THE WELLINGTON CIVIC TRUST INCORPORATED

ANNUAL REPORT FOR APRIL 2009 – MARCH 2010

I so regret being unable to be present at this AGM – my first as Chair of the Wellington Civic Trust.  I offer my apologies through Alan Smith, Deputy Chair and Secretary, who will present to you this 2009-2010 Annual Report.

It hardly seems that a year has passed since Seddon Bennington, our previous chairman, spoke to this meeting.  Two months later, in July, he and his longtime friend Marcella Jackson tragically died in a storm in the Tararuas.  This shocked us enormously then, and saddens us still.

It was with gratitude and with great pleasure shortly after our last AGM that the Trust made Di Buchan – past chair and more recently deputy chair – a Life Member. This she accepted, expressing the desire to continue to be involved, albeit at a greater distance, with the activities of the Trust.

Our newsletters during the year do, we hope, keep you informed of the many and various issues and actions that the Trust is involved with in this city.  Some are focus areas for the Trust and we continue to keep a very watchful eye on developments that are planned, such as the Waterfront, the Capital Centre, transport developments, the District Plan.  Others arise rather out of the blue and we determine how best to respond, and on occasions do so by written submission and followed by physical presentation. You will see that a number of these have been presented during the year.

Our main activities for the year April 2009 – March 2010 are covered in brief here:

*  Plans for the Waterfront are always a Trust priority, even with the major and successful Hilton Hotel/Outer T Appeal now well behind us.

-  Early in the year we received notification of Wellington City Council consents for the Wharewaka building on the site near the lagoon. The Trust welcomes a strong Maori cultural presence on the waterfront, but we are concerned that major changes have been made to the design for which the resource consents were granted after public hearings.  The new design, which is one building, not two, was approved without notification to the general public.

-  We made a detailed submission to the resource consent hearing on Variation 11. We were disappointed that the Hearing Commissioners did not accept our central argument that the changes sought would hinder rather than facilitate public engagement, but we were pleased that our objection that the Variation would allow buildings that would be out of scale with surrounding structures was largely accepted.

- The Trust made a submission on the Draft Waterfront Plan 2009/10.  We drew the Council’s attention to the need to be as reluctant to spend money on the project as the market appeared to be wary about investing in it.  We noted that the Council had reversed an earlier cost-saving decision to wind-up the waterfront company and manage the project in-house and that they also seemed determined to spend $400,000 on new toilets at Kumutoto.

*  In August 2009 we held another in our biennial series of public seminars. Round About the Basin was a full house and generally considered by those who attended to be a valuable presentation of information and views by many who are involved and concerned about the solutions that are being considered by the NZTA and other agencies for improved traffic flow for State Highway 1, and in particular the Basin Reserve and nearby areas, including the long-proposed War Memorial Park.

     Out of this seminar, the Trust formed the resolution that the issues raised at the seminar should be kept in focus and followed through, with its firm view being that the essential character of the Basin Reserve should be protected and enhanced and that a “Wellington solution” be sought on this important issue.  This view was conveyed post-seminar in:

- a letter to the Minister of Transport and the Mayor summarizing the main outcomes of discussions at the seminar, and by

- participation in the Wellington City Council/ Greater Wellington Regional Council Bus Review, which is a precursor the public transport review 2010/11.  A meeting was held with the GWRC and this was followed up just a few weeks ago by presentation by our Transport group to Greater Wellington’s Transport and Access Committee – the Trust’s view being that a stronger city focus and commitment to public transport will alter the pressure on highway construction, which in the case of the Basin Reserve may result in a solution that many feel will irreparably alter – to its detriment - this special Wellington place.

-  we patiently await outcomes of the NZTA decisions on options and eventually solutions for State Highway 1 in the Basin Reserve area – now further delayed from the initial February date.

*  In September the Wellington City Council launched its Capital Centre project at Parliament.  The project recognized the fundamental value and architectural character of the political heart of our nation to New Zealanders, and to Wellingtonians. The Trust has a special interest in this project because it is based on an idea it conceived and championed as long ago as 1987.  No action is likely in the near future, but under the LTCCP funds are allocated in 2012/13 for street improvements in Molesworth Street and in 2016/17 for Whitmore Street.  We hope that these works will be undertaken within an overall design brief for the Capital Centre. The Trust spent some time considering the effects on the Capital Centre area of the then-planned regeneration of the 1987 National Library building, although, in the event, this has now been greatly scaled back.

* Discussions have been held from time to time on urban parks and it was decided to work in tandem with the Architectural Centre to develop a joint position paper.  In the first instance this joint paper will feed into the Council’s “Wellington 2040” project.

* In the latter part of 2009 the Wellington City Council invited submissions on its long-term concepts for “Wellington 2040 – the Future of our Central City”. Recognising that this broad policy area and longer perspective would allow a full expression of the Trust’s goal of helping to make Wellington “the best of all possible places to live and work”, the Board wrote and submitted a substantial submission.

This document (included in our last newsletter to members) identified a move from private transport to public transport as the key agent of change that will serve the city and the environment in the future, and suggested that funding be directed towards this shift rather than towards roading.  Planning for reducing carbon emissions is vital and urgent.  Wellington is of a size and in a position that it can be innovative and lead the way in its planning for sustainable, efficient, socially and environmentally responsible city development.

*  Input was again made to the statutory Long Term Community Council Community Plan (LTCCP), reiterating the Trust’s developed views.  There is cause for some concern about the real effectiveness of such processes and the danger they present of “combat fatigue” for community organisations. It is something the Trust needs to remain alert to.  It must concentrate its resources and efforts to best effect rather than spreading them too thinly.

* The Wellington City Council has recently released its Draft Climate Change Action Plan for consultation.  While the Board recognizes that the draft document is short-term and lacks determined strategies, the Trust has prepared a submission – our focus being the urgent need for a longer-term plan that carries effective measures for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

*  We last held the Civic Trust Awards in 2008, and the Board recently decided to hold the next Awards in 2011, while focusing this year on a seminar later in the year on the issues that were fundamental in the “Wellington 2040” submission.

The panel discussion following this AGM is the first part of this focus and your responses and comments about these issues will help guide the incoming Board on a wider forum later in the year.

* Those of you who travel up Molesworth Street will have noticed that the Thai Embassy site is no longer the eyesore it has been for some years.  The Trust has repeatedly sought for action on this, and rebuilding is now underway.

* A submission on Thorndon Quay parking and cycling proposals was presented in March this year.

* A submission on The Greater Wellington Regional Council’s Draft Wairarapa Corridor Plan was made in March this year to reinforce the Trust’s view that the impacts on traffic entering the central city have to be taken full account of.

* The Board has written to the Council questioning the process adopted for granting resource consent for the proposed Wellywood sign near the airport.  The sign is significantly larger than that allowed under the District Plan which would suggest that the application for resource consent should have been advertised and open to public objection.

*  The Civic Trust is proud to be membership-based and is always alert to new ways of strengthening this. The Board recently resolved to seek corporate members during the next year in the hope of both increasing membership but particularly with a view to representing members who can support in various ways the activities of the Trust. We have sent a letter to seek interest from a first group of possible corporate members.

Finally – about the Board.   As a relatively new Civic Trust member, and in this past year as Chair, what continues to strike and impress me – and now makes me incredibly grateful – is the commitment and skills of the trustees.  Our board members have impressive experience in a wide range of pertinent areas and the attention and personal time they give to the various areas we discuss and take action in is considerable.

Hearts can sink when board members must, for various reasons, move on.

 - This year Bernie Napp resigned after a short but keen involvement.

 - Seddon Bennington was co-opted back onto the Board, having stepped down as Chairman.

 - Simon Brodie resigned as Treasurer in March 2010 and David Tai has taken on this role.

 - Jessica Closson enthusiastically accepted cooption onto the Board but her involvement was very brief due to her husband’s relocation back to the USA.

 -  David Pucher, who has taken responsibility for the newsletter for some 5 years now, has travel plans with his family and other life plans that see him moving on.

Our heartfelt thanks to all of these people for their efforts in the many Trust interests.

I wish to make special mention of Tony Town.

Twinkly-eyed, humorous Tony has been a stalwart of the Trust since 2006.  His expertise on the District Plan and Resource Consent issues has been invaluable and over these years he has ferreted out information and attended many meetings, read and interpreted many dense documents on our behalf, written letters seeking clarification as well as submissions.  We regret his need for a bit more peace and quiet, but it is so richly deserved that we can only say thanks for everything you have done for the Trust Tony and wish you and Anne all the best in the future.

The sinking feeling with such departures as those above is often again boosted with the personalities, skills and commitment of new board members, and the board, while seeking new trustees now, continues in great heart. 

All the trustees have shared the work through the various portfolios and I thank them all (Toni Izzard, Blair Badcock, David Pucher, Simon Brodie, Charmaine Smit, Bill Robertson, David Tai and Bill Buxton).

I particularly thank the convenors of these portfolio areas for their always impressive efforts and the many hours they give to this work.

- Waterfront – Peter Brooks

- Transport and Traffic – Chris Watson

- Capital Centre – Peter Brooks

- District Plan – Tony Town

- Amalgamation – Glen Evans (this, while currently a peripheral issue, may assume more relevance given the Trust’s constitutional interest in the “City of Wellington”).

Finally, I thank Alan Smith – not mentioned above although he engages frequently with these groups – for his considerable secretarial skills, his clarification of issues in countless emails to the trustees, and for being such a staunch partner to me in this role.

Sharmian Firth - Chair

May 2010  

13/05/2010

The Civic Trust has no climate scientists on its Board. We have not therefore attempted to evaluate the science, we are persuaded, however, that if the great majority of climate scientists say that global warming is a life threatening problem, we have not only to listen, but to act.

If 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences say that “there is compelling comprehensive and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend” we have to do something about it.

The Council to its credit through its 2007 and 2010 action plans is trying to do just that.

And so it must, for our city is very vulnerable. This was dramatically demonstrated to the Council’s Strategy and Policy Committee last December with 3-D graphics showing the impact of a one metre rise in sea level on the CBD.

The problem for the Council is that it is a minor player in the policy-making league. The scope for adaptation and, particularly, mitigation policies is severely circumscribed. Decisions taken at the international and national levels will establish the policy environment. Unfortunately progress at those levels has been poor –international leadership on climate change has failed as governments maneuver to seek national advantage.

In that light it would seem that although the Council has established emission targets its ability to achieve them is extremely limited. It seems likely that emissions have increased since the last action plan and may still be rising. We hope that the new interim target of a reduction of 3% (on 2001) by 2013 is achievable and not just aspirational. We should have an indication on this next year when measurements will be taken to establish whether or not emissions stabilised by 2010.

We note from page 17 of the plan that forecasting emissions has been carried out on the basis of various scenarios. It resulted in a wide spread of possible emission trends, so that by 2020 emissions could decrease by “as much as 11%, or increase by an average of 20%. If the most optimistic reading is a reduction of 11% we wonder why the Council is maintaining what would seem to be an unrealistic target of a reduction of 30% by 2020.

If the 2020 target is still considered by the Council as a realistic target, the Trust suggests that it should commission research to show, under a number of scenarios, what changes would have to be made in respect of current patterns of living – particularly energy use in buildings and land and air transport – to get there.

The plan states that 43% of Wellington’s emissions are produced from energy used in buildings. Increasing the renewable component of the national power supply would reduce that percentage. Wellington is well placed to make an above-average contribution to such an increase. As noted in the plan Wellington’s wind is already being harnessed to the grid. There would seem to be scope for further developing wind farms in the rural areas to the west of the city and we would hope that the District Plan provisions are generally sympathetic to such projects.

But local government is domestic, fireside, government. There is a special role for city and district councils to engage with the public and to help them make their houses warmer, healthier and less demanding on people’s pockets and the nation’s energy resources. The Warm Up New Zealand scheme is a great first step, but it seems that initial funding is for a four year period and in that time just under 190,000 households will have been retrofitted. According to an article in the current Listener at that rate it will take 20 years to upgrade the country’s old stock of houses. The Council’s role would seem to be to ensure that the capital gets its fair share of the programme, that it encourages Wellingtonians to take the opportunities offered and it lobbies the government to extend and expand the scheme.

The proposed Home Energy-Saver programme is very much one of those fireside programmes that local government, perhaps working with and through established community organisations, can most effectively deliver. If we are to beat climate change, people have to change their ways. In the absence of a visible, or felt, threat that is difficult to do. It is easier where you can show that by adopting some sensible power-saving steps they can save money.

But it is not only residential properties that waste power through energy inefficient buildings and wasteful operation. The proposal to provide funds to support GWRC’s eMission programme is welcome. We understand that about twenty businesses are currently involved and we would like to know, given that the Council intends to contribute $50,000, what is the target for increasing the coverage.

It would seem that the most effective way of reducing the carbon footprints of businesses is to use powers under the District Plan. The five star green Meridian Energy building at Kumutoto was said to be a template for all future buildings on the waterfront. Could it not establish a design precedent for new commercial buildings and be a standard for new fitouts?

35% of the city’s emissions are from land transport. But the Council has only a limited policy role in this area – the LTA and the GWRC have the major say operating within the broader policy agenda of central government. In its Wellington 2040 submission the Trust looked forward to a capital which was far less reliant on the private car as a primary means of transport, because there was an affordable reliable and integrated public transport system in place. We anticipated that one of the drivers for that development would be the financial incentives in place to move away from a carbon based economy. As with the drive to make our homes more energy efficient the move to a world class public transport system could and should be one of the few benign consequences of a process which threatens rather than reassures.

To effect such a change is not within the power of the Council, but the Council must have a seat at the policy table, it must know what it wants and it must strive to attain it.

The Council does have a more direct role to play, as noted in the plan, in respect of urban planning strategies, bus-lane developments and promoting walking and cycling. These are essential elements in a total package which will only be assembled if the Council, the GWRC and the government and its agencies work towards a common objective. If the climate change issue does not achieve that , nothing will.

The Council will note that the Trust is not enamoured of the proposed electric vehicle pilot. It is not that we see no future for such vehicles. It is rather that in an area where the technology is still developing quickly it is better not to be out in front. Not that providing a few electrically powered

Nissans for visitors to Wellington amounts to a leadership role. We note from an article in the Evening Post that up to ten Nissan Leaf cars might be available for the Rugby World Cup and that they might be used to ferry VIPs around the city. This seems to me to be a product of the Nissan PR team rather than a useful contribution to the city’s plan to combat climate change. Surely it would be better to await the outcome of more thorough studies, such as the three year study being undertaken by Canberra.

At the beginning of this submission I referred to the threat of a significant rise in the sea level as a consequence of global warming. There is no agreement on the likely extent of the rise (with levels varying from the concerning to the alarming) and the process is, it seems, not yet fully understood. The Ministry for the Environment may develop a national environmental standard on future sea levels and clearly such advice should influence future Council policies and particularly the coastal study to be undertaken with the GWRC.

This is a tricky issue for the Council. It is right to keep the public informed (as it did last December) but it also has to avoid unduly alarming those living in the more vulnerable areas. It would seem to be at least prudent to avoid new developments on vulnerable sites. Because the waterfront project is a Council-controlled development it has a special responsibility (and no doubt legal obligation) not to mislead developers and investors.

The Trust recognises that climate change policy is difficult for all local authorities. Decision-making for national and local governments would be much easier if there was an international consensus on climate change policies. It would be easier for this Council if there was a clear national policy on climate change and if the political rhetoric was couched more in terms of sustainability objectives than in increases in GDP. But the Council must do its best in the real world and in general the Trust feels that the 2010 plan is a fair attempt to do that.

Those targets the Council has set are only relevant if they serve to energise the Council to press its policy partners in central and regional government to act promptly and decisively on climate change issues. The plan sets out a number of areas where the Council intends to lobby the government, we have suggested a few more. The next three years could be the last opportunity to confront this issue while it is still manageable. We very much hope that the next Council will be ready and willing to grasp the baton that you will be handing over.

Peter Brooks

Wellington Civic Trust

13 May 2010

10/5/2010

Introduction

The Trust congratulates the Council on the draft 2010 Climate Action Plan. Such a plan is essential if the city is to meet the challenges which global warming will bring.

The Trust’s submission is based on the following premises:

• Acceptance that significant and damaging anthropogenic global warming is a reality although there is no consensus on likely temperature rises by the end of the century
• Wellington city is particularly vulnerable to sea level increases and extreme weather events
• Both the Council and citizens have a duty of care to face up to the problems that will be created by climate change even if those problems are unlikely to be felt fully for many years
• Policies that are effective, efficient and politically palatable in both areas of adaptation and, particularly, mitigation are elusive
• Policies have to be consistent with both international and national policies on climate change
• The plan does not address long term strategies or issues and is to be considered in the context of the 2010/11 Draft Annual Plan

The issue of climate change has to be addressed through a hierarchy of policy-making institutions with the lead being taken by international agencies setting targets and procedures which are then adopted by national governments. It is within such a context that local communities must work. Unfortunately progress at the international and national levels has been poor and this raises major problems for those cities such as Wellington, that wish to prepare for the changes which global warming will bring and who wish to play their part in reducing emissions.

We understand that because no reliable estimate of a carbon price can be made it is very difficult for the city to estimate the outcome of various policy options. An indication is given in the plan that this might be possible in 2012 in combination with the LTCCP 2012/22. But it seems that the market will not establish a carbon price until some time in 2013 after completion of the transition period.

The Council is, however, committed to achieving quite challenging emission targets and it must convince central and regional governments to develop a policy framework within which the Council can use its own powers to effect local change.

Although the Mayor claims in her opening message that the city can be proud of its achievements in climate change, it would seem likely that emissions have increased rather than stabilised since the last action plan (2007). We agree, however, with her comment that cities need to demonstrate strong leadership. We hope that the larger urban centres in New Zealand (which are necessarily the larger emitters) will work together to find best practice solutions to common problems. We hope too that they will collaborate in lobbying central government so that city-based emission reduction policies can be developed within a sympathetic legislative and economic environment.

The Council should also develop close links with other cities addressing climate change issues effectively. We would hope that the contacts made at the recent Copenhagen meeting, attended by the Mayor and officers, could be used to good effect.

Emission Reduction Targets

The IPCC range of likely global warming effects presents major problems for the city even at the median level of a 3 degree temperature rise. The city will not know until next year whether or not the process of increasing emissions has been arrested. Between 2001 and 2007 they increased by 5%. We hope therefore that the very modest target to actually achieve a reduction of 3% (on 2001 levels) by 2013 is more than aspirational. We understand that the major components of the savings are Spicer Landfill gas capture and voluntary household changes. The first is no doubt largely within the power of the Council to achieve, but the second will depend on decisions by thousands of households. That will require the Council to convince them that this is a real problem and that we have to change our profligate ways with fossil fuels. The tone of the plan does not convey that message. Unfortunately, as long as national and local public policy objectives continue to emphasise economic growth, public concern about climate change is likely to be muted. As long as new roading products are heralded as another boost for the local economy people are unlikely to be convinced that we have to change our ways.

The Council has to take the public with it in developing and implementing climate change policies and programmes. Unfortunately the public has little conception of what a reduction of 30% (let alone 80%) in emissions would mean in terms of its impact on life styles. The Council should commission a study to provide a range of scenarios relevant to hitting these targets.

Energy Consumption

The plan states that 43% of Wellington’s emissions are produced from energy used in buildings. If the percentage of power produced from renewable resources was increased that could be significantly reduced. There are a number of factors influencing the use of wind power and most are beyond the power of the council to influence. However, it would seem that much rural land within the city boundaries has potential for wind farms. The plan states that two more wind farms are proposed. While such projects are controversial because of noise and visual pollution, in current circumstances, the public good suggests that the Council should ensure that its district plan provisions are sympathetic to such developments, while ensuring that the rights of local property owners are protected.

Such an approach would fit in with the Council’s intention to lobby for a 90% renewable energy target for total national electricity supply by 2025 (BE5, page 22). However, the carbon price issue is relevant, because to make renewable energy supply economically attractive coal and oil power generation has to be made economically unattractive.

New Zealand has lagged behind other countries in the use of solar energy and small-scale wind power. This may be partly due to the inability to feed surplus power into the grid. We support the Council’s intention to lobby for a change (BE8, p.22).

We strongly support the establishment of the sustainable and renewable energy centre of excellence (pp 7 & 21). We understand Grow Wellington is promoting a Pacific Clean Energy Institute - it would give climate change leadership not only to New Zealand but to the wider region.

During recent periods of power shortage public authorities have taken steps to reduce the use of electric power – non essential use has been curtailed. Street lighting has been reduced and office lighting used more economically. While the public may not be so accepting of such a policy over what would necessarily be a long term (at least until power was almost wholly supplied from renewable sources) the actual inconvenience to the public would be small. The private sector should be encouraged to participate.

Transport

Over a third of Wellington’s emissions are from land transport. A major shift from private to public transport use would effect a significant contribution to the 2020 target. Private car use will become increasingly expensive and with new rail rolling stock coming on line in the near future the prospects for increasing rail’s share of commuter rail travel (currently 3%) must be high. The plan notes that $7million will be spent on a ten year programme to expand the city’s bus-lane network through the central city and other key routes, and $13 million in the same period to improve facilities for cyclists and pedestrians and that this is part of a commitment to spend $31 million in the current LTCCP (page 10). By the following year the Council’s first significant target of a reduction of 20% on 2001 emissions will fall due. It seems unlikely that such a target can be reached without having a new low energy transport structure in place. We hope that the current planning will provide for that.

We accept that in the short term diesel buses will be a major element in the public transport fleet but in the longer term less damaging emitters should form the backbone of the public transport road fleet. Clearly evolving technology will provide options not currently available. We are pleased to note at page 21 that the Council is investigating electric vehicle technology for the city’s bus network and we assume that this might include hybrid vehicles. .

The ability to move easily between different transport modes and to provide on-site accurate information about bus/train arrivals are essential elements in making public transport an attractive option. We support the policy of promoting compact city growth (Page 24) including development along public transport routes.

The Trust noted in its submission on the Wellington 2040 project that a shift from private car use to public transport would transform the central city; it would also make a major contribution to meeting the city’s emission targets. But, again as we noted in our submission, the Council cannot achieve such a transformation on its own. It would have to alter the policy mind sets of both central and regional government. If the Council is serious about its emission targets it has to be equally serious about the development of a renewable energy based public transport system which makes private car travel comparatively unattractive.

Electric vehicle pilot

The Trust is not convinced that an electric vehicle pilot scheme has much to offer the climate change programme. We accept the argument that because most of our electricity is derived from renewable resources electric cars have the potential to make an above average contribution. But many other cities will be researching their use and the infra-structure necessary to support them. Canberra is to undertake an extensive and expensive three year programme. We should let others pioneer this work and adapt their findings to our city’s special features. Technology in this area is likely to advance quickly, especially in respect of batteries, and a cautious approach is warranted. The Council wants the capital to be “an early adopter of electric vehicles.” The Trust does not think that is wise. The suggestion that cars and facilities should be available for the use of tourists (such as cruise ship and Rugby World Cup visitors) introduces an undesirable ‘gimmicky’ element into what is an important issue. We do not support the proposed $100,000 expenditure on this project.

Proposed Studies

The potential threat posed by rising sea levels has to be taken very seriously. The Trust supports the Council commitment to the coastal study undertaken in partnership with the Greater Wellington Regional Council and the city vulnerability assessments (A1, page 16). We also understand that the Council is drawing on the specialist knowledge and skills of NIWA and Victoria University. The Council will need to handle the public information aspects of this work with care because of the potential effects on public confidence and property values. Nevertheless, the Trust’s view is that the public must be kept fully informed

Much of the CBD is vulnerable to the levels of sea rise which might result from global warming. Currently the Council, through its company Wellington Waterfront Ltd, is trying to market building sites on the Wellington waterfront. Consideration should be given to putting a hold on such marketing, at least until further credible information is available on the likely impact of global warming and what steps might be taken to protect vulnerable areas.

We understand that the Department for the Environment will later this year provide revised advice to council’s on potential sea level rises and the implications for coastal communities. That advice should inform Council policies including relevant provisions in the District Plan.

Residential Energy Efficiency Projects

The proposed Home Energy- Saver programme (BE1, page 21) may seem a minor initiative, but it is one which the trust believes is vital to the success of the climate change plan and one of the relatively few areas where the local authority has the opportunity to make a real difference. Working with households to help them reduce energy consumption in the home is likely to encourage people to think more constructively about how they can change ingrained habits in the light of the reality of climate change. Support for the Warm Up New Zealand scheme is strongly supported for the same reasons. We note that it is estimated that 2000 Wellington households will benefit from the scheme annually. We would hope that this scheme can be expanded because the dividend is not only in power savings to the country and in the reduction of power bills to the household, but in the improved health of those no longer living in cold and draughty environments. The Council should add that item to the list of matters on which to lobby the government.

The Trust suggests that in promoting community initiatives related to climate change the Council should establish climate change partnerships with appropriate community organisations. Using their membership lists and contacts such organisations would be able to help spread the messages quickly and effectively.

We welcome the proposal at BE6, page 26, that the Council will lobby the government for higher energy-efficiency standards in the building code and for a home energy ratings scheme for housing. The latter provision is particularly welcome because it would provide a major incentive for a home owner, or a landlord, to improve the energy efficiency of their property. We hope these initiatives will be resolutely prosecuted with the government.

 Business energy efficiency programmes

The Meridian Energy building on the waterfront was hailed as the first five star green building in Wellington and the then chair of Wellington Waterfront Ltd said it would be a template for all future buildings on the waterfront. Could not such a standard also be applied to all new commercial projects in the city?

Conclusion

It could be argued that because the Council does not have the power to attain the emission targets it has set for the city, those targets are meaningless. The Trust believes that as long as the Council ensures that those targets inform and determine policies which the Council can implement and as long as they mean that the Council lobbies the relevant policy makers in respect of policies outside its direct control, the targets are relevant and necessary.

We have noted in this submission a number of instances where the Council intends to lobby the government (national sustainable energy target, residential energy efficiency programmes, feed-in tariffs). We welcome that, but because the city is dependent on central government for setting the national policy agenda for climate change, it must press ministers to act effectively and decisively at both the international and national levels.

We would be proud of our council, and of our city, if it truly became a leader in lobbying for effective action at all levels on a problem which threatens to determine the future of our city - and much else.

Oral

The Wellington Civic Trust wishes to be heard at the Oral submissions stage. The Trustee leading the oral submission will be Peter Brooks peter.brooks@xtra.co.nz phone 479-6812.

Alan Smith

[signed AS]

Deputy Chair & Secretary

Wellington Civic Trust

9 May 2010

Wellington 2040 – The Future of Our Central City

PART ONE - A Time of Great Opportunity

The aim of the Wellington Civic Trust since its formation in 1981 has been to help make Wellington the best of all possible places to live and work. We therefore approach the Council’s ”Wellington 2040 – the Future of our Central City” initiative with that aim very much in mind. The project is both timely and relevant.

The project asks us to concentrate on the central city – the heart. But we have to be mindful that this heart pumps blood to, and receives sustenance from, the large urban body of greater Wellington. What happens there over the next 30 years will affect what happens at the centre of Wellington City.

It seems inevitable that in the next few decades the world will need to adjust its life styles to a low carbon emission economy. This will impact on the way in which we operate our cities – particularly the central city. We have to start preparing for that now - it is a time of uncertainty, but also of great opportunity.

In our response we identify a move from private transport to public transport as the key agent of change. We accept that will not be easy, but it is achievable if it operates as a rational response to price changes.

A major shift from providing for the needs of private vehicular traffic to one of investment in public 2/…

transport, even if taken gradually over many years and working in sympathy with national pricing signals, will have major economic and social consequences. We have to know more about these to ensure that the benefits of change are maximised and the adverse effects minimised.

Council Policy Process

In terms of establishing the Council’s central city policy an inclusive approach is essential. Experience gained in the waterfront project may be relevant, such as the establishment of a consultative committee. Interested groups and individuals will bring different perspectives to the discussions. The Trust accepts that its vision of the central city of the future may not be shared by others and we would be very willing to modify our views and suggested approach in the light of what we learn in such a consultative process.

We hope that the Council will adopt a timetable to ensure that the policy process is deliberate and focused. By the next LTCCP there should be a basic agreement on what we are endeavouring to achieve long term and financial allocations for the decade ahead.

Partnership Approach

The changes we propose are not in the gift of the City Council. The Council has to convince other major players; central government, the Regional Council, other territorial authorities and service providers. The government will need to be convinced that it should shift from well established funding policies. A partnership approach with each partner, recognizing that the new situation requires new thinking, is essential. Timing is a key element. Policies must be decided to ensure that the public is presented with attractive alternatives as price changes prompt a wish to alter current practices.

Significant Issues

In our answers to the questionnaire we provide our views on the strengths and weaknesses of the central city now and the potential for the future. First, there are a few issues that we wish to highlight.

(i) Passenger Transport Coordination

The idea of transport hubs needs developing where appropriate. The most successful and used commuter train service in New Zealand terminates at the Wellington Railway Station and connects 3/…

well to the city bus services. This is a sound basis for further development. The further development of bus lanes is essential if bus services are to establish the degree of required reliability. The reliability and comfort of commuter rail travel will be greatly enhanced as new rolling stock is commissioned in the next few years. This alone will provide a major boost to public transport but to realise its potential for good it has to be part of an overall strategy. We envisage that within the 30-year period the use of public transport could justify the installation of an affordable light rail system or a similar low carbon energy transport service based on proven technology.

(ii) Walkability

Wellington is already a very walkable city, and this is a comparative advantage which the city should exploit. The development of an improved public transport system and fewer private cars will provide the opportunity to enhance the pedestrian environment and provide new opportunities to make walking even more pleasurable. As Professor Jan Gehl pointed out in his 2004 City to Waterfront study, the creation of good public spaces within a pedestrian environment will provide the opportunity for people to sit and rest and watch the city.

(iii) Cycling

The Council has been giving increasing attention to the needs of cyclists in recent years but much more will need to be done by 2040. Reduced car use will provide new options as more road space is available for other users. A citywide cycle network should have been established by 2040 and the central city section, where commuters will concentrate, will require special care. Ideas from countries where cycling is a well established and accepted form of travel should be adapted by local designers to make central Wellington streets as safe and attractive for cycling as those of some European cities.

_____________________

PART TWO - QUESTIONNAIRE

(We have excluded questions 1, 2, 8 and 9 which are directed at individuals.)

Question 3. What makes Wellington’s central city work well? Why?

Compactness is the key to the success of the central city. Not only is the area well served by public transport but it is also, compared with most other capital cities, pedestrian friendly. Much of the central area is flat and building verandas provide protection from inclement weather. The CBD is 4/…

centred on the sinuous Golden Mile with Lambton Quay a street of real quality, which, through protected viewshafts, maintains contact with the harbour. In recent years a significant residential population has developed which has increased the diversity and vitality of the area. The waterfront development is now about 60 per cent complete and has greatly added to the public’s enjoyment of this waterfront city. The waterfront now offers a chain of museum and art gallery spaces of very high quality, with Te Papa exceeding all expectations in visitor numbers. Parliament’s grounds offer a pleasant and accessible area for major State events - and for public demonstrations. Westpac Stadium is a success as a national sports arena and well placed in respect of public transport facilities.

Question 4. What do you think is the main opportunity and the main threat facing Wellington’s central city now or in the future? Why?

The main opportunity is to build on the strengths identified above – the city does work well now, but it could be significantly improved. While it is now a very walkable city there is much that could be done to make the pedestrian experience a true delight. We see the catalyst to this being a significant development of public transport. The energy crisis and related climate change issues provide the opportunity to shift the emphasis on rearranging our city from one which suits motor vehicles to one where the emphasis is on the quality of living, working and playing within the centre city.

The main threat would be the failure to adopt sustainable policies quickly, or fully enough, to take advantage of a unique set of factors. This is an opportunity to convert an intrinsically negative situation (global warming) into something positive for the public’s enjoyment of the inner city.

Question 5. If you could, what is the one thing you would change about Wellington’s central city? How would you change it and why?

The Trust believes that this ‘One Thing’ would be to alter the balance between public and private transport. But the change has to be based on gradual, purposeful and consistent actions, working with the grain of national public policy and within the tolerance of public opinion. We see that this could well work within a 30-year framework which is the tool proposed in the 2040 document. A first principle of any such change should be to give public-funding priority to public transport and not to roading. Once a new balance has been struck, the need for new roading expenditure can be more rationally assessed within the new environment. Such changes should provide a more workable city, a more pleasant city and a healthier city.

5/…

By 2040, technological developments will offer public transport options not currently available, but the city cannot afford to wait for that. The gradual and purposeful approach we recommend requires that we start now by developing and improving the existing public transport infrastructure. For the central city that means buses (diesel and electric). A greatly improved bus and rail service will help create a public transport culture that will provide a strong basis for the adoption of proven new and affordable systems as they are developed.

There are proposals currently under consideration which would involve very considerable government expenditure on SH1 in the central city. Those proposals should be reassessed in the context of a 2040 strategy. The Trust’s view is that an objective assessment in that context would show that equivalent investment in public transport around the existing road network would solve the identified bottleneck problems in the Basin Reserve area.

We accept that such fundamental policy changes are not within the gift of the City Council. A major change in the approach of central government will be required.

Question 6. What is your vision for Wellington’s central city in 2040? What does the central city look like, how does it operate, what activities does it accommodate? What should Council’s role be in this?

It looks much as it does now. The centre piece will be the Golden Mile. While there will be more high rises along Lambton Quay, Willis and Manners Streets they will be set back to avoid canyon effects (that has not been done consistently even recently, e.g. the HSBC Building). Overall heights should be within the maximum stated in the District Plan, with only rare exceptions.

In 2040 we would find that:

· the Wellington Railway Station is a major public transport hub, but no longer a rail terminus as light rail from Johnsonville carries on through the Golden mile;

· apartment dwelling will have expanded throughout the central area, but although such dwellings will cover a wide price range, low quality ’shoe box’ apartments ( as in Auckland) are not featured in the central area. Social housing will continue to be a responsibility of the Council and the Central City will include such accommodation;

· the entertainment zones, Courtenay Place, Cuba Street and the waterfront have retained their different and distinctive characters;

· the centre is a pedestrian friendly area providing secure and pleasant environments with minimal interference from vehicular traffic. The elderly and pushers of wheelchairs and

prams will be able to travel freely within the centre, aided where necessary by facilities to

6/…

allow them to move between levels.

· There will be facilities to meet the needs of low-energy personal transport users (whatever form they may take by 2040). There will be designated cycle lanes and attention will be given to avoiding pedestrian/cyclists conflicts (e.g the waterfront promenades);

· the Capital Centre around Parliament and the Courts will have been established with facilities to explain and showcase New Zealand’s systems of government and justice. The Centre is given its own design character through appropriate street furniture and signage. The area’s connection with the waterfront is enhanced by a redesign of Whitmore Street and its junction with the Quay;

· further inner city parks will have been created, including several from former car parks such as the Michael Fowler Centre car park;

· The Aotea Quay entrance to the City has been lined with trees and a sheltered well-designed walkway created for those cruise ship passengers who choose to walk into the CBD;

· the Memorial Park will have been completed, but city and SH1 traffic issues will have been resolved without construction of a flyover at the northern end of the Basin Reserve;

· there are more well-designed and pleasant small inner-city environments, like Chews Lane;

· remnants of old Wellington have been retained and maintained and heritage is defined to include 20th and 21st century buildings of exceptional merit;

· there is an overarching policy on signage establishing a consistency of style which helps to identify the character of the area and assists residents and visitors alike to find there way through this most walkable of cities;

· the waterfront development has been completed with high-quality new buildings on Kumutoto, Waitangi Park (including a new gallery building) and the Outer-T, the latter replacing Shed 1 and taking the opportunity to emphasise the waterfront link with the CBD by freeing the Johnston Street viewshaft;

· flexible public spaces on the waterfront are provided for Sunday markets and temporary recreational and entertainment sites;

· the city is alive to the threat of rising sea levels and appropriate action has been taken in the light of expert advice.

· The Council and citizens recognise that the Capital is vulnerable to a range of disaster events, some of which are increased by global warming. Building codes have been amended to protect people and structures and the city and its people are appropriately prepared and resourced to cope with such events.

7/…

Critical Roles for the Council

The Trust advocates an active role for the council and not one limited to infrastructure provision and maintenance.

The Council should defend and promote the viability of the central area through appropriate rating and planning policies. The CBD must retain its competitive edge as a centre for retail trading and public and private sector administration. The central city has to be able to respond positively to new opportunities for economic activity both to achieve growth and compensate for those industries where the City no longer has a competitive advantage. Current trends suggest that the economic importance of the container port may decline over the next decades. If that happens there will be land-use opportunities that will need to be assessed and exploited.

An effective low-carbon policy will reinforce the desirability of concentrating medium density development within the central area along arterial public transport routes, for example four or five storey apartments within 500 metres and three- to five-storey townhouses within 500 metres of a bus route. The District Plan should encourage such development.

Economic growth over the next 30 years will partly depend on how the housing market takes shape and how well suited it is to housing Wellington’s central area workforce. Many cities, like Wellington, have worked hard to revitalise their inner areas and now boast thriving apartment sub-markets. Some have also come to realise that providing conveniently located affordable housing for key service workers and students is equally important to future prosperity. The experience of cities like London and Toronto shows that unaffordable housing can ultimately lead to labour shortages in key sectors of the local economy. Therefore, as well as encouraging the development of more upper-end apartments, Council has an ongoing role to ensure that enough affordable housing is available for those service workers on lower wages who, nonetheless, would not qualify for Wellington City’s social housing.

.

The emphasis on good design, which has been a feature of the waterfront project, should be consistently applied throughout the central city, and it should not depend on incentives based on lowering District Plan standards (e.g on height and mass). We would hope that the Council, consistent with its concern to promote a sustainable city, would promote the development of ‘green’ buildings within the central area and encourage retrofitting of older buildings.

Also in relation to sustainability we would hope that Council policies and practices on waste disposal are developed and effectively implemented.

8/…

A major Council role is providing (or in some cases facilitating) and maintaining basic infrastructure. Over the next thirty years infrastructural demands will change to support new technologies. The Council will also have to guide the direction of city development through the DP. It seems likely that local government structural changes will demand, at least, a closer working relationship with regional partners. All policy makers have to anticipate the likely impact of a low-carbon environment and the impact on work and travel patterns of developing technology. In all those functions the Council has a responsibility to consult, listen and act in the knowledge and understanding of people’s views and concerns.

Question 7 Do you have any other comments or suggestions, particularly in regard to the issues mentioned in the ‘looking ahead’ section on pages 6-8 of this brochure? .

The great majority of Civic Trust convened seminars over the past twenty odd years have been concerned with aspects of the central city. A list is attached. Often the issues that have drawn together citizens and experts have related to public transport, the impact of the motor car, the quality of inner-city living and the provision of public open space. These are issues common to many cities and in our discussions we have drawn on their experiences. Wellington has not experienced the worst of the traffic congestion problems experienced elsewhere and neither have we progressed as far down the policy road as have others in the search for solutions. Many of our discussions took place before global warming and its attendant problems became a matter of general public concern. In our submission we see that climate change in fact offers an opportunity now to start addressing those issues, not only to mitigate the problems of the inner city but also to mitigate the impact of greenhouse emissions. As we said at the start of this submission this is a time of great opportunity.

Sharmian Firth

Chair.

Note: Appendix follows

APPENDIX

WELLINGTON CIVIC TRUST SEMINARS AFFECTING THE CENTRAL CITY

conclusions and recommendations:

Political Heartland 1987

The seminar endorsed the need to provide by statute additional planning and land use protection to the area around and including Parliament Buildings to ensure that the area reflects and celebrates New Zealand’s constitutional, spiritual and historical values, and that these qualities be protected and enhanced, the area so designated to be called the Parliament Centre.

Wellington Rail Yards Seminar 1989

Among the recommendations the seminar recommended that a light rail line, which might be an extension of the Johnsonville line, should connect to the Overseas Passenger Terminal.

It was also agreed that if the Railway Yards were developed they should provide for a wide mix of uses, bearing in mind that the area was huge in relation to the existing city fabric.

Wellington’s Open Spaces 1990

Recommended that the Council should undertake a comprehensive Open Space Study which would include smaller areas of open space in the city centre and the suburbs.

Transport and City Development 1993

The Trust recommended the establishment of a joint working group to bring together relevant administrative agencies, transport providers and other interested bodies aimed at a comprehensive co-operative problem-solving of transport issues by combining their efforts towards developing a jointly agreed strategy. The working group could also deal with problems of local funding, with joint approaches to Government on matters of legislation and with information to guide public attitudes in support of local needs and strategies.

Tourism in Wellington 1994

The seminar agreed that the Council had a responsibility to foster tourism growth by creating the right conditions and by facilitating the involvement and support of Wellington citizens. A n arms- length organisation to promote Wellington tourism was supported. Heritage was seen as a major (ii)

tourism resource and the Council had a duty to stop the heritage estate being eroded by day-to-day individual decisions of property owners.

The Northern Gateway 1998

Among the ideas discussed at the seminar the following have relevance for the current study. The legitimate needs of the Port of Wellington and Tranz Rail must have priority but the operators should rationalise their land holdings to enable desired changes to be made in the presentation of the Gateway area. The idea of the area providing a series of gateway vistas to the city through a combination of appropriately designed buildings, public art and greenery should be part of any plan for the area. The concept of a tree lined boulevard from Kaiwharawhara to Oriental Bay deserved attention.

From Work Place to Living Space 2002

This seminar focused on inner city living. The keynote address from Professor Jan Gehl advocated the development of a vibrant inner city life through reducing traffic, improving pedestrian accessibility, providing friendly open spaces and by greening the inner city wherever possible. He referred to the momentum of an increasing inner-city population – as numbers grew the city became safer, more of their needs were met, the community became more vibrant and that increased the attraction to move into the central city to live. No specific conclusions were reached at that seminar.

Providing for Social Housing in the City 2006

The consensus of the seminar was that social housing needs existed and were growing. Adequate and permanent social housing offered health and other gains including the maintenance of a diverse and cohesive community.

Wellington’s City Gateway

The seminar identified the following as among the principles to guide the development of the gateway area:

· Emphasis on developing the area as the front door to the city.

· Quality transport and pedestrian links developed between the cruise ship terminal and the CBD.

· Visual amenity of the area improved.

· Improved pedestrian and cycle pathways through and across the area.

· Extension of the rail further south into the city should be considered.

· The Harbour Quays area should be ‘mixed’ rather than office development.

(iii)

Round about the Basin 2009

The seminar discussed several significant developments planned for the area around the Basin Reserve. The aim was to elicit information on the projects, which to some degree are inter-related, and raise awareness of their likely impacts. A call for more effective public consultation was the major outcome. Proposals affecting communities had to involve those communities in the development of options, not just in seeking their reactions to already chosen plans. While the Basin Reserve area was the focus of discussions, it was agreed that it was only one of a number of bottlenecks and the most significant issue for the capital was to get an effective public transport system able to meet the public’s needs in a future with less private-car travel due to carbon limitations and peak oil.

We have a great group of speakers and a dynamic and enlightened leader in Morgan Williams for this day-long sharing of views.  The Basin Reserve and it’s surroundings is the topic.  Plans are shaping up for considerable change in this area and it seems timely to look closely at this important area in our city’s history and also today – to increase public understanding about the various changes that are contemplated, and the implications of these changes.

Seminar Brochure Here

Seminar Schedule Here

The year started with the decision of the Environment Court on the Queens Wharf Outer T Hilton Hotel proposal. We were pleased that the Court’s decision was based on upholding the Waterfront Framework. The process called on all of our reserves, along with additional support from members, but we were able to stay solvent and have moved back to a modest reserve this year to support our normal activity expenses. We do not have the resource however for another major undertaking of that kind.

I will list our main activities over the past year.

• Adelaide Road consultation Meetings were attended and a submission prepared, and the next step by the Trust will be picked up in the Basin Reserve Seminar (see below).
• Jack Ilott Green. One of the conclusions of the Seminar held by the Trust some years ago identified the critical auditorium size that would best fill the gap in facilities in Wellington. The City, who own the site, and the Universities wanting to build the facility have negotiated a smaller auditorium. The Trust has gone back to the earlier reference and activated support for the larger facility and drawn the City’s attention to this.
• Ngauranga to Airport Corridor. A submission on the draft was lodged by the Trust and one of the points picked up in the Final Plan is that public transport between the CBD and the Airport needs to be reviewed within the next five years.
• Capital Precinct (the area in the vicinity of Parliament) The Trust has strongly urged the City Council to work with Central Government on a plan for this area that recognises its’  importance for Wellington, and for the nation. Particular issues within the Precinct have been the state of the Thorndon Tavern site and the process for the development of the National Library.
• Waterfront Ten Year Plan. A Submission was presented, and a representation made on the proposed Variation 11 affecting what would, or would not, require public consultation.
• The Civic Trust Awards. This is a biannual Awards programme, with a range of categories to recognise the best developments in the City over the preceding two years. Submissions were invited and Panels of Trust members and other volunteers made the selection. The Awards were presented at a function, and then photographs of the entries were displayed in Shed 13 on the waterfront earlier this year. Trustees, and friends looked after the display, and we want to recognise the work of all the volunteers in this programme. Capital Times newspaper supported the call for entries, a range of expert judges gave their time, and Wellington Waterfront Ltd provided the building space for the display. Special financial support was provided by Oroya Day.
• Great Harbour Way. The Trust supports the development of this greatly upgraded cycle way around Wellington Harbour edge.
• Basin Reserve Seminar Planning. This is an intersection of a number of different planning discussions, for example the Flyover and Tunnel traffic proposal, the War Memorial precinct, the Adelaide Road zone, as well as this being an iconic cricket facility. A Seminar will be held in August to bring together all those involved in these different aspirations to help both public involvement and ideally to ensure future planning ensures the integration of the best concepts consistent with sustainable transportation planning.
• A new Brochure for the Trust. It is many years since the last brochure was printed, and there is a need to promote the Trust’s work more widely and to attract new members.
• Website. This has been developed by Callum Strong, and with the Newsletter edited by David Pucher is our way of keeping members in touch as well as promulgating the work of the Trust more broadly.

It would be unfair to single out individual members of the Board as the activities above have been shared amongst a very dedicated team.

I do want to acknowledge individually the Secretary Alan Smith, the Treasurer Simon Brodie, and the Deputy Chair Di Buchan. Di has given unstintingly over many years including as Chair before my term. She will be greatly missed now that she has decided to take a break, but I am sure will not be far away when opportunity arises.

Thank you to David Underwood, the Trust’s Honorary Auditor.

My final note is a comment on our membership. We have about 170 members, and this has been relatively static or declining slightly over recent years. There is a need for the Trust to attract new members, particularly from the increasing residential population in the City. These are times when the importance of sustainable development, for example in public transport options and the location of amenities in relation to this, are paramount for Wellington’s long term vision. The Wellington Civic Trust is uniquely placed to educate, advocate, and sometimes agitate to ensure the best public outcomes, resulting from open public engagement, prevail over short term limited interest pragmatic compromises.

Again I want to acknowledge all those who support and work for the ideals of the Trust.