed for shellfish gathering purposes and contact recreation. These are reviewed in Appendix 4 of this report.
The RCP notes that (section 2.4.4): Disturbance of the foreshore or seabed may affect: . water turbidity and hence amenity values;
. commercial and recreational fishing;
. access along and within the coastal marine area;
. other recreational use of the foreshore, seabed, and other related parts of the coastal marine area.
Section 2.4.6 also notes the potential to liberate contaminants through seabed disturbance, which could pollute shellfish beds, with associated risks to human health.
The RCP identifies (section 2.5) that the ‘deposition of substances on foreshore or seabed’ may affect, amongst other things, recreational fisheries, fish spawning and nursery grounds, public health through consumption of contaminated shellfish, wave energy, water circulation, sediment transport and shoreline stability (and therefore amenity values) and marine navigation. Section 7.1 of the RCP sets out objectives to manage these potential adverse effects.
The RCP seeks to ensure that as a general objective (4.1.9), the ‘Amenity values in the coastal marine area are maintained and enhanced’. Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region
The Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region (GWRC Decisions version, July 2019) (PNRP) identifies several relevant high-level objectives for the management of recreation values in the region, including: Objective O9 The recreational values of the coastal marine area, rivers and lakes and their margins and natural wetlands are maintained and enhanced.
Objective O10 Public access to and along the coastal marine area and rivers and lakes is maintained and enhanced. ….
Objective O24 Rivers, lakes, natural wetlands and coastal water are suitable for contact recreation and Māori customary use, including by: (a) maintaining water quality, or
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 19
(b) improving water quality in: ….
(ii) coastal water and sites with significant mana whenua values and Ngā Taonga Nui a Kiwa to meet, as a minimum, the primary contact recreation objectives in Table 3.3 [which sets indicator bacteria levels and objectives for contact recreation, Māori customary use and shellfish quality]…
Objective O55 The need for public open space in the coastal marine area is recognised.
‘Primary coastal policies’ for coastal management include the need to consider amenity values: Policy P9: Public access to and along the coastal marine area and the beds of lakes and rivers Maintain and enhance the extent or quality of public access to and along the coastal marine area and the beds of lakes and rivers except where it is necessary to:
….
(c) protect public health and safety, or (d) provide for a temporary activity such as construction, a recreation or cultural event or stock movement, and where the temporary restrictions shall be for no longer than reasonably necessary before access is fully reinstated, …
Policy P10: Contact recreation and Māori customary use Use and development shall avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on contact recreation and Māori customary use in fresh and coastal water, including by:
….
(d) providing for the passive recreation and amenity values of fresh water bodies and the coastal marine area.
Policy P133: Recreational values The adverse effects of use and development in the coastal marine area on recreational values shall be managed by providing for a diverse range of recreational opportunities while avoiding conflicts and safety issues.
Policy P134: Public open space values and visual amenity The adverse effects of new use and development on public open space and visual amenity viewed within, to and from the coastal marine area shall be minimised by: ….
b) managing use and development to be of a scale, location, density and design which is compatible with the natural character, natural features and landscapes and amenity values of the coastal environment, and the functional needs, operational requirements and locational constraints, [sic] the Commercial Port Area and the Wellington International Airport; and
(c) taking account of the future need for public open space in the coastal marine area.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 20
3.1.4. Wellington City Council
The rail corridor east of SH2 from Ngā Ūranga north to the Hutt City boundary is zoned Open Space B (Natural Environment) in the Wellington City District Plan (2000, amended to 9 March 2010) (Figure 2): 16.3 Open Space B (Natural environment)
Open Space B land is valued for its natural character and informal open spaces. It involves areas that are used for types of recreation that, in the broadest sense, do not involve buildings or structures. The intention is to keep such areas in an unbuilt or natural state. This type of open space encompasses both formal and informal open space elements. It includes walkways, scenic areas and open grassed areas where buildings are inappropriate. Its characteristics are minimal structures, largely undeveloped areas and open expanses of land. Most Open Space B areas are vegetated and often have ecological values or may buffer Conservation Sites.
Figure 2: Wellington City District Plan Map 22 detail, Ngā Ūranga intersection and north
This is the same zone as applies to the coastal cliffs immediately to the west of SH2. The site is also designated for ‘Railway Purposes’ and is “Railway land pursuant to various proclamations, gazettes, & statutory ownership” (R5, Schedule 3, Ch24).
The Plan does not have any objectives or policies specific to the site (unlike the Inner and Outer Town Belt), but those generally applied to the Open Space zone are relevant: 16.5 Open Space Objectives and Policies OBJECTIVE
16.5.1 To maintain, protect and enhance the open spaces of Wellington City.
POLICIES
To achieve this objective, Council will:
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 21
16.5.1.1 Identify a range of open spaces and maintain their character, purpose and function, while enhancing their accessibility and usability. METHODS
….
Accessibility to the City’s open spaces is an important aspect of their management, to ensure that everyone (including people with mobility restrictions) has equitable access to sportfields, reserves and other open spaces. The City will promote enhanced accessibility through advocacy and its operational activities. The environmental result will be the continued protection of the open character of such land.
3.1.5. Hutt City Council City of Lower Hutt District Plan
The Hutt City District Plan defines three ‘Special Recreation Activity Areas’ which are “of distinctive character. These areas provide opportunities for recreation activities which are unavailable in other parts of the City. This difference needs to be recognised and maintained.” Area 1 is the Pito-One Foreshore (teal area in Figure 3) which includes Honiana Te Puni Reserve and extends south west along the coastal railway corridor to the City boundary with Wellington.
‘Local Area Issues’ relating to the Foreshore include: 7B(i) 1.1.1 Retaining the Open Space Character Issue
It is important that activities carried out retain the open space character of the area and are compatible with the coastal marine area.
Objective
That activities carried out on the Petone Foreshore retain the open space character and are compatible with the coastal environment.
Policy
(a) To allow a range of informal recreation activities.
Explanation and Reasons
In order to retain the open space character of the area and amenity values informal recreation activities are considered to be appropriate.
‘Site Development Issues’ relating to the Foreshore include: 7B(i) 1.2.1 Buildings and Structures Issue
While there are some existing buildings such as the Settlers Museum, boating and rowing club buildings and the Oarsman Cabaret building, it is important that the number of buildings and structures are restricted so that the open space character and amenity values of the area are protected.
Objective To conserve and protect the open space character and amenity values of the area.
Policy
(a) To discourage the development of buildings and structures which would reduce the amount of land available to the public for informal recreation purposes. (b) To ensure that the public have access to and along the coastal marine area.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 22
Explanation and Reasons Buildings and structures on the Petone Foreshore can significantly detract from the open space character and visual amenity values of the area. In addition, the development of buildings and structures will reduce the amount of land available to the public for informal recreation purposes. It is therefore important to discourage the development of buildings and structures.
Honiana Te Puni Reserve is gazetted under the Reserves Act 1977 as a local purpose reserve (more detail is provided in Section 4.3.1 of this report).
Figure 3: Hutt District Plan Special Recreation Activity Area 1 – Pito-One Foreshore (teal)
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 23
4. Description of existing environment
This section reviews the recreation values and uses of the study area by the three Project section areas. A review of general marine recreation in Wellington Harbour is provided in Appendix 4 to provide a wider context for the activities which occur within the study area.
4.1. Sector 1: Connection with the Ngā Ūranga interchange and the bridge crossing the Hutt Valley Railway line
There is no public access to the foreshore at Ngā Ūranga, which is separated from local footpaths by the railway corridor and a fenced laydown area operated by KiwiRail (Figure 4). Almost 600m of upgraded shared pedestrian and cycle path leads north from the Ngā Ūranga interchange to the narrow existing cycle path on the shoulder of SH2, but has low use due to it being an incomplete connection at an acceptable level of service.
Figure 4: Ngā Ūranga
200m
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 24
4.2. Sector 2: Path, reclamation and structures between Ngā Ūranga and Honiana Te Puni Reserve
The physical setting for almost all of the proposed development site is on land owned by the Crown and designated as a rail corridor maintained and operated by KiwiRail, and is closed to public access (Figure 5), although a small amount of fishing from the shore is reported by interviewees. The coastal edge is a mix of riprap and, particularly in the north, construction rubble. Recreational access to the water over this material, where permitted, is difficult.
Figure 5: Barrier arm at the southern end of Honiana Te Puni Reserve
SH2 between Ngā Ūranga and Pito-One features a narrow cycle lane separated from traffic by W beam and wire rope safety barrier (Figure 6, highlighted in yellow), and is on-road for 1000m south from The Esplanade on-ramp (this section is often referred to as “the gap” and is shown Figure 7, also highlighted in yellow). Cyclists use “the gap” in both directions (Figure 8), although cycling northwards in the south-bound road lane is illegal, and north-bound riders should dismount in the gap. Patronage assessments for cycling and walking use of the SH2 corridor between Ngā Ūranga and Pito-One are given in Technical Report 2.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 25
Figure 6: SH2 cycleway wire rope barrier section, Horokiwi. Google Earth image, May 2019
Figure 7: SH2 cycleway on-road section 500m south of The Esplanade. Google Earth, May 2019
Figure 8: SH2 cycleway on-road section 300m south of The Esplanade. Laura Skilton, Nov 2019
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 26
Waka Kotahi completed a targeted survey of members of Cycle Aware Wellington in 2012 with 708 respondents, of which 65% ‘currently’ cycled on SH2. The results indicated that more than two-thirds of respondents avoided the separated shared path (referred to as the ‘southbound cycleway’) and rode on the shoulder of the state highway (Figure 9) (Transport Agency 2012b). The main reasons given for avoiding the path were: . The condition of the cycleway is poorly maintained, glass, debris and rubbish present;
. The quality of the surface is poor;
. The cycleway is too narrow in places to overtake;
. The cycleway does not allow cyclists to maintain a high continuous speed;
. The cycleway is prone to flooding in poor weather;
. The cycleway is poorly lit at night.
Of those cyclists who avoided the route entirely and were not included in the results in Figure 9 (35% of respondents), 61% stated that the state highway corridor was too dangerous. Of the 65% who did cycle between Wellington and the Hutt Valley, 17% cycled for commuting or business, 27% for leisure and 20% cycled for both commuting and leisure.
Respondents were asked to identify the one thing that would make them more likely to cycle between Wellington and the Hutt Valley. Of the total number of respondents 76% said the ability to cycle the entire route on a dedicated cycleway (avoiding the need to use the SH2 shoulder) and the ability to avoid merges at Pito-One would make them more likely to cycle.
Telephone interviews were carried out with 17 representatives of regional clubs and other agencies to identify their use of the coastal setting in the north-west corner of Wellington Harbour as well as the potential effects of the proposed coastal reclamation. Interview summaries appear in Appendix 2. Interviewees confirmed the dominant use of the north-west corner of the harbour by the Wellington
Figure 9: Survey result for State Highway 2 cycling use, the Transport Agency (2012b)
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 27
Rowing Association and the Wellington Water Ski Club, but otherwise identified that almost all use was at least 50m offshore (with keeler racing at least 500m offshore) and subject to local weather conditions. The only exception was some shore-based fishing adjacent to the existing railway line in the area closed to public access by KiwiRail (see Figure 5 on page 25), and fishing from small boats and kayaks near the shore. Jim Mikoz of the Wellington Recreational Marine Fishers Association noted that the site was popular due to the presence of fish, its shelter in many conditions and the lack of similar and accessible fishing settings in the Harbour. He also noted that the proposal would increase the accessibility of the setting for fishing. A long-time spear-fisher (Derek Wilshere) noted that the coast between Ngā Ūranga and Pito-One was a good site for butterfish, moki, blue cod, crayfish and scallops in the 1950s and 1960s but that there are now better places in the region and the stretch of coast is infrequently visited. Sea kayaking can occur in any setting in Wellington Harbour and there is no indication that the Project area has any special qualities, although events like the ‘Motorway Classic’ paddling event are specific to the setting, as are the rowing and waka ama courses which run parallel to the coast (see Figure 37, Figure 38 and Figure 39 in Appendix 4).
4.3. Sector 3: Path works adjacent to Honiana Te Puni Reserve and connections to P2M and Pito-One Esplanade
This section focuses on Honiana Te Puni Reserve and the water-based activities which it supports. The latter includes, for example, rowing, waka ama, sailing, sea kayaking and SUP (stand-up paddle boarding). These activities can extend along the length of the Project development area between Ngā Ūranga and Pito One but are considered in this one report section.
This section of the proposed Project will link with the shared path section of the Pito-One to Melling (P2M) component of Te Ara Tupua just north of the Pito-One Interchange. P2M is currently under construction and therefore forms part of the existing environment. The Project includes a short section (approximately 350m) of upgraded path between the Honiana Te Puni Reserve and the southern end of the P2M project. This is not considered further here as the work is merely an upgrade of the level of service for existing recreation activities and can only be considered in terms of benefits for users. Standard traffic management procedures will be followed during the construction period to minimise effects on existing users.
The remainder of this section therefore focuses on Honiana Te Puni Reserve.
4.3.1. Honiana Te Puni Reserve status
Honiana Te Puni Reserve on the western end of the Pito One foreshore (Figure 10) is proposed to be partly occupied for three years during the construction period. The Reserve was created in 2009 in accordance with the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Act 2009 from what was formerly called the Korokoro Gateway site – a Stewardship Area under the Conservation Act 1987. The Settlement Act specified: 60 Korokoro Gateway site (1) The part of the Korokoro Gateway site that is a stewardship area under the Conservation Act 1987 ceases to be a stewardship area.
(2) The fee simple estate in the Korokoro Gateway site vests in the trustees.
(3) The Korokoro Gateway site is declared a reserve and classified as a local purpose reserve, for the purpose of cultural and community facilities, subject to section 23 of the Reserves Act 1977.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 28
(4) The reserve created by subsection (3) is named Honiana Te Puni Local Purpose Reserve, despite section 16(10) of the Reserves Act 1977.3 (5) Hutt City Council is the administering body of the reserve for the purposes of the Reserves Act 1977 and has the functions, obligations, and powers of an administering body under that Act, as if the reserve were vested in the Council under section 26 of that Act.4
(6) Any improvements in or on the Korokoro Gateway site do not vest in the trustees, despite the vesting under subsection (2).
The trustees are defined as those of the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust. The Record of Title for the Reserve5 states that it is: . Subject to the Reserves Act 1977
Figure 10: Honiana Te Puni Reserve (LINZ 2016/17 aerial)
200m
Figure 11: Land status at Honiana Te Puni Reserve
Waterski
Crown – KiwiRail occupation
Crown – ‘Functioning Indirectly of a Road’
100m Honiana Te Puni Reserve
3 This bypassed the requirement to issue a gazettal notice of the Reserve’s classification in the NZ Gazette. 4 This similarly bypassed the requirement to place a notice in the NZ Gazette about the vesting of Hutt City as administering body. 5 Identifier 498586 issued 2 October 2009, at 3 August 2019
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 29
. Subject to Sections 74(3) and 78 Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Act 2009
. Subject to Part 4A Conservation Act 1987 (except Sections 24, 24A and 24AA)
Adjacent to the Reserve, and underlying the Wellington Rowing Association’s storage shed for rowing equipment, is a strip of land taken from adjacent railway land in 2011 under the Public Works Act 1981 for potential future roading development options (Figure 11).6 This is now Crown land ‘Functioning Indirectly of a Road’ and is administered by Waka Kotahi. The Wellington Rowing Association pays a nominal rent to Waka Kotahi, and their occupation agreement has a three-month termination option in favour of Waka Kotahi. There is no management plan for the Reserve, and because it is a local purpose reserve there is no requirement for one to be prepared unless the “Minister in the notice of vesting or notice to control and manage” directs the administering authority to prepare one (section 41(16) of the Reserves Act 1977). There is no such direction apparent in the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Act 2009.
4.3.2. Reserve uses Water sports
The main facility on the Reserve within the proposed laydown area is the Wellington Water Ski Club clubrooms, a sealed carpark and access roads, unformed public boat launching area on the beach, ski lane markers and parking bollards (Figure 12). The Wellington Rowing Association also requires access over the Reserve for their storage building and to the water to launch their boats.
Figure 12: Honiana Te Puni Reserve features
Underpass
Waterski Club
Rowing Association
Launching area Events and casual use
Korokoro Stream
50m
6 Gazette notice 2011-In2096, p1002, Issue 41
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 30
Rowing training in the area is usually from 6am to 8am and 4pm to 8pm on weekdays, and on weekends from 7am to 4pm – all year round. There is no other suitable rowing venue in Wellington Harbour that is sheltered in northerly wind conditions. During southerlies training is held in the south- west corner of Wellington Harbour. The Wellington Rowing Association holds up to five regattas per year (on Saturdays), preferably from the Reserve, occupying much of the site and also using the Wellington Water Ski Club’s facilities (for example, see Figure 13).
Figure 13: Rowing event at Honiana Te Puni. Google Earth image, December 2002
Up to 350 athletes are involved in rowing events along with 150 or so family members and spectators. The two clubs cannot operate events at the same time due to capacity constraints. Car parking capacity at the Reserve is reviewed in Technical Report 3.
The Wellington Water Ski Club’s season runs from late September to early May with several club events monthly; some held in Evans Bay when conditions are poor at Pito-One. The clubrooms are also open for public bookings with several private (non-skiing) events most months. The facility includes a large meeting room, separate kitchen, bathrooms with showers and bar.
Other watersports events – such as the annual ‘Motorway Classic’ – an open paddling event generally following the rowing courses between Honiana Te Puni Reserve and the ferry terminal – are occasional reserve users. To facilitate the activities of the Wellington Water Ski Club, and other water skiers, the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GRWC) Navigation and Safety Bylaws (2009) specify an ‘Access lane’ for use by water skiers immediately to the west of Korokoro Stream (Figure 14). This allows water skiers to exceed the 5 knot rule within 200m of the shore – otherwise water skiing off the beach would not be permitted according to Maritime Rules.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 31
Figure 15: GWRC water skier access lane, Pito-One Beach (west)
The Navigation and Safety Bylaws define in the Harbour five water ski lanes and an area reserved for personal water craft (Figure 15). Water ski lanes are marked with orange and black striped poles, such as those located at Honiana Te Puni Reserve. A ‘reserved area’ is set aside for a specific activity – in this case, personal water craft (jet skis) at the Pito-One Beach east site – and are marked by white and black striped poles.
Figure 14: Waterski and Personal Water Craft (PWC) lanes, Wellington Harbour
Pito-One Beach (west)
PWC - Pito-One Beach (east)
Days Bay Kau Bay
Evans Bay
Seatoun
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 32
Five concrete public boat launching ramps are located in Wellington Harbour and one public beach ramp – the latter at Honiana Te Puni Reserve (Figure 16). The ramp at Sladden Park, at the north- eastern end of Pito-One, does not suit trailer-sailer craft due to the Waione Street Bridge downstream, but the Seaview ramp provides a nearby alternative. While the Honiana Te Puni Reserve ramp is public, it is not widely promoted and does not, for example, appear on the Wellington Regional Council’s list of regional ramps.7 The Wellington Water Ski Club relies on a tractor to launch boats across the gravel beach. Public use of the beach ramp is largely confined to small aluminium fishing dinghies and jet skis, with relatively small and light trailers.8 Small craft can also be launched across the beach immediately to the west of the Pito-One Wharf.
Figure 16: Boat launching ramps, Wellington Harbour
Sladden Park
Honiana Te Puni (beach)
Seaview
Lowry Bay – Whiorau Reserve
Evans Bay
Seatoun
Figure 17 shows the Strava heatmap for water sports in the northern corner of Wellington Harbour for the 24 months up to August 2019. Strava is a social media application which uses GPS records from subscribers’ smartphones uploaded to a central database, allowing speed and time comparisons with other cyclists, runners, kayakers and swimmers (for example), and the monitoring of individual activity or training targets. While the service is popular with professional athletes, its membership is dominated by casual recreation participants. Strava indicates that it had 50 million international users in early 2020 (80% outside the US) with an additional million joining per month.9 It is now popular amongst regular cyclists and runners, and is also used by the likes of rowers, kayakers, waka ama and swimmers. Figure 17 shows, for example, a leg of the Wellington Coastline
7 http://www.gw.govt.nz/Wellington-launching-ramps/ 8 James Sellwood, Bruce Robb, Wellington Waterski Club pers. comm, July 2020. No more than six private trailers would ever be counted at the Honiana Te Puni beach ramp. 9 https://blog.strava.com/press/strava-milestones-50-million-athletes-and-3-billion-activity-uploads/ and https://www.bikebiz.com/cycling-insight-strava/
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 33
Swim Series at Point Howard beach, as well as sailing activity, evidenced by the saw-tooth tracks of tacking yachts.
Figure 17: Strava heatmap for water sports 24 months to August 2019, northern half of harbour
500m
Comparisons between different forms of data gathering show a degree of reliability for Strava data with a range of 1% to 12% of users recorded on-site that are connected to the service; and this is growing (Herrero 2016, see also10). Such response rates would compare favourably to an on-site intercept survey of users in an outdoor setting, particularly since the Strava data are collected over all seasons and all day (an intercept survey would normally only cover relatively short time periods and be confined to specific interception points). Nevertheless, caution needs to be applied to the use of Strava data as they show participation by only Strava members. There will be an inherent bias to the more competitive and tech-savvy, and some data accumulate from users staying logged in when they are doing other activities, such as driving. Some records are also offset by tens of metres due to either poor GPS reception or map projection errors. However, most records appear in their correct locations.
Strava is therefore a little like a tag and release programme, but unlike, for example, tagging 10 longfin eels with GPS devices and seeing where they head to breed11 Strava essentially tags several thousand active people in an area and monitors where and how they recreate. Its greatest strength is therefore in showing the relative value of settings for different forms of recreation.
Figure 18 shows detail from Figure 17 indicating the proximity of harbour users to the proposed development area between Ngā Ūranga and Honiana Te Puni Reserve. Considering the origin of most of the activity tracks in this setting – Honiana Te Puni Reserve – and their wide turn-arounds, much of this activity will be rowers, with some waka ama. Where the coast has several shallow curved bays, harbour users tend to retain a separation from the shore of at least 50m, while further south where there are fewer offshore rocks, they tend to track a little closer. Rowing and kayaking course routes are also shown in Figure 37, Figure 38 and Figure 39 in Appendix 4.
10 https://medium.com/strava-metro/cdc-finds-strava-metro-data-correlates-strongly-with-census-active-commuting-data- 8ab1be0fe130 11 As NIWA did in 2019 and earlier in the century see https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworld/audio/2018695044/mystery-of-the-longfin-eel-s-breeding- ground
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 34
Figure 18: Strava heatmap for watersports 24 months to August 2019, northern detail
100m
Figure 19: Strava heatmap for watersports 24 months to August 2019, western detail
100m
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 35
Casual use, dog walking and events The Reserve is available for one-off event use via applications made to the Hutt City Council, but these are rare and located to the east of Korokoro Stream, outside the proposed Northern Construction Yard.12 Otherwise there are no other regular or programmed uses of the Reserve, beyond part of it being designated an off-leash dog walking area by the Hutt City Council (Figure 20).13 This dog exercise area extends from the Wellington Water Ski Club building east to the Pito- One Wharf, covering an area of approximately 8.1ha (see Appendix 3 for a more detailed map). Korokoro Stream is popular for dog swimming, being fresh water.
Figure 20: Hutt City Council dog exercise areas near Pito-One
Freedom camping within the Reserve is not permitted by the Hutt City Council. Road gates to the area are locked at 6.00pm in winter and 9.30pm in summer, reopening at 7.00am.
The Reserve is available for a wide range of casual recreation activities and Strava data indicate the relative levels of running and cycling in and around the Reserve. Figure 21 indicates, for running, the most popular routes are on formed paths and roads within the Reserve, although some runners appear to cross the mouth of the Korokoro Stream to access the Pito-One interchange underpass and access ramp. Figure 22 shows cyclists also relying on the formed roads and paths, but being more likely to use the roads than paths. Individual GPS tracks in the water are mostly GPS recording errors or from Strava users recording an alternative activity, like kayaking or rowing. Routes parallel to SH2 in Figure 22 are almost universally GPS recording errors.
12 Aaron Marsh, Team Leader Parks, Hutt City Council, pers comm 24 March 2020 13 https://huttcity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=b5676ec4c47744bc946016e8bd157eb8
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 36
Other observed recreational uses are common to all of the Pito-One foreshore, including swimming, picnicking, fishing (mostly off Pito-One Wharf), walking, family activities, burn-outs, and sitting in cars while eating lunch and using mobile phones. Fishing activity local to the Reserve mostly occurs south of the unsealed carpark adjacent to the Wellington Rowing Association’s building, adjacent to the railway corridor over the nearby rocky reefs, although access is closed to the public.
Figure 22: Strava heatmap for running 24 months to March 2020
Figure 21: Strava heatmap for cycling 24 months to March 2020
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 37
5. Assessment of effects
This section considers the potential adverse effects of the construction of the Project on existing recreational users of the study area. There are two main settings of interest: . Honiana Te Puni Reserve and most specifically the Wellington Rowing Association and Wellington Water Ski Club (Sector 3 of the Project);
. Users who access the coastal area adjacent to the existing SH2 corridor in the area which will be affected by the Project (within Sector 2 of the project, but almost entirely accessed from Honiana Te Puni Reserve).
Effects on existing recreation activities in Sector 1 at Ngā Ūranga are considered primarily in Technical Report 3 and relate to managing construction activities on the southern section of the existing SH2 cycle path near the Southern Construction Yard, with a focus on active commuters. There are minimal potential adverse effects on recreation within Sector 2 considering that shore- based fishing, or any public access, from KiwiRail land here is illegal. There is no plan as part of the Project to remove the existing SH2 cycle path. Temporary effects of construction traffic on visitors to the Pito-One foreshore are considered in Technical Report 3. Otherwise, construction effects on recreation will largely be confined to Honiana Te Puni Reserve, and include the temporary occupation of part of the Reserve for a construction yard (the ‘Northern Construction Yard’) for three years (Figure 23). These activities are fully described in Chapter 3 of the AEE – Description of the Project and include site clearance, the relocation of the watersports facilities (rowing and watersports) and associated public and club parking to the eastern side of the Reserve, and the temporary location of new ‘Tāwharau Pods’ nearby, (moveable pod buildings for information and cultural expression opportunities), with site rehabilitation post- construction.
Consultation with Hutt City, Taranaki Whānui and the watersports clubs has been used to develop the proposals for the construction and post-construction stages, and these are fully detailed in Chapter 8 of the AEE – Consultation and Engagement. The visioning exercise has identified some expected site rehabilitation outcomes, which include: . Permanent location of the watersports clubs in the eastern side of the Reserve, in the Integrated Clubs Building, as per their location during construction;
. Vegetation restoration;
. Development of a multi-functional Whare to the west of Korokoro Stream (being consented as part of the Project, with Taranaki Whānui ultimately to elect whether the Whare will be constructed);
. The relocation of the Tāwharau Pods to the western corner of the Reserve to form part of the gateway to Te Ara Tupua (the Tāwharau Pods, in both their temporary and permanent locations, are to be installed at the election of Taranaki Whānui);
. The development of a waka launching site at the location of the existing gravel beach boat ramp which will also be available for use by the watersports clubs.
Final details of the future layout of Honiana Te Puni Reserve will be subject to the separate Reserves Act process, and ongoing engagement between Hutt City, Taranaki Whānui, and Waka Kotahi. Site rehabilitation undertaken by Waka Kotahi at the end of the Project construction period will be consistent with the outcomes of those processes.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 38
Figure 23: Proposed Northern Construction yard and Integrated Clubs Building location
Proposed boat launching
Proposed integrated clubs building
Reserve boundary
Proposed Yard
Korokoro Stream
Existing Wellington Water Ski Club
Existing beach boat launching and waterski access lane, and proposed waka launching site
Existing Wellington Rowing Association storage facility
N
100m
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 39
5.1. Effects of the proposal on Honiana Te Puni Reserve
The Northern Construction Yard is proposed to be located within the Reserve to the west of Korokoro Stream for the three-year construction period. An area of approximately 18,000m3 will be fenced for the duration of the construction period. The Northern Construction Yard will temporarily occupy 34% percent of Honiana Te Puni Reserve and just over 7.5% of all public land owned by either Taranaki Whānui or Hutt City Council along the Pito-One foreshore (based on reserve title parcel areas only). Access along the full length of the foreshore will remain in place. The 8.1ha dog exercise area between the Wellington Water Ski Club and the Pito-One Wharf will be temporarily reduced by less than 13%, and by less than 7% if the two dog exercise areas on the Pito-One foreshore are included (the two yellow foreshore areas in Figure 20 on page 36).
There are five main effects of the proposal on recreation. Club facilities
The proposal includes the loss and replacement of the Wellington Water Ski Club clubrooms and the Wellington Rowing Association’s storage facility, and the occupation of the north-eastern corner of the Reserve by an integrated clubs building. The design proposal is described in Chapter 3 of the AEE – Description of the Project, and effects on traffic and parking are described in Technical Report 3. The club building redevelopment proposal has been developed in consultation with the watersports clubs and has their agreement as described in Chapter 8 of the AEE – Consultation and Engagement.
During the construction stage, the Wellington Rowing Association – and other small boat users – will be able to launch unpowered vessels from the beach immediately to the east of the new clubrooms, but this site is unsuitable for launching larger motorised boats, such as those used by the Wellington Water Ski Club. This will require powerboat launching to occur during the three years of construction from other local ramps, such as those at Sladden Park and Seaview (see Figure 16 on page 33), but most likely Seaview. These are concrete ramps and will not require the use of the club’s tractor. This represents an inconvenience to the Club and a departure from their current practice, which as noted above has been agreed to as appropriate by the Club. Post-construction, local boat launching across the beach at the current location will depend on the preferences of Taranaki Whānui and the Hutt City Council according to their reserve management preferences under the Reserves Act, but at this stage is understood to include preferential access for the watersports clubs.
The relocation of the boat launching area for small boats does not trigger the need to relocate the water ski access lane from its current location. The existing access lane will remain operable and accessible from both the sea and by walking along the shore. There is no general need for the water ski lane to be co-located with a launching area and relocation of the lane can be considered separately as appropriate and if required – although the depth of water at the existing site means it is currently in the optimal location.14 The integrated clubs building solution represents the consolidation of two facilities into one, which represents an efficiency for Reserve occupation – noting that the existing rowing facility is just outside the boundary of the Reserve, but that this distinction is immaterial to Reserve users. Costs of operation for the two clubs should reduce due to their occupying a new facility which should have low maintenance costs, particularly for the period of construction when the facility is new. In summary, and considering the acceptance of the proposed facility relocation by the clubs and the Taranaki Whānui, the effects on club recreation are considered acceptable. The Reserve will be reinstated to provide for the outcomes determined through engagement between the key stakeholders, and Reserves Act processes, and the Project has acted as a catalyst for that process.
14 Moving the access lane requires a separate process via updating the GWRC Navigation Safety Bylaw.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 40
Parking spaces and access across The Esplanade and Hutt Road The parking area within the Reserve, which is to be temporarily occupied by the Northern Construction Yard, is used as day-parking for people in campervans (with no overnight camping permitted) and people accessing the beach or local walks; but possibly mostly by people eating lunch in their car, using mobile phones or sitting and watching the view, and often by older people watching the scenery. These activities are common to the parking areas along the entire Pito-One foreshore. The Wellington Water Ski Club and Wellington Rowing Association can fully occupy parking areas within the Reserve during events.
Pedestrian and cycle access from the western end of Pito-One foreshore to Pito-One Station passes under the Pito-One on- and off-ramps from SH2 to Hutt Road and The Esplanade, across a shared- path bridge over the Korokoro Stream and follows the eastern side of the railway line on Hutt Road. As shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22 on page 37, these routes are popular for cycling and running, and provide critical access across The Esplanade and Hutt Road. They form part of the walking, cycling and running opportunity along the full foreshore, and maintaining these access opportunities will minimise adverse effects during construction. Technical Report 3 recommends the required controls on construction activity, as well as cycle and walking route management systems, to achieve this outcome. Dog exercise area
As discussed, the proposal will result in the 8.1ha dog exercise area between the Wellington Water Ski Club and the Pito-One Wharf being temporarily reduced by less than 13%, and by 7% if the two dog exercise areas on the Pito-One foreshore are included. Access along the beach adjacent to the Northern Construction Yard will remain in place, and so the loss is limited to the grassed area between the Wellington Water Ski Club clubrooms and Korokoro Stream. The ability to walk the length of the beach west from the Pito-One Wharf will be unchanged, although the eastern 200m (of a total distance of 1200m, so 17%) will be adjacent to the Northern Construction Yard and affected by noise and visual amenity issues.
The temporary loss of the grassed area within the Northern Construction Yard may result in additional conflict between dogs if their currently separate play areas are combined. That is, all dogs using the area are confined to the grassed area to the east of Korokoro Stream. There is no indication currently that there is an existing capacity issue, however, and effects on dog walkers should be minimal.15 Casual recreation space
As discussed, the Northern Construction Yard will temporarily occupy 34% percent of Honiana Te Puni Reserve and just over 7.5% of all public land owned by either Taranaki Whānui or Hutt City Council along the Pito-One foreshore. Access along the foreshore adjacent to the Northern Construction Yard will remain in place, but there will be no access to the boat launching site across the beach. The net effect on the loss of public greenspace along the Pito-One foreshore is, in general terms, slight and temporary, and will most likely be felt by regular users of the setting who have a preference to access a relatively low-use area. The scale of effect, considering the remaining options along the foreshore and the temporary nature of the effect, is likely to be minor. Power boat launching across the beach at Honiana Te Puni Reserve is not suitable for a standard 2WD car and trailer, which is why the Wellington Water Ski Club relies on a tractor. Most public boat launching activity is for jet skis, and small aluminium dinghies with low-powered outboards who are fishing locally; with a maximum (and infrequent) count of around six public trailers observed by Wellington Waterski Club members.16 Loss of public boat launching opportunities will therefore be
15 Jane Schuitema, Hutt City Council Team Leader Animal Services, pers. comm, July 2020. 16 James Sellwood, Bruce Robb, Wellington Waterski Club pers. comm, July 2020.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 41
minimal considering the availability or more suitable public concrete ramps in Sladden Park, Seaview and Lowry Bay (Whiorau Reserve), and for small craft near the Pito-One wharf (albeit in shallow water). Small boat launching – such as rowing skiffs, kayaks and paddle boards – will be relocated to immediately east of the new integrated clubs building during construction, and after rehabilitation will be available at any site along the foreshore. Effects are therefore very minor and temporary.
There is no indication of any existing capacity issues at alternative boat ramps, although the Lowry Bay ramp (Whiorau Reserve) can be busy at peak times.17 Fishing access
Legal public access along the coast to the west and south of the Wellington Rowing Association building ceases at the southern-most extent of the unsealed car parking area, beyond the Reserve. Fishing is not permitted in this area currently, and will not be possible during the construction period due to closed access and construction activity. Access to the foreshore adjacent to the Northern Construction Yard will remain in place during the construction period, although there is no indication that this is an important angling setting. Angling access south of the Reserve will improve once the development is completed. Effects on fishing during construction are therefore very minor, and there may be some displacement of off-shore fishing as a result of the temporary loss of local launching access for ‘tinnies’ at Honiana Te Puni Reserve.
5.1.1. Conclusion - Honiana Te Puni Reserve
The proposal has direct effects on two clubs – the Wellington Rowing Association and the Wellington Water Ski Club. These effects have been addressed by direct consultation with them, Taranaki Whānui and the Hutt City Council, as summarised in Chapter 8 of the AEE – Consultation and Engagement. This process addresses the majority of potential effects on recreation at Honiana Te Puni, with an outcome of secure tenure for both the Wellington Rowing Association and the Wellington Water Ski Club in new premises. Temporary effects will include the need to launch power boats at an alternative ramp during construction, and a reversion to current practices post- construction. Displacement of public boat launching is of minor scale due to the low use of the setting and the number of alternatives.
The scale of effect on casual recreation on the Pito-One foreshore is likely to be minor for the key users of the area, particularly for dog walking and those using the carpark area for beach access and watching the sea. Maintaining access along the beach adjacent to the Northern Construction Yard and to the Hutt Road underpass and pedestrian and cycle on-ramp will avoid wider effects on running, walking and cycling (as recommended by Technical Report 3), and there will remain a large area of proximate alternative coastal land on the Pito-One foreshore for all casual activities displaced from Honiana Te Puni Reserve during construction. Site rehabilitation will be carried out in accordance with final outcomes determined through Reserves Act processes, subsequent to the visioning work completed to date. Post-construction effects on recreation will most likely be substantially positive, although the precise nature of the recreational values at the Reserve will be determined by Reserves Act planning processes separate to the consent requirements associated with Te Ara Tupua (which Waka Kotahi is committed to supporting). Effects on recreation will be of a minor adverse nature during construction.
17 Janet Lawson, Hutt City Council Park and Reserves Manager and Allen McLellan, Seaview Marine CEO, pers. comm. July 2020.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 42
5.2. Coastal setting adjacent the Project alignment (sectors 1 – 3)
Existing recreation activities potentially affected by the Project adjacent to the proposed reclamation include fishing and snorkelling, and rowing, sea kayaking and waka ama. Fishing from the shore between Ngā Ūranga and Honiana Te Puni Reserve is excluded by KiwiRail for safety reasons, but still occurs in small numbers, particularly in the north. Snorkelling rarely occurs. Rowing and waka ama activities occur no closer than 50m from the existing foreshore due to rock hazards. Sea kayaking can occur in any setting in Wellington Harbour and there is no indication that the Project area has any special qualities. The proposal will result in the creation of an open fishing setting with good access. The existing setting is otherwise closed to the activity. Similarly for snorkelling, access is currently difficult. While access for snorkelling would be possible to the affected coastline during the construction period via the foreshore at Honiana Te Puni Reserve, it would be prudent to place safety advice signs at the western end of the Honiana Te Puni Reserve beach to indicate the potential risks of inshore activities during construction. This represents a very minor loss of recreation opportunity due to the low use of the setting for snorkelling and the large number of alternatives within Wellington Harbour.
The marine ecology assessment (summarised in Chapter 17 of the AEE) indicates the retention of most of the rocky habitat preferred by fish species and the development of new habitat to mitigate any losses.
The Project area will not reduce sea-space for boating activities such as waka ama and rowing due to their avoidance of the existing inshore setting. Sea kayaking opportunities are minimal currently – with paddling beside, in the main, a rip-rap rock face. This experience may be excluded from close inshore for short sections during construction but is otherwise unaffected.
5.2.1. Conclusion – Coastal setting
There are only very minor adverse effects on existing recreation activities along the Project alignment as a result of the Project, and these effects do not require mitigation during construction.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 43
PART TWO: FUTURE RECREATION VALUES
A review of the additional recreation values provided by the Project.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 44
6. Scope of values review
This review of the recreation values of the Project focuses on the new and enhanced recreation activities facilitated by the shared path.
As noted in Section 2 of this report, the focus of the Project is to provide an alternative commuter option between Wellington and Hutt City, and not on developing a recreation setting per se. However, new recreation value will be achieved, and the provision of an attractive setting for active transport (including e-transport – the use of battery-assisted scooters, bikes and other transport devices – and often termed ‘transport devices’ in general) will result in physical and mental health benefits to commuters, as they will for recreational users.
The scale of uptake of the path is provided in Technical Report 2. The scale of economic benefit, including those gained from physical and mental health gains, are summarised in Technical Report 1. This section adds more data and commentary to those reports in respect of recreation and tourism (non-commuter) uptake, and provides data to substantiate the scale of non-market community benefits resulting from use of the shared path. In summary, this review provides: . A summary of preceding strategies and plans which envisage the development of the shared path and which place it within a regional recreation and tourism context;
. Comment on the projections of future use of the shared path provided in Technical Report 2, with regard to recreation and tourism uptake and benefits;
. Comment on the recreational activities, in addition to walking and cycling, facilitated by the shared path;
. A summary of physical and mental health benefits from improved access to activity friendly environments, with reference to the types of activity options provided by the shared path.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 45
7. Plans and strategies
This section summarises previous plans and strategies developed by agencies other than Waka Kotahi which have promoted the development of the shared path and which place it within a regional recreation context and illustrate each agency’s motivation. Further context is provided in Technical Report 1, which focuses on more broad regional transport strategies and plans.
7.1.1. Great Harbour Way/Te Aranui o Pōneke
Boffa Miskell (2009) describe the concept of, and background to, the Great Harbour Way/Te Aranui o Pōneke proposal: The Great Harbour Way -Te Aranui o Poneke (GHW) is the name adopted to describe an exciting recreation, active transport and tourism initiative for the Wellington area. The GHW concept involves the development and marketing of a continuous shared cycle and pedestrian route around the coastline of Wellington Harbour. The 67km route stretches from Pariwhero/Red Rocks to Pencarrow Head and the aim is for it to be located immediately beside the harbour edge as far as is practicable. [Figure 24 on the following page]
While several groups have separately promulgated this concept in various forms over several years, in 2008 the groups decided to combine their efforts into the Great Harbour Way Coalition. The Coalition proposes to develop the concept further and to seek support from the various agencies and organisations that control and administer the harbour edge and the immediate environs, and to chart a direction to move the GHW from a concept into reality.
The 2009 Boffa Miskell report is an issues and options review for the GHW. Objectives include: . Provide a safe continuous walking and cycling route for both transport and recreation movement around the perimeter of the harbour between Pencarrow Head and Red Rocks;
. Be predominantly designed to accommodate a continuous 2-way path;
. Provide a safe cycling commuter route between the communities along the route (such as between Petone and Wellington CBD);
. Be located immediately beside the harbour edge as far as is practicable;
. Be planned and designed in such a way as to avoid adverse effects on environmentally sensitive areas;
. Highlight Maori cultural history and values and other historical values;
. Recognise the opportunities of this route to act as a catalyst for new ancillary or development opportunities within the corridor of land it traverses;
. Enhance knowledge and awareness of the Wellington Harbour environment and immediate environs through interpretation, storytelling and art;
. Become a nationally recognised cycleway/walkway, and a key part of the National Cycleway project promoted by the Government….
The section of route between Wellington and Pito-One was referred to as ‘The Gap’ in the report (p76): The Sectors of the route between Petone and the Wellington Waterfront pose the greatest physical challenges and are the only part of the route where the path is not immediately adjacent to the harbour edge.
The first challenging sector is ‘the gap’; or the 4.6km section between Ngauranga Gorge and Petone. The existing shared path, located between the road and railway lines has a 750m ‘gap’ at the northern end between the Horokiwi turn off and Petone Beach, where the separate
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 46
path stops and users are forced onto the hard shoulder of SH2, which is both unpleasant and dangerous. At this point the coastal platform between the fault escarpment and the sea is extremely narrow (approximately 35m wide) and currently accommodates the railway line and SH2. Therefore to provide any form of defined and safe cycle and pedestrian path would require significant construction works. This issue has long been recognised and several potential solutions have been proposed at various times, several of these have involved engineering investigations. In 2006 Transit New Zealand commissioned Opus Consultants to prepare a Scheme Assessment Report (SAR) for the Ngauranga to Petone cycleway. Several solutions were proposed in relation to ‘fixing the gap’, each with varying degrees of complexity and cost.
Support for the Great Harbour Way/Te Aranui o Pōneke remains active via the Great Harbour Way Trust.18
Figure 24: Great Harbour Way, Boffa Miskell 2009
7.1.2. Wellington City Council The railway corridor within the Wellington City Council boundary where the proposed shared path will be located, or adjacent to, is not reserve or park, and so is not considered by the Council’s reserve management planning (such as the Northern Reserves Management Plan 2008). Similarly, the City’s open space strategy (Our Capital Spaces, An Open Spaces and Recreation Framework for Wellington: 2013–23) focuses on parks, reserves and tracks administered by the Council. The proposed shared path is, however, an important component of the Council’s transport and cycle planning. The Wellington Urban Growth Plan Urban Development and Transport Strategy Implementation Plan (June 2015) sets the scene by identifying the intention to develop a city-wide cycle transport network, of which the Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One route is one component:
18 http://www.greatharbourway.org.nz/
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 47
On-going programmes (years 1 to 10) These projects are fundamental components of the Urban Growth Plan that are already under way and expected to continue for the full duration of the Long-term Plan.
Cycle network description:
Over the next 10 years, we will be undertaking works to establish a strategic cycling network and improve local cycling routes. These works will join schools, tertiary campuses and businesses, and connect the city’s cycle network with the growing regional and national networks. This strategic network will be delivered in six packages guided by the Wellington Cycling Framework:
. Central City – providing the heart of the network between the Basin Reserve, Oriental Parade and Wellington Railway Station
. Eastern – providing links from the city and Newtown to Kilbirnie, Lyall Bay and Miramar
. Petone – linking central Wellington to Ngauranga and Petone
. Northern – connecting Ngaio, Khandallah, Johnsonville, Newlands, Tawa and Linden to the city and harbour
. Southern – connecting Newtown, Berhampore and Island Bay with the city
. Western – connecting Aro Valley, Brooklyn, Kelburn, Karori and the city ….
Benefits: Greater transport network efficiency, effectiveness and resilience; Wellington becoming a more sustainable, liveable and attractive city; and improved safety for people on bikes.
These routes are further defined in the Cycling Framework 2015 (Figure 25, with the Pito-One link in orange). The Framework document focuses on, in broad terms, the design intentions for the proposed cycle network. While the design requirements for the “Petone” link are not defined, the setting most closely fits that of a ‘protected bike lane’ which are “along main routes, where we would expect to see the most commuters” (p10). A protected bike lane is physically separated from neighbouring traffic with a minimum buffer zone of 0.6m and a minimum width of 1.5m for single direction cycle traffic, although 2.2m wide is described as ‘normally ideal’. For a two-directional lane, the target is a minimum width of 2.5m (p16).19
The Wellington Cycleways Programme Master Plan (September 2015) gives no more detail about the Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One shared path, but describes in some detail the demand for cycling infrastructure, which is relevant to Section 4 for describing the existing environment of the proposal.
The Wellington City Council Cycle Network Development Programme Business Case (February 2016) reviewed various options for implementing the Cycling Framework and Master Plan, ranging from a do-minimum approach to a ‘high level of service upgrade’, providing cost estimates for each option. A multi-criteria analysis was applied to the 12 options using, first, five investment objectives and then Waka Kotahi investment criteria (p v): Investment objectives:
1. Achieve a high Level of Service for cyclists within an integrated transport network.
2. Improve cycling infrastructure and facilities so that cycling makes a much greater contribution to network efficiency, effectiveness and resilience.
3. Cycling is a viable and attractive transport choice.
19 Technical Report 2 comments specifically on path width in respect of the Project; the Project goes well beyond the 2.5m width cited in the Cycling Framework.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 48
4. The crash rate, number, and severity of crashes involving people on bikes are reduced. 5. Provide transport choices by increasing the opportunity for people to ride bikes so as to improve the sustainability, liveability and attractiveness of Wellington.
New Zealand Transport Agency investment criteria:
Criteria 1: Strategic fit of the problem, issue or opportunity that is being addressed. Criteria 2: Effectiveness of the proposed solution.
Criteria 3: Benefit and cost appraisal.
Figure 25: Wellington City Cycleway Network Plan detail (Cycling Framework 2015)
Pito-One
Ngā Ūranga
Kaiwharawhara
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 49
Several options were short-listed, and from them a final recommendation was made for “Option 3E: Weighted prioritisation.” This comprised the following assessment hierarchy (p vii): Prioritisation of investment in cycling infrastructure will be based on the following three aspects:
1. Strategic routes (main corridors within catchment areas): Those corridors that are able to make the biggest contribution to network efficiency, effectiveness, and resilience based on forecast/potential demand. Considerations regarding this aspect will include, but not be limited to the following:
. Current and potential number of people who bike;
. Number of bike kilometres travelled (network efficiency);
. Number of people who bike on the route and the percentage of travel on this route on bikes;
. Increased access to appropriate transport mode choice;
. Key connections between residential areas schools, local centres, employment, sport and recreation, hospitals and other high usage areas of the city; and
. Closing network gaps between strategic routes.
2. Level of Service gaps and deficiencies: Addressing the most severe and largest gaps in the desired level of service:
. Function;
. Hierarchies of levels of service; and
. Deficiencies in inconvenience and safety (non-provision or inadequate).
3. Equity: A principle to be applied when prioritising catchment areas, focusing on spreading investment in a reasonably equitable manner across catchment areas:
. Equity of access; and
. Equity of coverage across the city’s urban areas.
The CBD to Ngā Ūranga transport corridor (as part of the Wellington to Hutt Valley cycleway) was identified as one of three core developments within this priority framework. The other two were the Wellington CBD and eastern transport corridors. It was noted that, “A key trigger for the Ngā Ūranga to Wellington CBD route is the completion of the cycleways between Ngā Ūranga and Pito-One, and Pito-One and Melling, which will result in a regional connection.” (p37). Funding priorities were then set for the Ngā Ūranga to CBD connection for 2015-2018. The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One shared path features strongly in the Let's Get Wellington Moving project, a joint initiative between Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council and the Waka Kotahi.20 The recent development of the shared path on Hutt Road south of Ngā Ūranga was partly predicated on the extension of the Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One shared path (“A key trigger for the Ngā Ūranga to Wellington CBD route is the completion of the cycleways between Ngā Ūranga and Pito- One, and Pito-One and Melling, which will result in a regional connection.” (WCC 2016)).
20 See https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/projects/lets-get-wellington-moving and https://www.getwellymoving.co.nz/
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 50
7.1.3. Hutt City Council Hutt City has published several strategies which support the development of recreation amenity such as the proposed shared path – either directly or indirectly. An Integrated Vision for Hutt City (HCC 2014) was published to define a collective vision for the City, aiming to make it “a great place to live, work and play.” The vision was based on a four-year process of consolidating “existing visions, projects and plans” and community consultation. Community areas were categorised under one of five headings: destinations, residential villages, gateways and destinations, sports destinations and employment hubs. Pito-One is identified as a ‘Destination’, with several relevant values and opportunities: . Improvement of the foreshore as a major recreational and social area by addressing traffic issues along The Esplanade;
. Establish a gateway/entrance to Pito-One at the western end of the Pito-One foreshore.
Figure 26: Key Routes Map, Walk and Cycle the Hutt 2014-2019
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 51
The HCC Leisure and Wellbeing Strategy 2012–2032 is one of four strategies which emerged from the Integrated Vision. The vision for the Strategy is, “To make a better city everyday by providing integrated community services which make a world class difference to the people of our city.” The Strategy does not define the need for the Project specifically, but defers to a subsequent plan, ‘Walk and Cycle the Hutt 2014-2019’, which: will build on our work since 2006 and improve cycling and walking experiences in the city. The implementation programme, which will be developed in partnership with a working group of stakeholders, will detail the actions, priorities and timelines for delivering the plan’s aims and objectives.
Our principal aim is to encourage more people to cycle and walk more often and further, for commuting and recreational purposes. Achieving this aim requires a paradigm shift in thinking about and resourcing walking and cycling in order to create a network that is safe, easy, convenient, attractive and pleasurable, both for leisure and as transport to workplaces, schools, and other key destinations. In terms of cycling in particular, the design and delivery of routes both on and off-road will need to cater for a range of user needs, including commuter and leisure cyclists.
Walk and Cycle the Hutt 2014-2019 identified the ‘Proposed Ngauranga to Petone shared path’ as one of several ‘key safe routes for walking and cycling’ (Figure 26) and specified funding commitments for the period of the report. The principal aim of ‘Walk and Cycle the Hutt’ is that: . More people in the city will cycle and walk more often and further, for commuting and recreational purposes.
Related aims are:
. High quality level of service for pedestrians and cyclists;
. Improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
7.1.4. Wellington Regional Trails for the Future
The Wellington Regional Trails for the Future (TRC Tourism 2017) presents a ‘strategic framework for trails in the Wellington Region’ and is a combined vision for the nine district and regional councils,21 and the Department of Conservation, in the Wellington Region. A ‘trail’ is not defined in the Strategy but includes the Hutt River Trail and the Remutaka Cycle Trail, both of which would link with the shared path (via the Pito-One foreshore). The strategy notes: The Wellington region has an outstanding opportunity to become a world-class trails-based destination offering outstanding experiences to a variety of markets. Importantly, improving the level of products aligned to trails will not only help achieve the world class experiences, it adds significant value for the residents of the region who are strongly connected to their trails and who see them as a vital part of the infrastructure to support a healthy and vibrant region…..
At the core of attracting trail visitors is the environment and setting, the quality and quantity of trails, their accessibility and the interest and challenge offered…. The trail’s location and design should enhance the user’s overall experience – whether it is a short walk showcasing a special feature, a long journey through different landscapes, a remote nature experience, a challenging mountain bike ride or an event. Trails and associated infrastructure (trailheads, signage, amenities) need to be designed and constructed to be fit for purpose and level of use, to be compatible with surrounding natural and cultural features, and to minimise environmental and social impacts.
21 Kapiti Coast District Council, Porirua City Council, Wellington City Council, Hutt City Council, Upper Hutt City Council, Carterton District Council, Masterton City Council, South Wairarapa District Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 52
Trails and infrastructure Figure 27: Remutaka Cycle Trail (nzcycletrail.com) should be designed and managed to be safe for the proposed uses, including shared use trails. There should be clear, accessible information (on signs and online sources) on orientation and wayfinding, trail standards, difficulty ratings, appropriate user behaviour and journey length.
The Strategy proposed defining trails according to three labels: . Signature Trails: A small number of outstanding trails that attract visitors and achieve recognition for the region as a trail destination, and provide a focal point for regional residents;
. Regional Trails: Significant trails that form the core of the trail network and provide quality experiences for residents and visitors and attract users more familiar with the area or wanting less popular experiences;
. Local Trails: Trails that primarily service local communities. Local trails are important for everyday health, wellbeing, connectivity and amenity.
The Remutaka Cycle Trail (Figure 27) is classed as a Signature Trail, with the note: “Missing links exist on the southern end of the trail that ideally would be resolved and create a loop track back to the Wellington Great Harbour Trail proposal through Petone.”
The reasons the Remutaka Cycle Trail meets the Signature Criteria are: . A 115 km ‘Great Ride’ in the New Zealand Cycle Trail that offers outstanding diversity including scenic riversides, forested hills, historic tunnels, Maori and European heritage, railway relics, wineries, rural landscapes, wetlands, unique geological formations, superb rugged coastal scenery with fur seals at Turakirae Head and a Lord of the Rings film location. Provides links to various clusters of trails in the region;
. Governance is growing through collaboration between trail management partners;
. Easily accessible from Wellington City;
. Information is strong due to its national status;
. Named by Lonely Planet as ‘one of the world’s hottest travel experiences’ for 2015.
7.2. Summary
The plans and strategies have a strong focus on developing an alternative network for commuters, but also aim to provide for recreation and tourism benefits. Notably, the Project is consistently supported by all local and regional councils.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 53
8. Benefits review
This section considers the social and individual benefits that are likely to accrue from construction of the shared path, not including resilience (reduction of the effects of sea level rise, for example). The focus is on community and personal wellbeing, and tourism and recreation participation. This section also adds to, and discuses, the economic assessment summarised in Technical Report 1 and the projections of uptake in use in Technical Report 2.
Accruing benefits depends on people using the shared path. The key assumption behind this review of benefits is that the proposed new shared path will increase uptake of cycling for commuting and recreation when compared to the existing use, as well as the adoption of the pathway for a wide range of other physical activities, such as walking and running. In addition, the shared path provides improved access to the coast for fishing and snorkelling, the opportunity to watch and monitor rowing, waka ama and kayaking races and events, and for general coastal exploration (noting the need to maintain some controls over access to limit bird disturbance). These are all clearly benefits to recreation, but have less easily specified health outcomes than walking and cycling, where more quantified research has been completed.
To place the entire premise in context, the 2012 survey of members of Cycle Aware Wellington (and their associates, as reviewed in Section 4.2) gives an indication of the potential effect of the proposal on uptake (Transport Agency 2012b). Figure 28 indicates the scale of interest in a new facility compared with, for example, a shorter commute, amongst those who currently use the existing SH2 cycle path or SH2 shoulder and those who do not (but are still cyclists – described as ‘non-cyclists’ in Figure 28).
Figure 28: Factors which would influence increase in cycling uptake (Transport Agency 2012b)
8.1. Benefits of physical activity
The health and social benefits of physical activity are well-established. The additional walking and cycling activity that the Project is anticipated to create will have significant health and social benefits, which can in turn be assigned an economic / monetary value.
There is ample literature supporting the relationship between physical activity and wellness. For example, a 2010 literature review by Janssen and LeBlanc into the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth found:
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 54
…a total of 437 citations were identified for cholesterol, 1151 for depression, 2505 for injury, 1181 for bone density, 1677 for blood pressure, 5824 for obesity, and 1677 for the metabolic syndrome. Thus, the grand total was 13,174. Many of these 13,174 citations were retrieved for two or more health outcomes, and after removing these duplicates there was a total of 11,088 unique citations. After the titles and abstracts of these 11,088 citations were reviewed, full-text copies of 454 potentially relevant citations were obtained and reviewed.
Considering these data, the authors’ number one recommendation was that children and youth 5-17 years of age should accumulate an average of at least 60 minutes per day and up to several hours of at least moderate intensity physical activity per week. Some of the health benefits can be achieved through an average of 30 minutes activity per day.
And in more detail: In summary, the findings of this systematic review confirm that physical activity is associated with numerous health benefits in school-aged children and youth. The dose-response relations between physical activity and health that were observed in several observational studies suggest that the more physical activity, the greater the health benefit. However, the results from several experimental studies suggested that even modest amounts of physical activity can have tremendous health benefits in high-risk youngsters (e.g., obese, high blood pressure). To achieve substantive health benefits, the physical activity should be of at least a moderate intensity, and it should be recognized that vigorous intensity activities may provide an even greater benefit. Aerobic-based activities that stress the cardiovascular and respiratory systems have the greatest health benefit, other than for bone health, in which case high-impact weight bearing activities are required.
Appropriately, the NZ Ministry of Health’s 2016/17 New Zealand Childhood Obesity Programme Baseline Report has three of its fifteen baseline indicators related to physical activity (the others relate to, for example: eating well, sleep deprivation, and natal and neonatal measures): . Time spent on physical activity, using similar guidelines to those of Janssen and LeBlanc (2010);
. Active transport to and from school (“Research has shown that children who walk to school are less likely to be obese, and are more likely to have a lower BMI and a smaller waist circumference, than children who use more sedentary modes of transport, such as a car or bus”); and
. Use of a bicycle, noting that nearly 70 percent of families/whānau have one or more bicycles at home, and that, “The health benefits of regular cycling include increased cardiovascular fitness, increased muscle strength and flexibility, improved joint mobility, improved posture and coordination and decreased body fat levels.”
With this information in mind, it is worth reflecting on the recreation participation data referred to in Appendix 4 of this report. Wellington’s most important forms of physical activity are (see Figure 30), first, walking (56% participation), followed by jogging or running (29%), with cycling and biking 5th (10%) after playing games, individual workouts, gardening and swimming. For adults (18+, 7-day participation), 42% described roads or footpaths as a location for recreation (the most popular setting of all), 25% named walkways, and 15% ‘on, in or beside the coast’ and 6% on a ‘cycleway or cycle lane specifically set aside for cyclists’ – compared with 32% for ‘private property, home, garden or pool’, 20% for ‘public park, field, playground, skate park or BMX track’, 18% for a gym or fitness centre and 10% for ‘outdoor sports facility or purpose-built environment’.
The World Health Organisation previously summarised all these issues in 2006 (Prüss-Üstün, 2006): Physical inactivity is a risk factor for noncommunicable diseases including: ischaemic heart disease and stroke; cancers of the breast, colon and rectum; and diabetes mellitus. For these diseases, the attributable fraction for physical inactivity varied between 10% and 22% globally, depending on the disease. The prevalence of physical inactivity can be modulated by the
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 55
environment, via factors that encourage physical activity… More than half of the global population gets insufficient physical activity to protect them from related risks causing death, chronic morbidity and disability from a range of noncommunicable diseases. Inactivity levels could be reduced by designing environments that are more conducive to physical activity in the workplace, at home, in transport and in leisure time.
Similarly, the Capital and Coast District Health Board (CCDHB) reported in its 2015 Regional Health Needs Assessment: Physical activity helps protect against heart disease, stroke, type two diabetes, certain cancers, osteoporosis and depression. It is also important for maintaining a healthy weight and preventing and reducing obesity. The Ministry of Health recommends that adults do at least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity (eg, brisk walking) at least five days per week…. Just under half of all adults in the sub-region (47%) were physically active. This was similar to the rate in 2006/07 and somewhat lower than the overall New Zealand figure (54%). CCDHB adults were significantly less likely to be physically active (45%) than New Zealand adults overall.
Bidwell (2012) found, via literature review, that in New Zealand, physical inactivity is third only to smoking and diet as a modifiable risk factor for poor health, associated with 9.5% of all deaths and estimated to account for over 2,600 deaths per year. Bidwell noted that the direct gross cost of physical inactivity to the Australian health budget in 2006/2007 was estimated at around $1.49 billion. Australian studies reported that insufficient physical activity was the third largest single determinant on the ‘Burden of Disease Scale’ in Queensland and that inactivity was costing Australia $13.8 billion.
Bidwell’s key findings included: . Walking and cycling for transport has the potential to address a wide range of costly health and environmental issues, particularly the health burden of physical inactivity, and the need to address climate change;
. There is consistent and growing evidence that increasing walking and cycling levels in the population also achieves substantial economic return over the long term;
. Evidence is emerging that investments in infrastructure that encourage walking and cycling demonstrate greater benefits than interventions that target behaviour change in the population.
Market Economics (2013), identified that physical inactivity cost New Zealand $1.3 billion in 2010 (just less than 1% of New Zealand’s GDP), including on a regional basis: $402 million for the Auckland region, $106 million for the Waikato region and $141 million for the Wellington region, stating: Physical inactivity is costly. At an individual level, it can lead to suffering and disruption to a person’s life with the onset of a disease that could have been avoided. Ultimately, it can lead to premature death which may impact on household economics and organisation. The premature death of 246 New Zealanders was caused by physical inactivity for the 2009 year. Seventy three of these deaths were in the Auckland region, 21 in the Wellington region and 18 deaths in the Waikato region. These premature deaths were estimated for those aged under 65 years only…. To put these figures into context, there were 420 motor vehicle fatalities and 510 deaths caused by self-harm for that same year. Physical inactivity is at a serious pandemic level in New Zealand, as in other countries. In a recent major report published in The Lancet medical journal, New Zealand was the 27th (out of 122) most inactive country, with nearly 50 percent of the population insufficiently physically active.
Genter et al 2008 provided a very useful analysis of the health benefits of active transport modes, with the aim of providing a per-kilometre figure that Waka Kotahi could apply when developing cost
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 56
benefit ratios for roading projects which include provisions for walking and cycling (including the Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One path in Aecom (2015)).
The Genter study identified five diseases with an evidence-based link to inactivity: cardio-vascular disease; cancer; Type 2 diabetes; and depression; as well as considering the benefits of increased productivity from improved fitness and health. All-risk mortality, as a collective measure of general mortality and levels of physical activity were also factored. While noting that, “attributing monetary values to these benefits is an extremely complex and problematic task”, the authors proposed a range of per kilometre financial benefits to different active transport modes based on the varying levels of physical exertion involved (cycling is a more efficient means of travel and so has a lower per kilometre value). Mortality, morbidity and health-sector costs were included in a calculation of total annual benefits, per person, that could be realised by an inactive person becoming physically active. A range of levels of benefit were often reported in the literature upon which the analysis was based, and considering national population profile variability, a range of estimates were concluded (Table 1).
Table 1: Per-kilometre benefits of active transport modes (Genter et al 2008)
Scenario Annual Benefit Walking Cycling Skateboarding Roller skating Low $3,112 $3.53 $1.77 $2.37 $3.53 Medium $3,765 $4.27 $2.14 $2.86 $4.27 High $4,417 $5.01 $2.51 $3.36 $5.01
Waka Kotahi’s Economic Evaluation Manual (Transport Agency 2018) uses lower per-kilometre figures of $3.21 for pedestrians and $1.72 for cyclists22, but notes (p5-521): Where a new facility eliminates or improves a site that is an impediment to safe cycling, a benefit of $4.35 may be ascribed to cyclists using the facility. The benefit is irrespective of the length of work. It uses the average cycle trip length of 3km times the composite benefit given above.
Chapman et al (2018) used a different method to assess the cost/benefit ratio of two ‘active travel intervention’ projects in New Plymouth and Hastings which included $11.2 million of expenditure on building a mix of separated cycleways, walkways, and cycle lanes and associated education and promotion. The authors included health and injury effects as well as vehicle emissions in their calculation and concluded a benefit/cost ratio of 11, almost all of which (98%) resulted from health and injury reduction benefits.
Victorio (2016) estimated for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that cycling on New Zealand’s Cycle Trails in 2015 resulted in national savings of $11 million from reduced mortality risks; and more than 8% of this was from use of the Remutaka Cycle Trail. The analysis relied on a very small level of change in participation levels; considering that: There was no clear consensus as to whether facilities like cycle trails actually have an effect on exercise attitudes. Some researchers emphasise that their availability can have a strong influence upon activities like cycling. Others say that such facilities only create opportunities for exercise, with any effects being instead the result of individual and social factors.23 Thus, a decision was made to assign only a small change, of one percentage point, to the number of individuals switching from being inactive to being active as a consequence of the trails being available for them to use.
Groundwater (2016) reported on the benefit cost ratio of the New Plymouth Coastal Walkway, a 12.7km coastal path from central New Plymouth to Bell Block Beach in the north. The walkway and
22 Including road traffic reduction and relying on the 2008 base figures of $2.70 and $1.45 respectively, as per table A20.3, and applying the update factor of 1.19 to July 2017 as per table A12.2 (Transport Agency 2018) 23 This multi-factorial influence is noted, but it is significant that activity cannot occur without a venue.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 57
an associated ‘Let’s Go’ activation programme were assessed to have resulted in a benefit cost ratio of 3.8, considering only transport benefits (with a net present value of $71.4 million made up of $97.3 million in benefits (Figure 29) and $25.9 million in costs). Groundwater reported: The coastal walkway has been a very successful infrastructure investment. While the cost of implementation was high, the benefits associated with the investment have far outweighed the cost. This demonstrates that investing in high quality infrastructure for walking and cycling, especially where this is supported by education and encouragement, can be extremely successful. As demonstrated in the census Journey to Work data, the coastal walkway has been successful in encouraging active commute trips, as well as recreation and other utility trips. It should be noted that there are likely other economic benefits associated with the coastal walkway and ‘Let’s Go’ programme that are outside the scope of this transport focused evaluation, these could include tourism and benefits to local businesses.
Figure 29: New Plymouth Coastal Walkway benefits analysis (Groundwater 2016)
8.2. Negative effects of activity
Walking and cycling causes injuries and mortalities, but despite these, Janssen & LeBlanc (2010) – via their meta-data analysis – maintained their significant recommendation that being active is better than not, and that all the research quoted above maintains the same position with injuries taken into account (the benefits far outweigh the costs).
Genter et al (2008) did not include accidents as a negative cost factor in their analysis due to a transfer of car use to cycling or walking and therefore a reduction in vehicle accidents. Studies indicate that when there is a critical mass of cyclists and pedestrians, vehicle drivers are more aware and serious cycling injuries do not increase. Genter et al (2008) cited Australian findings that where the cycling rate doubled, the injury risk per kilometre would reduce by 34 percent. Alternatively, if cycling rates halved, the injury risk per cycling-kilometre was predicted to increase by 52 percent. Genter et al (2008) concluded: “The evidence confirms that the negative impact of active-mode injury risk does not outweigh the health benefits of increased activity, particularly when compared to private vehicle travel.” Notably, the Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One shared path will provide a wide path that is completely separated from road traffic, which should result in far lower risks of serious injury for users compared with increasing cycle use within a road corridor. However, this benefit could be offset slightly by a reduction in awareness of cyclists who chose to remain on SH2 – although the current scale of use of SH2 by cyclists is likely to be insufficiently high to gain any level of protection via high levels of driver awareness.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 58
The NZ Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) reports on injury rates for all sports activities, but does not include walking. For cycling, 21,485 injuries were reported in the year ended June 2018 (2,140 in the Wellington region), compared with a high of 23,135 in the year ended June 2016 (2,144 in the Wellington region), and a recent low of 19,683 in the year ended June 2014 (1,786 in the Wellington region). By comparison, Rugby Union had 51,597 reported injuries in the year ended June 2018. Just 2.4% of the adult national population participate in rugby compared with 11.2% cycling; and 10% and 29% respectively for young people (aged 5-17) (average 7-day participation rates, Sport NZ, 2017).24
8.3. Activity Friendly Environments and physical activity
An Activity Friendly Environment is created by building physical and social settings which enable physical activity to become part of everyday behaviour. Sport NZ (2004) defined activity friendly environments as allowing “people to take the active option first. Activity Friendly Environment infrastructure, settings and services allow and encourage people of all ages and abilities to make an active choice.” Similar terms include ‘active transport’ and ‘active living’.25 The concept is reflected in Waka Kotahi’s primary outcome for Walking and Cycling Model Communities (Transport Agency 2013): “A community where walking or cycling is the easiest choice.” The concept is reflected in such strategies as The Healthy Auckland Together Plan 2015-2020, with as, Action 1, better developing “streets, parks and places”, with the vision: “Physical activity is integrated into our daily lives”: Physical activity can be incorporated into daily life through leisure and recreational activities or everyday activities such as active transport. Well planned urban environments increase opportunities to be physically active by creating neighbourhoods that are easy and safe to move around, encourage people to use both active and public transport, and create spaces for people to be active. The World Health Organization has estimated that changes to the urban environment could reduce physical inactivity by one third. Streets, parks and places have the biggest potential for gains in physical activity for people with disabilities, by ensuring that the built environment is usable and accessible (physically and practically) for them.
The World Health Organisation reported (Prüss-Üstün 2006): Pedestrian friendly and bicycle-friendly environments include side-walks, ample building setbacks, walking and cycling paths, parks, bus shelters, and streets that are easy to cross. The level of car use in a population is related to the built environment and also has been linked to physical inactivity and obesity. Therefore, measures that discourage reliance on a car also may encourage physical activity, and reduce physical inactivity…
It has been estimated that inactivity levels could be reduced by 31% (12—59%) for North America and developed areas of the Western Pacific region, 27% (12—58%) for the European region, 20% (8—38%) for China, 18% (11—34%) for the Latin America and the Caribbean region, and 13% (3—35%) in other developing regions. Globally, 19% (13—27%) of current inactivity levels could be prevented by environmental interventions.
The concept is in-line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals26; specifically Goal 11: Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable; and Target 11.7: By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities.
Outcomes from developing activity friendly environments are measurable. For example, Powell et al (2003) reported in the American Journal of Public Health that 41% of adult Georgians were likely to
24 Participation rates based on 12 month and 7-day periods are used in the Active NZ surveys, and in this report both sets of data are used depending on which results are available for specific activities. 25 See for example: https://activelivingresearch.org/ 26 See: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 59
meet the recommendations for physical activity if they lived near a safe walking setting compared with 27% for those who did not.
Kopcakova et al (2017), in a review of data from a World Health Organization (WHO) collaborative cross-national study of adolescents in Europe, found that an environment perceived as activity- friendly was associated with higher odds that adolescents meet recommendations for physical activity and lower odds for excessive screen-based activities. Their findings were, “in line with previous research, which suggests that the built environment may be key in promoting an active lifestyle among adolescents.”
Davison & Lawson (2006) analysed 33 previously published quantitative studies into the relationship between physical activity and the physical or built environment for youth aged 3 to 18. They reported that, “children's participation in physical activity is positively associated with publicly provided recreational infrastructure (access to recreational facilities and schools) and transport infrastructure (presence of sidewalks and controlled intersections, access to destinations and public transportation). At the same time, transport infrastructure (number of roads to cross and traffic density/speed) and local conditions (crime, area deprivation) are negatively associated with children's participation in physical activity.” Humpel et al (2002), in a review of 19 quantitative studies relating to how environmental factors affect adult participation in physical activity, found that accessibility of facilities, opportunities for activity, and aesthetic attributes (neighbourhood features and character) had significant associations with physical activity. They found that “physical environment factors have consistent associations with physical activity behavior.” Weather and safety showed less-strong relationships.
Giles-Corti & Donovan (2003) in a review of walking activity in Perth noted, “The physical environment also appeared to influence walking at recommended levels…. In comparison with those who had major traffic and no trees on their street, the odds of achieving recommended levels of walking were nearly 50% higher among those who lived on a street with one or both of these features.”
The width of the Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One shared path, its design features and strategic location, will all contribute to its status as an activity friendly setting.
8.4. Regional recreation and tourism
As discussed in Section 7 of this report, the proposed shared path has been noted as desirable by various regional recreation and tourism plans for more than a decade. The Great Harbour Way/Te Aranui o Pōneke (Figure 24) and the Remutaka Cycle Trail (Figure 27), particularly, require the shared path to be of adequate standard to suit walkers and cyclists.
Tourism New Zealand has identified that New Zealand has an international point of difference in four special interest areas, and that these will form part of the nation’s ‘unique selling proposition’:27 . Cycling and mountain biking;
. Golf;
. Skiing;
. Walking and hiking.
Tourism NZ reported:28
. 73% of international holiday visitors participated in walking or hiking in the three years to 2018, an average of 1.1 million people per year, 14% of whom reported walking and hiking
27 https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/markets-stats/sectors/special-interest/ 28 https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/media/3076/special-interest-infographic.pdf
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 60
as a factor in influencing their decision to visit NZ. 51% of the walking was short walks of between 30 minutes and three hours. Length of stay and average spend were near the average since most visitors participate in walking or hiking.
. 9% of international holiday visitors participated in cycling in the three years to 2018, an average of 138,000 people per year. This group spent on average 33 nights in the country compared with the average of 16 nights, and spent $4,900 compared with the average of $3,900, and tended to visit more regions (5 compared with the average of 3.5).
Cycle tourism in New Zealand has been growing. Methods for gathering tourism participation data via the International Visitor Survey have changed over the years and it is difficult to compare between survey periods. However, in 2013, NZ’s Great Rides experienced 56% average growth, and between 2008 and 2011 international participation almost doubled.29 Domestic participation in cycling and walking is discussed in Appendix 4 of this report. The 2013/14 Sport NZ Active NZ survey results showed cycling and mountain biking was carried out by 24.8% of adult Kiwis over 12 months, while in 2017 the activities of road cycling and mountain biking were reported separately, with 34% of adult Kiwis participating in either over 12 months (20% and 14% respectively).30 By separating the activities in 2017, the latest data will include some double-counting compared with the 2013/14 result (that is, respondents who mountain biked and road cycled in 2013/14 were recorded as participating in only one activity, whereas they are counted separately in 2017). Growth in participation cannot be assumed, but seems likely. Sixty percent of adult Kiwis were reported to have walked for recreation over 12 months in 2013/14 compared with 85% in 2017. This appears a very large difference and may be an artefact of the survey method, but it does suggest growth.
The Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment estimated that the Remutaka Cycle Trail generated $2.62 million in domestic, and $683,384 in international revenue, based on just under 99,000 visits in 2015 (Victorio 2016).
The Ngā Haerenga NZ Cycle Trail Evaluation Report 2016 (Figuracion 2016) reported for 2015 a 1:3.55 cost benefit ratio for the NZ Cycle Trail network, with 1.3 million trail users, 17% of whom were commuters and 13.5% international visitors; and a net economic contribution of $37.5 million, plus $12 million in social benefits (including the $11 million in reduced mortality risks reported in Victorio (2016) as discussed in section 8.1 of this report).
The projected user profile of the shared path is discussed in the following section of this report. Most of the projected users will be New Zealanders – based on the data reviewed below – but in the longer-term perhaps as many as 13.5% could be international visitors, considering the Figuracion (2016) data and assuming the shared path forms part of an internationally promoted cycle route (and there is no impediment to this occurring, with the shared path connecting to the Remutaka Cycle Trail).
29 https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/media/1764/cycling-tourism_profile.pdf and https://www.nzcycletrail.com/about/history/ 30 Participation rates based on 12 month and 7-day periods are used in the Active NZ surveys, and in this report both sets of data are used depending on which results are available for specific activities.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 61
8.5. Projected uptake and economic benefits of Te Ara Tupua
Projections of use of the shared path are presented in Technical Report 2. This relies on three key assumptions to identify the initial level of uptake (based on comparable developments and existing use patterns):
. 95% of current cyclists using SH2 will shift to the shared path once it is open and there will be a 100% step change in use in the first 12 months. This assumes extensive development of the connected regional cycling network and vigorous promotion of the Project.
. Walkers and runners will make up approximately 15% of total weekday users. The majority of these users will walk or run only a portion of the shared path, mostly starting and finishing at the Pito-One end.
. Transport device (e-scooters etc) users will make up approximately 10% of total weekday users.
This, and other estimates of growth in uptake (based on historical trends and other comparable developments) result in an estimate of an increase from 715 current cycling users on SH2 per weekday to 1,359 per weekday in the first year of operation; and an increase from 5 weekday runners and walkers in the SH2 corridor to 272 (only half of whom will use the full length of the shared path), and 181 users of transport devices. Total use of the shared path is projected to grow from 2,718 total weekday users in year 1 (nominally 2025), to 7,331 in 2050 (a 2.7 times increase). Similar estimates are given for weekend daily use and growth.
In my view these are reasonable, though I would add that additional use is likely from weekday recreational cycling activity, which will be under-represented by those currently cycling on SH2 due to its poor level of amenity. International tourism activity is also not included in the assessment, which, as stated, formed 13.5% of Ngā Haerenga NZ Cycle Trail activity in 2015 (Figuracion 2016). Similarly, domestic tourism is not included, which contributed the majority of use on the Ngā Haerenga NZ Cycle Trails (86.5%).
Victorio (2016) estimated 99,000 visits in 2015 on the Remutaka Cycle Trail. However, it is difficult to identify the scale by which the Te Ara Tupua connection will increase this number, or whether it will just extend the distance that existing users are able to ride. Nonetheless, the addition of tourism activity will provide a seasonal boost to the base demand projection, and offer a suite of additional economic benefits which have not been quantified. Importantly, Te Ara Tupua is a significant component of the Great Harbour Way proposal and as such – and by itself – will make a major contribution to the suite of tourism products available in the Wellington region.
The economic benefits of the proposed path are reviewed in Technical Report 1, and include (excluding resilience and other non-health-related benefits, such as reduced vehicle costs, reductions in CO2 emissions and tourism) (measured in present value): . Safety benefits - $19 million
. Health benefits of cycling - $111 million
. Health benefits of walking - $38 million
For the health benefits value assessment described in Technical Report 1, the medium per-kilometre figures for the benefits of active transport modes for cycling and walking prescribed by Genter et al (2008) were used, as shown in Table 1 on page 57. These are 2008 figures and so present a conservative basis for a 2020 calculation.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 62
8.6. Summary
Several key points are evident: . Physical activity is fundamental to physical and mental health; and by providing an alternative to the use of cars, has a wide range of social and environmental benefits;
. Activity friendly environments are fundamental to enabling physical activity, and footpaths and cycleways are key components of an activity friendly environment;
. Walking and cycling are fundamental forms of physical activity for New Zealanders, are important features of our tourism product, and participation is growing;
. Walking and cycling activity between Pito-One and Wellington is currently significantly impeded by poor provision for cycling and walking;
. The proposed shared path has long-been identified as a strategic asset locally and regionally for connecting communities, enabling physical activity and alternative transport, and developing national and international tourism product;
. Use projections are potentially conservative in light of likely weekday recreational demand and international tourist demand generally. The scale of tourism uptake is difficult to predict, and similarly the scale of benefit from tourism considering the path’s connection to an existing national cycle trail. However, the ability to further develop the Great Harbour Way, and to create an attraction in its own right, will open new tourism product for the Wellington region.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 63
9. Summary and conclusion
9.1. Effects on existing recreation activities
Table 2 summarises the temporary construction effects on recreation of the Project by sector. There are no effects on recreation in Sector 1 and only very minor potential for adverse effects on fishing in the inshore area in Sector 2. Effects on recreation in Sector 3 are confined to the Northern Construction Yard in Honiana Te Puni Reserve and are largely addressed by the construction of the integrated clubs building.
The main effect of the Project on existing public recreation is via the temporary occupation of part of Honiana Te Puni Reserve. This represents the temporary loss of access to 7% of dog exercise space on the Pito-One foreshore, and a 7.5% temporary loss of publicly accessible open space generally (based on the title parcel area on the foreshore which has public access). This is a minor and temporary adverse effect. Access to Korokoro Stream for dog swimming remains in place.
Table 2: Summary of construction effects by sector
Sector 1: Sector 2: Path and Sector 3: Honiana Te Puni
Ngā Ūranga reclamation area Reserve
Minor reduction in area Walking, casual coastal available on Pito-One recreation foreshore Minor reduction in area Dog walking No effects available on Pito-One foreshore Minor reduction in area Cycling available on Pito-One foreshore Minor: some Minor effects from potential for inshore Fishing displacement of local small exclusion for small fishing boat launching boat fishing Minor: relocation of beach Small craft launch site to immediately east No effects of the Reserve Minor: relocation of beach launching to Sladden Park, Power boats Seaview or Lowry Bay – affecting Wellington Water Ski Club primarily
Wellington Rowing No effects Association and Construction of new facilities Wellington Waterski Club as agreed activities Minor: events in Northern Construction Yard area are mostly associated with club Events facilities and beach ramp (for small craft) will relocate accordingly
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 64
Post-construction, the effects of the proposal on existing activities will largely be defined by the reserve management and development practices adopted by Taranaki Whānui and the Hutt City Council via ongoing reserve management planning processes in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977. However, the rehabilitation plan and proposed integration of the watersports clubs within a new complex sets the scene for positive recreation outcomes.
This assessment indicates that the Project, and its construction process, is fully supportive of the objectives of the NZCPS, RCP and PNRP, and the RMA plans of Hutt and Wellington City, as reviewed in Section 3.1 and as they relate to recreation and coastal access objectives – considering both the scale of temporary effect, the benefits of improved coastal access provided by Te Ara Tupua, and the rehabilitation of Honiana Te Puni Reserve according to an agreed reserve management plan.
I have reviewed the proposed conditions accompanying the notices of requirements and resource consent applications. I consider the conditions will appropriately manage effects as assessed in this report.
9.2. Recreation and related benefits of Te Ara Tupua
There is a substantial weight of evidence to prove: the benefits of physical activity; the importance of activity when it is integral to lifestyles (such as when it is part of commuting choices); and the basic requirement to develop activity friendly environments to support ‘active choices’. A lack of physical activity has been shown to be third to smoking and diet as modifiable risk factors in poor health, accounting for 9.5% of all deaths per year in New Zealand in the early 2010s. Physical activity helps protect against heart disease, stroke, type two diabetes, certain cancers, osteoporosis and depression. It is also important for maintaining a healthy weight and preventing and reducing obesity.
There are also substantial domestic examples of major changes in participation in active recreation when new cycle and walkways are developed, and these underpin the projections for use of the Project. There is also clear latent demand for use of the shared path as a commuter route. There are also unquantified benefits from use of the shared path to access the coast and the redevelopment of Honiana Te Puni Reserve.
Tourism will remain a significant earner of foreign exchange for New Zealand post-COVID and domestic tourism will always underpin the industry. While the scale of benefit from tourism from the shared path is difficult to estimate, it will form a significant new form of regional tourism product as an extension of the Remutaka Cycle Trail, an important component of the Great Harbour Way, and as an attraction in itself.
These benefits suggest that the economic assessment and assessment of uptake are likely to be conservative, but are based on sound assumptions.
Overall, I consider the Project will bring significant recreation and related benefits.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 65
10. References Abley Transportation Consultants, 2016. New Plymouth Model Community Evaluation. Poster for IPENZ Transportation Group Conference, Auckland 7 - 9 March 2016. Available at https://www.abley.com/assets/Awards/New-Plymouth-Model-Community-Evaluation-Posters.pdf Aecom NZ Ltd, 2014. Community and Stakeholder Consultation Wellington to Hutt Valley Walking and Cycling Link. Client report prepared for New Zealand Transport Agency Aecom NZ Ltd, 2015. Wellington to Hutt Valley Cycle and Pedestrian Link Detailed Business Case to proceed from Initiation to Implementation. Client report prepared for New Zealand Transport Agency Airey, M. 2012. Spot X Boat Fishing New Zealand. Spot X Publications, Auckland Allen, W. Elmetri, I. Clarke, S. Gibbons. J. Clark, K., Sinner, J., Jiang, W. and Taylor, M. 2009. Mapping the Values of New Zealand's Coastal Waters. 3. Social Values. Biosecurity New Zealand Atkin, Ed. Gunson, M. and Mead S. 2015. Regionally Significant Surf breaks in the Greater Wellington Region. 22 May 2015 version. eCoast Ltd client Report prepared for Wellington Regional Council Auckland Transport, 2013. Auckland Transport Code of Practice. Updated to 18 January 2017 Austroads, 2009. Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths. Austroads Incorporated, Sydney Austroads, 2015. Austroads Supplement to Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths. Austroads Incorporated, Sydney Austroads, 2017. Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides. Austroads Incorporated, Sydney Bidwell, S. 2012. Review of studies that have quantified the economic benefits of interventions to increase walking and cycling for transport. Canterbury District Health Board Community and Public Health Boffa Miskell, 2009. The Great Harbour Way - Te Aranui o Poneke Issues and Opportunities Analysis Great Harbour Way Coalition November 2009 Brasell, K.A. and Morar, S.R. 2017. Is it safe to swim? Recreational water quality monitoring results for 2016/17. Greater Wellington Regional Council, Publication No. GW/ESCI-T-17/98, Wellington Capital and Coast District Health Board, 2015. 2015 Health Needs Assessment for Wairarapa, Hutt Valley and Capital & Coast District Health Boards. Service Integration & Development Unit Wairarapa, Hutt Valley and Capital & Coast District Health Boards Chapman, R. Keall, M. Howden-Chapman, P. Grams, M. Witten, K. Randal, E. Woodward. A. 2018. A Cost Benefit Analysis of an Active Travel Intervention with Health and Carbon Emission Reduction Benefits. In International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018, 15, 962 Davison, K. and Lawson, C. 2006. Do attributes in the physical environment influence children's physical activity? A review of the literature. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2006; 3: 19 Department of Conservation. 1996. Conservation Management Strategy for Wellington 1996–2005. DOC, Wellington Conservancy Department of Conservation. 2010. New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010. DOC, Wellington Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2014. Guidance on the widths of shared paths and separated bicycle paths. Technical Note 133 November 2014. State of Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2015. Road Planning & Design Manual – Edition 2: Volume 3, Transport and Main Roads. Supplement to Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths. State of Queensland Draper, M. and Airey, M. 2012. Spot X Surfcasting New Zealand. Spot X Publications, Auckland Draper, M. Enderby, T. and Enderby J. (eds) 2008. Spot X Fishing New Zealand. Spot X Publications, Auckland. Enderby, T. and Enderby J. 2007. Spot X Diving New Zealand. Spot X Publications, Auckland Figuracion, M.T. 2016. Ngā Haerenga NZ Cycle Trail Evaluation Report 2016. Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, Wellington Fowler, M. Lloyd, W. and Munro. C. 2010. Technical Paper Shared Path Widths. IPENZ Transportation Group Conference Christchurch. March 2010 Genter J. A., Donovan S., Petrenas, B., and Badland, H. 2008. Valuing the health benefits of active transport modes. NZ Transport Agency research report 359. 72 pp
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 66
Giles-Cort,B. Donovan, R. 2003. Relative Influences of Individual, Social Environmental, and Physical Environmental Correlates of Walking. American Journal of Public Health, September 2003, Vol 93, No. 9 Greater Wellington Regional Council, 2009. Navigation and Safety Bylaws Wellington region. GWRC Greenaway, 2016. Greater Wellington Regional Council Hutt River Corridor User Survey 2016. Client report prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council Groundwater, C. 2016. New Plymouth Model Community Evaluation. IPENZ Transportation Group Conference, Auckland 7 - 9 March 2016 Herrero, J. 2016. Using big data to understand trail use: three Strava tools. TRAFx Insights Series 2016. Available at: https://www.trafx.net/img/insights/Using-big-data-to-understand-trail-use-three-strava- tools.pdf
Humpel, N., Owen, N. & Leslie, E. 2002. Environmental factors associated with adults' participation in physical activity: a review. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 22 (3), 188-199 Hutt City Council, 2012. Leisure and Wellbeing Strategy 2012–2032. Hutt City Council Hutt City Council, 2014. An Integrated Vision for Hutt City. Hutt City Council Hutt City Council, 2014. Walk and Cycle the Hutt 2014-2019. Hutt City Council Janssen, I. and LeBlanc, AG. 2010. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2010 7:40 Kalafatelis, E. & Magill, K. 2013. Rates of participation in recreation boating. Research New Zealand client report prepared for Paul Vance, Maritime NZ Kopcakova J, Dankulincova Veselska Z, Madarasova Geckova, A. Bucksch, J. Nalecz, H. Sigmundova D, van Dijk, J.P., and Reijneveld, SA. 2017. Is a Perceived Activity-Friendly Environment Associated with More Physical Activity and Fewer Screen-Based Activities in Adolescents? International Journal of Environmental Resources and Public Health. 2017 Jan 3;14(1) Marine Industry of New Zealand, 2007. Marine Industry of New Zealand Annual Report for period to 31 December 2007. MIA, Auckland Maritime New Zealand, 2007. Boating Safety Strategy - 2007 Review of the New Zealand Pleasure Boat Safety Strategy. MNZ, Auckland Market Economics, 2013. The Costs of Physical Activity. Toward a regional full-cost accounting perspective. Client report for Auckland Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council and Waikato Regional Council McDonald, A.A., Macbeth, A.G., Ribeiro, K.M., and Mallett, D.S., 2007. Estimating Demand for New Cycling Facilities in New Zealand. Land Transport NZ Research Report 340. 124 pp Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment, 2019. New Zealand Cycle Trail Design Guide. MBIE, Wellington Morse, P.B., and Brunskill, P. 2004. Wavetrack New Zealand Surfing Guide. Greenroom Surf Media, NZ Murray, K, von Kohorn. R. 2002. The New Zealand Cruising Guide Central Area. Steven William Publications New Zealand Transport Agency, 2009. Pedestrian planning and design guide - The Design of the Pedestrian Network. the Transport Agency, Wellington New Zealand Transport Agency, 2012a (October). Ngauranga to Petone Cycleway Strategic feasibility report. the Transport Agency, Wellington New Zealand Transport Agency, 2012b (October). Ngauranga to Petone Cycleway Cyclist survey findings the Transport Agency, Wellington New Zealand Transport Agency, 2013. The Walking and Cycling Model Community Story with New Plymouth and Hastings. the Transport Agency, Wellington New Zealand Transport Agency, 2014. Wellington to Hutt Valley Walking and Cycling Link. Newsletter Issue 1, February 2014. the Transport Agency, Wellington New Zealand Transport Agency, 2018. The NZ Transport Agency’s Economic evaluation manual First edition, Amendment 2 Effective from 1 July 2018. the Transport Agency, Wellington Powell, K., Martin, L., and Chowdhury, P., 2003. Places to Walk: Convenience and Regular Physical Activity. American Journal of Public Health. September 2003, Vol 93, No. 9., p1519 Prüss-Üstün, A. 2006. Preventing disease through healthy environments. Towards an estimate of the environmental burden of disease. World Health Organisation, Geneva
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 67
Sport New Zealand, 2004. Activity Friendly Environments web tool framework. Unpublished resource, Global Leisure Group client report Sport New Zealand, 2015. Sport & Active Recreation Regional Profile Wellington Region Findings from the 2013/14 Active New Zealand Survey. Sport NZ, Wellington Sport New Zealand, 2017. The 2017 Active New Zealand Survey. Sport NZ, Wellington – available via the online Sport NZ Insights Tool. This work is based on/includes Sport New Zealand's data which are licensed by Sport NZ for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence Standards New Zealand, 2004. New Zealand Handbook for Tracks and Outdoor Visitor Structures Standards NZ HB 8630:2004 Strava, 2019. Year in Sport 2018 Strava. Sourced from https://blog.strava.com/press/2018-year-in-sport/ Vance, P. 2014. Synthesis of research conducted in recreational boating. Maritime NZ internal report. Vic Roads, 2016. Traffic Engineering Manual Volume 3 – Additional Network Standards & Guidelines Guidance on Bicycle and Pedestrian Treatments at Roundabouts. Edition 1, December 2016 Victoria Walks, 2015. Shared paths – the issues. Victoria Walks, Victoria Victorio, A. 2016. Ngā Haerenga The Great Rides of the New Zealand Cycle Trails: Some Benefits in Relation to Costs. A report prepared for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment by Statscience Research Wellington City Council, 2013. Our Capital Spaces, An Open Spaces and Recreation Framework for Wellington: 2013–23. Wellington City Council Wellington City Council, 2015. Cycle Network Development Programme Business Case. Wellington City Council Wellington City Council, 2015. Wellington Cycleways Programme Master Plan. Wellington City Council Wellington City Council, 2015. Wellington Urban Growth Plan Urban Development and Transport Strategy Implementation Plan. Wellington City Council Wellington City Council, 2016. Wellington City Council Cycle Network Development Programme Business Case. Wellington City Council Wellington City Council, 2016. Wellington City Urban Cycleways Programme CBD to Ngauranga Cycleway Indicative and Detailed Business Case. Wellington City Council Wellington Regional Council, 2000. Regional Coastal Plan for the Wellington Region. Wellington Regional Council (now GWRC) World Health Organization. 2003. Guidelines for safe recreational water environments. Volume 1, Coastal and fresh waters. WHO, Geneva
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 68
Appendix 1: User Group Workshop Summary N2P Workshop Wednesday 2 October 2019, 6pm
This workshop was held to review draft demand projections for the Project. Venue: Beca Offices, Molesworth Street, Wellington Attendees: 1. Bruce Spedding WindsurfNZ
2. David Tripp Hutt Cycle Network 3. Derek Richardson Hutt Cycle Network
4. Ellen Blake Living Streets Aotearoa
5. Gene Clendon Hutt Valley Mountain Bike Club 6. Gordon Dobson Wellington Rowing Association
7. Hugh Wilson Wellington City Council
8. Ian Pike Great Harbour Way Trust 9. Jimmy Young GWRC Remutaka Trail
10. Joel Rowan Waka Kotahi
11. Jonathan Kennett Waka Kotahi
12. Lachlan Forsyth Waka Kotahi
13. Laura Skilton Cardno
14. Linton Adams Hutt City River Trail, Hutt City Rotary, Great Harbour Way
15. Marco Renall Port Nicholson Poneke (PNP) Cycling Club
16. Max Pocock Beca
17. Nathan Bond My Life My Way
18. Patrick Morgan CAN Cycle Action Network
19. Paula Warren Growing Places Charitable Trust, regional Transport Society/ Li
20. Peer Mitcham Hutt Cycle Network, Grey Power
21. Ron Beernink Great Harbour Way Trust
22. Stan Rudge Stantec
23. Travis Moody GWRC Hutt River Ranger Organisers: Elizabeth Bean and Rob Greenaway, RG&A
Overview of the workshop process:
. The workshop started at 6.00pm and the following introductory remarks were made.
. Max Pocock (Beca) provided a welcome and a health and safety briefing.
. Rob Greenaway (RG&A) welcomed workshop participants and thanked them for attending.
. Workshop participants introduced themselves and the group they were representing.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 69
. Joel Rowan (Waka Kotahi) provided an overview of the project and the solution that was being proposed for the pathway.
. Rob Greenaway ran through his presentation ‘Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One walking and cycling path – Workshop – review of use’. Questions were raised during the workshop presentation and then afterwards by participants.
. The workshop concluded approximately 7.30pm.
. Workshop participants were invited to forward additional comment and feedback by email to RG&A.
A summary of the general discussion:
. While the estimated current level of cyclist activity on the SH2 corridor, relying on the WCC Hutt Road counter and extrapolation from Strava was generally accepted, the estimated current numbers for cyclists coming down the Ngā Ūranga Gorge seemed low. It was suggested that the Burma Road counter for both North and South bound uses could provide extra context.
. While Strava is widely used by cyclists especially, there was a question around how robust any forecast could be made by relying on user numbers (that are extrapolated from this tool). While around one-third of workshop participants had used Strava, they asked whether users were likely to turn Strava on for all cycle trips.
. Nationally, cycle trail counts are showing growth of around 11%.
. Impression is that since the Hutt River Trail opened, people have started using this for commuting/recreation purposes. Suggest that the N2P will similarly be used for commuting/recreation.
. Interesting to know the type of cyclist that is being captured by counters e.g. commuter, recreational, or e-bike.
. When doing forecasts need to think about: existing commuter cyclists, new commuter cyclists, new walkers, new recreational cyclists, people with disabilities, e-mobility, fishers, family groups, tourists, bike-packers.
. Dog walkers are frequent users of walkways and they tend to be regular in habits – one or two times per day. This could explain the relatively high numbers on Pito-One foreshore.
. The relatively short distance – 4.6km – for the N2P may open opportunities for recreational users who currently don’t consider it as an option.
. The ability to interact with nature and the sea will make the setting very attractive.
. As use of the Wellington waterfront grows, users may be displaced to this new setting.
. Cordon data user counts – there was interest in the age groups and gender split.
. Hutt River Trail Count 2018-19 daily/weekly – it was noted that there is no shoulder on the north side of the Melling. This means that people get off the pathway at the Melling interchange. When they are going south, they stay on the pathway.
. Walker numbers on the Pito-One foreshore and Hutt Road: it was suggested that a base figure was needed for walking on the existing path at Ngā Ūranga so that down the track we can say how much growth has occurred.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 70
. Desire lines – which may be seen on Strava – show that at Ngā Ūranga there is a pattern of use between Ngā Ūranga business and the Ngā Ūranga station. Would an intercept survey be useful to find out from people their likely future use patterns? If there was a safe road-crossing, then walking use would likely increase.
. Obtaining the train user numbers at Ngā Ūranga may be helpful. Wellington City Council will have data for Ngā Ūranga users.
. Users of Ngā Ūranga tend to be business users going to and from train, and fishing people parking there illegally. Likely to be an increase in fishing vehicles once path is in.
. There are many design features which could influence greater and different forms of recreation – access for snorkelling and kayaking, shelter for getting changed, sheltered rest areas for families and children (perhaps some family members go further than others).
. Will people waiting for the Interislander use the path?
. How will commercial (shuttles, coffee, ice-cream, destination shops, gear hire (kayaks, snorkels etc), guided walks) and public services (toilets, shelter) be provided for and coordinated. Consider the path a destination rather than a through route – “you can't predict demand for a bridge by counting the number of people swimming.”
. Zero Carbon Act – what influence will that have on uptake.
. Restoration and trapping projects – how to make them fit.
. Promotion – what sort and where and to whom – will have a big effect on how it is used and by how much.
A summary of the discussion around key assumptions presented:
. Is a 20% stepwise increase in commuter patronage realistic? It was noted that if there is no connection at Thorndon Quay then the commuter increase could be less. A significant increase will occur when the full route to the CBD is finished.
. Many commuter and peloton-based recreational riders are likely to remain on SH2 to maintain speed and avoid other path users.
. Has a rail option been factored in? People may walk/cycle one way and then catch the train back. Ngā Ūranga will be a critical point for this type of journey and facilities there will need to be developed to cater for this new use pattern.
. New users will include people combining a train trip with fishing, kayaking, family activities and so on. Could be a day-outing for people – may be people who currently go to Eastbourne for an outing (e.g. children on a small bike trip).
. For comparison suggest looking at Paekākāriki Escarpment Track, Miramar Peninsula (Ciclovia), New Plymouth.
. Assumption of 989 weekday cyclists was discussed. Views of users on the Hutt Trail varied – some thought existing users that were commuting comprised 30% while others thought could be as high as 70%. It was suggested the Boulcott St counter could be looked at to see when use was occurring – if 9am-3pm then it is recreational.
. Use could be quite peaky with very high use during fireworks displays, when whales are visiting.
. The surface and proximity of the pathway will influence what pedestrians do e.g. may do walks in lunch time.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 71
. The NZ Disability Survey 2013 shows that 7% of people under 45 have a physical disability but 49% of people over 65 have a physical disability. As our population ages more people will acquire mobility impairments, and many will become more reliant on walking or using wheelchairs and/or mobility scooters. Future demand by disabled pedestrians will be higher than anticipated. Disabled people have fewer recreational options than non-disabled people so this facility could help them to live a healthy active lifestyle.
. If the physical environment around the link is upgraded that may also enabled more disabled people to access the link.
. Section of market that will get are those that aren’t currently cycling – so they aren’t represented in the based data. Some aren’t cycling because it is too dangerous. The pathway will create a step change and will result in increased use of more than 20%. There will be lots of new users.
. There will be new walkers as currently the outlook is ugly and there is a large hill at the Pito-One end. Ngā Ūranga section opens opportunities for a half-day outing.
. People likely to find the N2P attractive could well be users who find the existing section too difficult e.g. not confident on a bike, elderly, have children, in a wheelchair, skateboarders. These people are currently excluded from use.
. Assumptions are likely to be conservative was the general feeling.
. Too many recreational cycle users in use estimate says one person – therefore the commuters are under-represented.
. Are users with disabilities included in estimates?
. N2P will provide better connectivity with railway stations. Should consult with KiwiRail and see if there is an opportunity to upgrade the stations.
. Ferry terminal: Should plans for a different location be part of assumptions around use estimates. A different location may result in increased recreational use.
. Need to look at projections for: sales of e-bikes, e-scooter use (both growing), impact of a price on carbon.
. Look at other places where have a new facility and see what sort of step change occurred there e.g. new busway in Auckland led to big changes.
. E-bikes and E-scooters will be on top of existing use. Hutt City has research into this. The use of e-bikes is growing exponentially, and older people are a big part of this growth. They will be new users. E-bikes mean that people aren’t put off by the wind.
. New pathway will link to Hutt Corridor meaning people can cycle further. In the Hutt there is denser housing and more people – this will lead to more peaks in use.
. Younger generation is not represented at the workshop
. Transmission Gully is likely to mean more traffic on the roads. Will this, in turn, push people into alternative transport options?
. Cycle tourism opportunities will arise – the gateway to Remutaka.
. Recreational users – how will they get to the starting point? Parking is an issue if not using train. Ngā Ūranga has few parks and Pito-One is already busy. Think about campervans (considering the dump-site at Ngā Ūranga). Park and ride option in the North?.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 72
Appendix 2: Telephone Interview Summary How often, Are there any and what particular Would improved access What recreation Whereabouts How important percent of the weather or tidal to this area from the activities do you see or exactly and Why is this area What prevents Contacts is this area for time doing conditions that shore between Pito-One do in the north west how close to used? use of this area? the activity? you activity make this area and Ngā Ūranga increase corner of the harbour? the shore? do you spend attractive or its use? here? useable? Cycling - both Definitely would increase commuting and Weather - use - commuters by bike, recreation. Walking. northerly or no Car park at the e-scooters, e-bikes, Running. Freedom Water based Water ski club wind is best for Greater water ski club is Weather is the recreational users. Would camping in car park (as activity is from members water use. The Wellington convenient and is a preventer of use. become part of bike links designated Hutt City the shore out On a nice day would use are southerly is 'ugly' Regional good place to Also note that the to Remutaka and Hutt Council area - contact is to about 300m. there will be 12 80% of the and care is Council: launch. There is a car park is locked River from Wellington Janet Lawson). Fishing Fishing and vessels on the time. Not sure needed when Travis little bit of park at night and CBD. Access from shore from shore and from boating often water. about the % of boating. Tides Moody, Hutt which makes for patrolled by would be better for small boats and from from the time for other aren't an issue as River Ranger good scenery and security. fishing. Walking would be kayaks e.g. kahawai, launch area. users. a sheltered area picnics more attractive. Note water skiing, wind (except in a that the more off-road surfing, jet skiing, southerly). recreation the better. rowing, kayaking. Sheltered. Ideally Historically have motorised had water ski club boats should be Speed boats, jet skis, and others have away from More fishing from shore - sailing, rowing, fishing joined here as a rowers and sail Talk to for both recreation and Petone from wharf and bridge centre; Port boats. The area Heretaunga Poor weather food. More walkers as Community (Wainui). Sea Scouts - Nicholson Trust All over. of is cultural Boating Club who prevents use of not currently attractive Board: Pam TS Tamatoa based on have an interest in significance - are based in Pito- area. (untidy, narrow). Picnics. Hanna esplanade. Homeless the land (CHECK) Korokoro One More cyclists people and freedom where the club is. Stream (Pito- (commuting, recreation). campers in car park. Hutt City Council One end) was has a proposal to important for put in a water food collection sports hub.
Use area from In Seaview Marina there Pito-One is lots of pedestrian foreshore to activity - the walkway Boats are both cruising the wharf, Boats will Pito-One to Eastbourne is No weather is a and keelers. Don't go Somes Island, occasionally go attractive and there is a Lowry Bay draw card as find into the NW corner and Ngā Ūranga Area used is to NW corner Very little café. More people Yacht Club: that if it is try to keep away from buoy and also preferable to NW and will anchor time spent in running, cycling and Matthew sheltered then it rocks. Other users that Eastbourne, corner. there but won't NW corner walking (all ages). This Knowlen isn't a good day see in area are owners, Evans Bay. go close to could happen in the NW for keelers jet skis, waka Boats also go shore. if the pathway goes in. to Improved safety will Marlborough make people more likely and Tasman to use. Boating - motor and Very popular - Riding on the motorway sailing is the main Lowry Bay Club sail is dangerous as cycleway activity. Probably more Boats in every weekend in too narrow and don't feel yachts than motor Seaview summer. Seaview is Weather - on a safe. Proposal would boats. Fishing 0 from spend about Seaview best launching good day the Southerly result in more cyclists boats and shore. Jet 90% of time in Marina: Alan ramp in Wellington. harbour is prevents use of (commuting and skis. Rowers - 2 rowing the harbour McLellan Used by members beautiful. Tide area. recreation). More e-bikes clubs (Cabaret (10% trips are and others who pay not an issue. - and potentially older Restaurant and one by across Cook to launch. Lowry demographic would use. motorway). Pito-One Strait). Bay has 7 buoys in Yellow bikes. Walk foreshore good for the harbour. around edge if able to. recreation. Use area between Hutt Improved access could River and far end of Use is prevented mean more cyclists Pito-One beach i.e. the Maybe use by the distance (recreational and eastern end. Sea Scouts this area once from the Scout commuting) but won't St James Sea activity is more likely to Don’t use the per year. Not important club rooms. Also impact on Sea Scouts use Scout go towards Somes Is area close to Not important for More likely to for Scout NA there are other much. Scouts could Group: Chris and Eastbourne. For the shore as Scout activity go up the Hutt activity boats using the possibly go further along Smith sailing stop when reach too far away River or to NW area so the pathway- for hiking - Pito-One wharf. Other Porirua for scouts go if better access. Could be user activities are: Regatta elsewhere. more people fishing from rowing (two clubs), shore. diving, fishing, kayaking,
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 74
water skiing, walking dogs off lead (between Pito-One Wharf and car park at NW), cycling Important area Use of the area is as many other prevented by places closed to Area is used poor access. If recreational People fish all because it is a good doing a pathway fishing e.g. over - will go Improved access would Wellington Fish for snapper, blue food source. The Area can be it needs to be on wharves, where the fish mean more recreational Recreational cod, butter fish, cray People are on wind brings the fished in all the seawards side reclamation at are. People fishermen and divers. Marine fish. Dive for scallops. shore and in food into this weathers except of the railway for Kaiwharawhara. will come This would be ideal for Fishers People fish from the the area close corner of the for super strong those fishing from This place plus from as far people without boats. Association: shore and also from the to the shore. harbour. It is one of winds. Tide is not shore. For those Oriental Bay afield as Potentially more cyclists Jim Mikoz water the few places left an issue. fishing on water, and overseas Porirua to fish also. where can fish from getting too close passenger in this place. the shore. to the rocks is the terminal is all only preventing that is left for issue. fishing. For the sailing activity will be in the area for Use of the area 20% of time - would be Sailing is more Area is good for flat say 20 hours prevented if it got Improved access could likely to be Sailing school does take water and also a max. per silted up. mean more cyclists - both 500m off the keelers to this area, but good option in a week. The Potential risk of commuting and Wellington shore. There is Weather - the try to stay away from northerly or if Important area Yacht club shoaling if the recreational. Not sure Ocean a buoy at area is good in a shore/rocks. See small wanting a longer so that have uses the area proposal goes about walking as still by a Sports: Craig Horokiwi that northerly. Tide power boats - who may trip so people can options for racing - ahead. If the area motorway and a long Ryburn is 500m isn't an issue. be fishing in the area. experience upwind around 20% of silts up this won't walk with no pick-up offshore used Also see rowers. and downwind the time - at be good for point. Could be people for yacht conditions. weekends - sailing as could fishing from pathway. racing. but again will become too not be going shallow. close to the shore
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 75
Once infrastructure in place other users like family groups and older people will use the area The only place for recreation. Older Area used because that you can people will take mobility it is access to the access the Important for scooters here. People will Great Harbour Way Prevailing wind is Cyclists and walkers are water is at Ngā cyclist come from Hutt Valley Hutt River - enables people to the northerly and predominant users of Ūranga and at connections to The southerly can for an outing. There will Trail - Rotary get to complete or westerly, so the the area. There are the water ski city be horrendous be more people fishing coordinator: connect to the ocean is mostly some recreational club launch - (commute)and and put people from the rocks as will Linton Great Harbour Way, pleasant as boaties who fish and this is limiting to Great off using the area. have legal access. Iwi will Adams which is sheltered for some rowers. factor for Harbour Way use the area to gather Wellington's water sports. those wanting (recreation). sea food. Also will be equivalent of the to fish from access for diving and Otago Rail Trail. the shore snorkelling. Expect numbers of recreational and commuting cyclists to increase. Also people walking dogs. Pathway will result in more cyclists - for Use to use the Ngā commuting and Ūranga-Pito-One stretch recreational. There will for spear fishing in the Weather - the be ore runners. A few The area is used 1950s and 1960s and The area is used area is good in a more walkers but and because there was a good source of because there are northerly as it is dog walkers but feel are fish, though Local spear butter fish, moki, blue Rowers and fish, though note more exposed there are more attractive note that there fisher: Derek cod, crayfish, scallops. small boats that there are many than other parts options for these groups are many places Wilshere Doesn't do much there 50m offshore. places in the of the harbour. and this pathway doesn't in the Harbour today - and says there Harbour where you Also safe to offer an obvious where you can are better places for can fish. anchor. Tide is destination that is an fish. spear fishing. Notes that not an issue. achievable distance. Will there are rowers and be more people fishing small boats. from shore. More e- bikes, scooters, mobility scooters.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 76
Paddleboarders currently have no Pathway will lead to way to safely stop Rowing and sea fishing. more recreational users. between Pito-One Sometimes cruise boats Paddle A flow on effect as groups and City as can't come to the NW corner boarders, come to watch each land on the in evening. Paddle windsurfers other. The whole GHW Weather - motorway edge. boarders use the area. and route is a great initiative windsurfers and Kayakers would Kitesurfers and kitesurfers (economic and Windsurfer, kitesurfers will also appreciate windsurfers tend to stay Rowing, paddle would by recreation). Walking - paddle only go there in somewhere safe away from NW corner boarders and Area gives users choice use the could link with public board, kite SE - other times to pull out. as too close to the hill sea fishing are another option. area 0-2% of transport (e.g. bus, ferry) surfer: Bruce will be at the Sometimes when and conditions are 50 m off shore. the time - and would be an Spedding eastern end of SUP, Windsurfing, turbulent. Shore fishing they stay attractive loop that is as Pito-One. Tide no paddle board occurs from the Ngā away because short (or long) as want. issues. races held Ūranga end only. of turbulence, Cruise ships could between Pito-One Cyclists - commuters rocks and lack encourage passengers to and Eastbourne mainly use road as of exit points. walk along pathway to people end up on faster Pito-One and then bus the western coast back. by mistake and difficult to land. Cyclists mostly use the road as the current cycleway isn't suitable Area is Improved pathway will for a road bike. Think it important to see more people on bikes would be 80% of cyclists users, but any - commuting and on the road. Other change will be Weather- good in Use of area Harbour creating. Not sure if more users are: boaties on accepted as northerly as currently limited Ranger and The area is walkers as still a windy the water, kayakers, users will see protected by lee by poor condition road cyclist: sheltered in a place by the motorway. diving, shore fishing at the long-term of hills so of cycleway which John northerly. Will be more people Ngā Ūranga and benefits. Also sheltered. Tide is why people use Tattersall fishing from shore. Not Rowers. The rowers and users like not an issue. the road sure if there will be more boaties would be more boaties can people using scooters, than 50m offshore. simply move rollerblades. Occasionally open further offshore swimming groups use the area.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 77
Improvements to the pathway will not affect TS Tamatoa Navy Club rooms are the navy cadets as they Cadets unit of the New on Council land don't use the area. Zealand Cadet Forces and access Use of the west Others could benefit occupy a building at 160 from club side is prevented though e.g. recreational Area to east is used The Esplanade on Pito- rooms is good by lack of line of and commuting cyclists. because it is good One foreshore. A for the beach sight to club Also it would mean that for launching and If weather is uniformed, military- for launching rooms and also cyclists aren't using the TS Tamatoa retrieving boats and 100% of time tricky on the east flavoured organisation of boats. Us hard to get back road and currently as a Navy Cadets: has access to club No comment is to the east side then go to that is a partnership area to East of as have to go driver at night -time it is Perry Crus rooms. On the west of the harbour Evans Bay (not to between the Pito-One around Pito-One hazardous having to look side the line of sight the west) community and NZDF. Wharf for all wharf. Boats are out for cyclists. to the club rooms is Not associated with water based retrieved at club Improvements unlikely to lost scouting organisations. activity. Go as rooms or at affect water skiers as Activities include far as Somes Seaview they aren't close to rocks, boating (light power), Island and to but the construction kayaking and sailing Seaview phase may affect them as their club rooms are in the NW corner. Boats are smaller - Prevention of use generally under 4m and is only when they tend to use the another event is Increased use of the Eastern area. Only on like waka ama walkway is predicted. If weather not occasionally will go to and regulations This is a good thing but good on east, the western side. The say can't use an there could be user then rather go Heretaunga western area is for Use the Area is area for sailing. conflict. Already see this west the boats Boating motor boats - this is a eastern side. important for Another problem along Pito-One foreshore. head further out Club: Ruth traditional which has Less than 2% of sailing - safe is access to the Cyclists travel too fast into the harbour. Fletcher endured and now time on and good water water as the Pito- and get in way of boats In southerly the Commodore seems like a 'rule'. Have western side. conditions. One foreshore being loaded/unloaded - waves are rough 67 members - many are gets very agree not an issue on the but the wind is junior. Other users in congested with Ngā Ūranga/Pito-One for consistent. the area are: rowing (2 cars and cyclists. boat club but could be clubs), recreational Adequate other user conflicts. boaties, cyclists, jet skis, Car/trailer windsurfing. In the parking is an issue
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 78
eastern corner are by area where lifesaving and launch as need swimming. lots of space. Currently not enough space for rigging.
Increased access would lead to more use by kayakers but note that they need a place for Area used parking their vehicle. During because it is Getting out of the kayak Not sure how many Note that there are construction of Canoe and there. Note along the shore between kayaks as there are lots plenty of other the pathway use Kayak: that there are Pito-One and Ngā Ūranga of places in the places to kayak in Too hard to say Not really could be Richard plenty of other isn't an issue and Wellington Harbour Wellington prevented if the Gordon places to kayak kayakers would only exit where can kayak. Harbour. water is dirty - in Wellington boat if had to. Suspect poor quality. Harbour. would see more recreational fishermen and people diving (for crayfish, scallops) using the shore.
Improved access Use prevented would see people Area not very by shallow fishing from shore important for and dirty Don't see dive flags and free diving diving but Northerly and is water and Dive HQ: often and not aware of from shore. Not people who go There are better sheltered which there isn't Claire a dive club that would sure that there are alternatives makes it much to see. Murphy choose NW corner to kayakers would looking for attractive Not a lot of operate from use the area food - crayfish, water more as not very scallops movement/ scenic by a flow. motorway.
Te Ara Tupua | The Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One Path | Recreation Review 79
Appendix 3: Pito-One Beach West dog exercise area
Appendix 4: Regional and local recreation participation summary This Appendix provides a review of the existing recreational uses and values of Wellington Harbour.
General recreation participation levels
At the national level, reliable sport and recreation participation data (relative if not absolute) are provided by the Active NZ Surveys carried out by Sport New Zealand. The latest results are based on surveys completed between 5 January 2017 and 4 January 2018 among 6,004 young people (aged 5–17) and 27,038 adults (aged 18+). Data are presented for both participation in an activity over the 7 days prior to the questionnaire and for the preceding 12 months.31 Figure 30 shows the 7-day participation rates for recreation and sport activities for the selection of Census meshblocks shown, for all ages. Walking and jogging or running are by far the most popular forms of physical
Figure 30: Sport and recreation activities with the highest participation levels for the Wellington sub- region shown, regional 7-day participation compared with national (Sport NZ 2017)
Regional
National
31 These are modelled data based on the Active NZ survey results. For areas with a smaller population base – such as the Eastern Bays meshblock only, the survey sample size becomes too small and the errors too great. See: https://sportnz.org.nz/managing-sport/search-for-a-resource/research/active-nz-survey-2017. This modelled participation data differs from that presented in the national and regional data from the same survey (see Sport NZ 2018). WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY TE ARA TUPUA - THE NGĀ ŪRANGA TO PITO-ONE PATH // 81
activity, and the sample area (a subset of the Wellington Region) appears to have higher participation rates than the national average.32
Over the 12 month period preceding completing the Active NZ questionnaire, 85% of New Zealand adults (18+years) walked for recreation, 38% ran or jogged, 33% swam (in a pool or natural area), 20% road cycled, 14% mountain biked, and 15% went marine fishing – compared with 11% who played golf and 7% who played football. For adults (18+years, 7-day participation), 42% described roads or footpaths as a location for recreation (the most popular setting of all), 25% named walkways, 15% ‘on, in or beside the coast’ and 6% on a ‘cycleway or cycle lane specifically set aside for cyclists’ – compared with 32% for ‘private property, home, garden or pool’, 20% for ‘public park, field, playground, skate park or BMX track’, 18% for a gym or fitness centre and 10% for ‘outdoor sports facility or purpose-built environment’. For young people (5-17 years, 7-day participation), 52% of activity was at ‘other outdoor locations (e.g, beach, lake, bush, footpath)’ compared with 71% for ‘at school or in the school grounds’ and 52% at ‘indoor facilities (e.g. gym, community hall, church, marae or indoor pool)’. Their three most popular activities (7-day) were running, jogging or cross-country (52%), playing (41%) and swimming (36%). Walking for fitness was enjoyed by 29%, cycling or biking by 29%, scootering by 20% and football, soccer or futsal by 19%.
Sport NZ (2015) reported on locations where respondents undertook their activities in natural settings in the Wellington Region. Figure 31 shows that beaches and other locations by the sea where the second-most preferred setting for outdoor recreation (at 51.3% for all Wellington Region adults), while being in or on the sea was relatively less popular at 25.4%, but more popular than recreation on or in a river or lake.
Figure 31: Participation locations in natural settings, Wellington (Sport NZ 2015)
32 In the opinion of the author of this report, these apparent differences need to be treated cautiously due to the data analysis and modelling methods used, especially since the data presentation tool does not illustrate the margins of error at the regional or national level – which may overlap (ie, the differences may lie within overlapping margins of error). WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY TE ARA TUPUA - THE NGĀ ŪRANGA TO PITO-ONE PATH // 82
Marine recreation activity distribution
Shellfish gathering and swimming The Regional Coastal Plan for the Wellington Region (WRC 2000) states that parts of the waters of Wellington Harbour are to be managed for shellfish gathering purposes (10.2.1, p126), and that all of the harbour is to be managed for contact recreation33 purposes (10.2.2, p127). These areas are defined in Planning Map 8D, shown in Figure 32. This indicates shellfish gathering sites around, for example, Mātiu/Somes Island and for much of the coast north of Pencarrow Head, and coastal waters east of Baring Head.
Recreational shellfish gathering water quality monitoring was carried out over the 2016/17 season in the Harbour by the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) at Shark Bay, Mahanga Bay and Sorrento Bay (Figure 32). The basis for assessing compliance with MoH/MfE guidelines for assessing microbiological contamination in shellfish-gathering waters are (Brasell & Morar 2017):
Figure 32: GWRC Regional Coastal Plan Coastal Water Classes for Wellington Harbour
Recreational shellfish gathering water quality monitoring sites
33 Contact recreation means recreational activities that involve body contact with the water. These typically include swimming, waterskiing, canoeing/kayaking and fishing. WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY TE ARA TUPUA - THE NGĀ ŪRANGA TO PITO-ONE PATH // 83
. The median faecal coliform content of samples taken over a shellfish-gathering season shall not exceed 14 cfu34/100mL; and
. Not more than 10% of samples collected over a shellfish gathering season should exceed 43 cfu/100mL.
In 2016/17 only Shark and Mahanga Bays were compliant with a median cfu/100ml of 4 and 8 respectively, and at both sites, only 3 of 17 samples exceeding 43 cfu/100mL. Sorrento Bay was non-compliant with a median cfu/100ml of 36, and 8 of 17 samples exceeding 43 cfu/100mL (Brasell & Morar 2017). The GWRC monitors recreational water quality at 36 sites in and near Wellington Harbour (Figure 33). These are considered to be 'popular' swimming sites35, although swimming can occur at many sites throughout the Harbour. For example, water contact recreation is likely to be associated with all shellfish gathering sites indicated on Figure 32, although these are not shown in Figure 33. Suitability For Recreation Grades for the 13 sites in the Hutt City Council area ranged from ‘fair’ to ‘good’, at the end of the 2016/17 swimming season (Brasell & Morar, 2017).
Figure 33: GWRC monitored marine bathing sites in and around Wellington Harbour
34 Colony forming units of faecal coliforms 35 http://mapping.gw.govt.nz/GW/RecWaterQualityMap/RecWaterQualityMap.htm retrieved 17/11/2015 WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY TE ARA TUPUA - THE NGĀ ŪRANGA TO PITO-ONE PATH // 84
Surf Lifesaving New Zealand identifies eight swimming beaches in and around Wellington Harbour (Figure 34). All are within Wellington City.
Figure 34: SLNZ recommended swimming beaches
Fishing and diving The Spot X national surfcasting (Draper & Airey 2012) and boat fishing (Airey 2012) guides identify many fishing opportunities in and around Wellington Harbour, although no boat fishing sites in Airey (2012) are near the study area (or north of Point Halswell – the northern point of the Miramar Peninsula – see Figure 35).
Enderby and Enderby (2007) (a national Spot X diving and snorkelling guide) indicate the nearest site to the study area is Ward Island (beginner crayfish snorkel and dive). Figure 35 (over page) shows 12 recommended shore-based fishing sites in and around the Harbour from Draper & Airey (2012). The nearest to the study area is the Pito-One Wharf.
Steve’s Fishing Shop notes online: 36 Wellington Harbour offers all year round surf casting, with as large a variety of fish to be caught, as there are many and varied places to fish. Kahawai, snapper, tarakihi, cod and
36 https://stevesfishingshop.co.nz/pages/tips-n-info August 2018 WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY TE ARA TUPUA - THE NGĀ ŪRANGA TO PITO-ONE PATH // 85
gurnard are the most commonly caught fish, though there is also a wide variety of the more unusual species such as elephant fish, skate, leather jackets and kingfish. Like all fishing spots, wind plays a large part in your decision of where and how to fish. If conditions are windy try and find a sheltered spot so that your rod doesn’t shake all over the place as this makes it hard to detect the bites….
Most local anglers have heard the stories about the big / huge fish being caught at the likes of Miramar wharf, the Overseas Passenger Terminal or Petone wharf etc, only because these places are fished twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. There is no spot in the Harbour that is the best spot, such is the diverse and successful nature of fishing in Wellington Harbour. Every little bay, jetty, beach or wharf offers potentially great fishing.
Figure 35: Surfcasting guide recommendation, Draper & Airey (2012)
29
WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY TE ARA TUPUA - THE NGĀ ŪRANGA TO PITO-ONE PATH // 86
Boating and sailing The New Zealand Cruising Guide Central Area (Murray and Von Kohorn 2002) does not identify any easy casual anchorages in Wellington Harbour. The marinas and moorings at Chaffer’s Marina, the Royal Port Nicholson Yacht Club, Evans Bay Yacht and Motor Club, Seaview Marina and Lowry Bay are discussed, although berthage for visiting craft is described as limited. The commercial wharves are suggested for larger craft. The Cruising Guide states (p26): The remainder of the harbour is not recommended for anchorage as it is open and exposed to wind and sea conditions. Shelter can of course be found by anchoring next to windward shores but there is considerable commercial traffic through the area and these are best used only as picnic spots.
Windsurfing New Zealand identifies six launching sites in Figure 36: Windsurf launch sites the Harbour (Figure 36).37 Advice about the use of these sites indicates that the entire harbour is used for the activity. Site 3 is Pito-One Beach. For the latter, the site advises: Sandy beach drops away slowly, watch out for sand bars at low tide. Petone is best during a southerly (onshore), in light winds is good for beginners and slalom, as wind gets stronger then wave boards for chop hopping etc are the order of the day. Waves up to 1-2 metres but strong winds make aerial manoeuvres interesting. Good for Wellington’s extreme wind days as there is plenty of sheltered rigging on grass. Playgrounds, funparks and shops make it good for family forays too.
Regatta courses for rowing are in two locations within Wellington Harbour – Lambton Harbour (1800m and 600m courses) and at the western end of the Pito-One Beach (the Korokoro rowing courses of 2000m and 1040m) (Figure 37).38 The annual ‘Motorway Classic’ – a paddling event open to a full variety of small craft including waka ama, sea kayaks and paddle boards organised by Well Paddlers with around 100 entries – relies on Honiana Te Puni Reserve as a start and finish point and uses a variety of courses parallel to the motorway (Figure 38 and Figure 39).39
Figure 37: Korokoro rowing courses
37 http://www.winzurf.co.nz/windsurf/wgtnz/wgtnz29.htm retrieved 13 Aug 2018 38 https://www.sporty.co.nz/wcollrowing/Regatta-Courses/Lambton-Harbour 39 https://wellypaddlers.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-motorway-classic-version-2020.html WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY TE ARA TUPUA - THE NGĀ ŪRANGA TO PITO-ONE PATH // 87
Figure 38: Motorway Classic short course. White lines indicate rock hazards. Welly Paddlers map
Figure 39: Motorway Classic long course. Welly Paddlers map
Surfing The NZ Coastal Policy Statement (DOC 2010) does not identify any surf breaks of national significance in the Wellington Region. Lyall Bay and Tītahi Bay are commonly identified as the top regional sites,40 as well as a number of breaks along the Wairarapa Coast.41 The Wavetrack New Zealand Surfing Guide (Morse & Brunskill 2004) identifies a number of surfing sites between Eastbourne and Pencarrow and near the harbour entrance, and all are south of Eastbourne and well- removed from the study area.
40 For example, see: http://www.jasons.co.nz/surf-cities-in-new-zealand; http://www.surf2surf.com/reports/wellington; http://surf.co.nz/reports/north-tasman/wellington/; http://www.wellingtonnz.com/discover/things-to-do/sights- activities/beaches-and-bays/ 41 http://www.swellmap.co.nz WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY TE ARA TUPUA - THE NGĀ ŪRANGA TO PITO-ONE PATH // 88