TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF INQUIRY Basin Bridge Proposal HEARING at BASIN RESERVE, MT COOK, WELLINGTON on 27 May 2014 BOARD OF INQUIRY: Retired Environment and District Court Judge Gordon Whiting (Chairperson) James Baines (Board Member) David Collins (Board Member) David McMahon (Board Member) Page 7804 [9.33 am] CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good morning everybody. So welcome along. We have got a day of representations today which we are looking forward to. 5 MR CAMERON: I am going to Ms Rawins (ph 0.53) is here from the agency. Ms Ward is coming down here, we just had a slight communication issue. 10 CHAIRPERSON: Sorry? I cannot hear you. MR CAMERON: Oh, I am sorry. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you will have to turn that off. 15 MR CAMERON: Ms Rawins (ph 1.03) is here for the agency. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 20 MR CAMERON: Sorry. It keeps doing that. Whereas she will keep saying that I keep doing that. CHAIRPERSON: Well do it again. I missed it. 25 MR CAMERON: Sorry, sir. Ms Rawins (ph 1.19) is here for the agency. And I am here at the moment waiting for Ms Ward to arrive, who is going to come down and sit here today while representations are being presented. 30 [9.35 am] Could I please be excused while she is coming? She will be here within about 20 minutes or so, sir. 35 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. MR CAMERON: But I just want you to know, sir, we are addressing the issue in terms of ensuring that there are people here through the day while representations are being presented. 40 CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. MR CAMERON: Thank you, sir. 45 CHAIRPERSON: So I think the first – is it two gentlemen from St Mark’s School, is that correct? Basin Reserve, Wellington 27.05.14 Page 7805 MR WIGGLESWORTH: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and it is Mr Wiggleston? 5 MR WIGGLESWORTH: Wigglesworth. CHAIRPERSON: Wigglesworth, sorry. Yes, and? 10 MR FAVEL: Kent Favel. The principal. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Favel, yes. Thank you very much. Now, who is going to make – are you going to make submissions? 15 MR WIGGLESWORTH: No, I will be speaking. CHAIRPERSON: Yes well, if you could just say your full name - - - MR WIGGLESWORTH: Yes. 20 CHAIRPERSON: - - - and say that who is appearing with you, so it is on the record. - - - MR WIGGLESWORTH: Yes. 25 CHAIRPERSON: - - - And then we will hear your submission. MR WIGGLESWORTH: Thank you. My name is Roger Wigglesworth. I am the Chairman of the Board of St Mark’s Church School, and I am 30 accompanied today by the principal of St Mark’s Church School, Mr Kent Favel. We are here representing St Mark’s Church School, and we thank the Board for taking time to hear this representation. The Board has received our detailed submission dated the 6th of 35 September 2013, and we are aware that your officials have also read the report and have commented on it to you in their reports. As a result, you will be aware that our school Board supports this project in part. This is because we acknowledge the economic benefits from improving traffic flows around the Basin Reserve and to and from and airport. We 40 also believe that the NZTA proposal is the best of all the proposals that have been presented to this Board of Enquiry. However, let me be clear. There are people in my school community who are keen now to change our stance to object. This is primarily 45 because of the high-handed and non-consultative way in which we have to date been dealt with, or dealt to, by NZTA officials. However, I am Basin Reserve, Wellington 27.05.14 Page 7806 making this representation today still in partial support of the project in the hope that this Board of Enquiry will cause the NZTA to honestly acknowledge the considerable impact the construction and existence of the flyover will have on the profitability of our business, and to start 5 talking and communicating with us about ensuring adequate mitigations are put in place. Though I do not intend to read out or repeat all the points in our full submission, rather I want to make just four points, an understanding of 10 which apparently continues to elude NZTA officials. The first point is that St Mark’s is not just a school. It is a multimillion dollar business. Second, that the nuisance of the noise during construction lies less with the actual volume and more with the 15 disruption to teaching and learning from unpredictable and erratic pulses of noise and vibration. Thirdly, the transportation and parking aspects of the proposal creates considerably increased safety risks for our pupils who use school buses. And finally, we assert that the flyover will be a magnet for graffiti artists and gatherings that not only pose a 20 threat to our children and property, but will also significantly reduce the desirability of the neighbourhood and of our school. Let me speak to the first of those points. St Mark’s Church School has been an institution in the Basin Reserve for 96 years. Our central, 25 convenient city location is attractive to parents who work in the city and relocation is not an option. We are a private school for children from preschool to Year 8, but we are first and foremost a multimillion dollar business. We receive minimal state funding. We survive as a business almost entirely on the fees paid by the parents and caregivers 30 of the children in our care. We compete for our pupils with other private schools in Wellington as well as with the state schools in the neighbourhood. We win our pupils because of our high academic standards, our values and pastoral care, and our family-like school environment. 35 [9.40 am] This flyover will seriously impact our competitiveness in the private school market in Wellington. First, it will affect our image and our 40 reputation. Being known as the school under the flyover will significantly impact our brand. Second, the construction of the flyover will make it physically easier for parents to bypass our school and take their children to our competitors at Scott’s College over in Strathmore, to Queen Margaret in the centre of town, or to Marsden in Karori. 45 Thirdly, regardless of the facts of mitigating steps to be taken during construction, parents making an 8 to 10 year placement decision of Basin Reserve, Wellington 27.05.14 Page 7807 bringing their students to our school, and longer for families that have more than one child, they will be potentially put off by what they think the construction will do to our daily activities and what they think the end result will be like. We cannot influence those beliefs, but will 5 certainly experience their impact on the viability of our multimillion dollar business. In this regard, our challenges are very similar to those that have already been explained to this Enquiry by Regional Wines and Spirits. 10 NZTA, on the other hand, think of us only as a primary school. Their proposed mitigation of allowing our pupils to give names to diggers and other equipment, to visit the site, to gaze in wonder at the process of construction and to have morning talks from engineers is exactly the same sorts of measures that they offer 100% state funded schools, 15 whose pupils are required to attend the school because of zoning regulations, lack of alternatives, and other restrictions. NZTA fail to appreciate that all our parents can choose another school, and that there is increasing competition for pupils amongst the private schools of Wellington. Therefore, we appeal to this Board to direct NZTA to be 20 more realistic about the impact that the flyover will have on our profitability. NZTA needs to urgently enter into discussions with us about practical and effective ways in which they may be able to ameliorate the significant threat to our competitiveness that this flyover project represents. 25 Our second point is about noise. We have been persuaded by the evidence of Dr Constantin Wassilieff from Marshall Day that the traffic noises near the school following the completion of the flyover will not be significantly higher than at present. It is for this reason that many, 30 but not all, of the school rooms abutting our perimeter fence, have window glazing that reduces the current noise. We are also attracted by Dr Wassilieff’s recommendation that provision be made in the noise management plan for a properly designed and installed noise barrier between the construction site and public buildings like ours. This 35 would allow the contractor a margin for exceeding the noise limits that might otherwise have proved problematic. We were also pleased to see that during this enquiry, the NZTA has committed itself as a part of its construction, noise and vibration management plan, to constantly monitor and live within specified noise levels during the construction 40 period. We commit to playing our part by ensuring that the project manager is speedily advised whenever noise or vibration levels exceed the promised limits. We thank NZTA too, for its undertaking to consult with us and with our neighbours at St Joseph’s to ensure that construction noise is contained within the noise limits of 60 decibels 45 loud and 75 decibels loud max, and that vibration is reduced so that neither of them is disruptive when church services are being conducted. Basin Reserve, Wellington 27.05.14 Page 7808 For St Mark’s Church School such services will include out two mid- week chapel services, our weekly school assemblies, our prize- giving’s, and our once a term Eucharist services.