1. This is the response of the Wellington Civic Trust Incorporated (the Civic Trust). Our objectives relate to the quality of the urban environment and include:

• To promote a civic environment whereby the City of Wellington, its surroundings, and its adjacent countryside becomes a resources for the use, benefit and enjoyment of all Wellington citizens;
• To stimulate public interest in and care for the beauty, history and character of the City of Wellington and its surroundings and adjacent countryside and coastline and its dignity as the Capital City;
• To preserve, develop and improve buildings and features of general public amenity or historic interest or beauty;
• To create or improve features of beauty or interest in and about the City and its contiguous countryside and coastline;
• To promote high standards in architecture, landscape management, building and town and country planning.

2. These objectives support the Civic Trust’s general aim: to help make Wellington the best of all possible places to live and work. Our core interest is the distinctive character of the city – not something which is imposed by a nationwide template. Distinctive character does, amongst other benefits, draw residence and business and is therefore an economic factor although not statistically recordable as such.

3. So the Civic Trust has a central interest in the subject of the present Review, for the merits of the sustainable urban quality and distinctive character of Wellington. In our December 2010 response to your Building Competitive Cities consultation, we noted that

i. The consideration of urban design principles should be required in the Purpose and Principles sections of the Act

ii. Section 5 should place sustainable urban development and economic, social and cultural wellbeing on a par with environmental concerns

iii. Section 75 – urban design provisions should be included as a matter which local councils must include in their district plan .

Insofar as these 2013 proposals provide for this, they are supported; and if they are only implied, then they deserve strengthening.

4. Overall, the proposals revert towards the old days of “Think Big” where central government knew best what was good for local areas. What is of “national significance” changes, often quickly, as Ministers and their enthusiasms come and go. The law must provide greater certainty and confidence than that.

5. No doubt urban sprawl and ribbon development can enable cheaper housing in the first instance – is that really the sort of sustainable city that a government also asserting “100% pure” and the importance of innovation is really intending? Section #6 implies the protection of only “specified” outstanding natural features and landscapes. The intent in the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill now before Parliament is to create a National Historic Landmarks List of no more than 50 places at any one time. Both of these signal that a rather mechanistic view is being proposed for those qualitative aspects of urban environments which underpin the character of the places in which people actually live and work. Urban character, and how it is formed and favoured by local communities, varies from place to place – as it should in a diverse nation. The apparent focus on only “specified” aspects of the wider landscape may be “efficient” in the technical sense but is unlikely to lead to truly competitive cities. The Civic Trust interest is in how best to ensure that those subtle qualitative aspects of the urban environment are able to flourish because of the nature of resource management law, not in spite of it.

6. There is room for simplifying the RM process and this can be done without providing for even more opportunities for the central state to intervene in local democracy. The discussion document proposes limiting the scope of submissions and appeals to the Environment Court.  This is potentially dangerous – applications often change and evolve during the consents process.  If pursued in its proposed current form, it would be a recipe for even more litigation – the opposite of “streamlining”.

7. The haste in which this exercise is being undertaken precludes much expectation of response other than by those with deep before-tax pockets. The following summary comments are offered in a positive spirit and will we trust be accepted in the same way.

Question for Chapter 1

• Has this chapter correctly described the key issues and opportunities with New Zealand’s resource management system?

We find a contradiction in this chapter in its attempt to combine the aims of making the system easier to use, increase its certainty and predictability, and reduce unnecessary duplication and cost while making a step-change with radical changes to the outcomes of the RMA. The arguments put forward are basically about improving the “administrative efficiency” of the RMA processes – serious evidence about the inadequacy of the RMA outcomes is not provided. At the workshops both the Government MP and MfE officials emphasized that the changes were about improving RMA processes and not the outcomes. In this contradictory situation there is not a sound basis for removing the important elements of the current environmental effects legislation without a clear philosophy of moving to planning legislation incorporating the major principles of the UN concept of “Sustainable Development”. In these circumstances removal of important environmental criteria from the RMA and adding general economic wording will have serious unintended consequences. The removal of environmental bottom lines will negate the role of the RMA in allowing land use to be judged only its environmental effects. The ad hoc substitution of economic criteria while not advancing the UN concept of “Sustainable Development” will result in a return to the prescriptive planning of yesteryear and the associated ‘picking winners’ mindset. It is of some significance that while the bottom lines in the RMA are being removed they properly are firmly embedded in the 2013 Fresh Water reform proposals.

We believe that this RMA reform should be treated as two separate exercises. Firstly to make reforms to ensure the full efficiency and effectiveness of the environmental effects processes inherent in the RMA. Secondly the aim of moving environmental legislation into a “sustainable development” planning processes requires a fresh and fundamental reform to provide a flexible and non prescriptive planning platform for advancing the UN concept of “Sustainable Development” to enable NZ to best manage NZ resources in a changing and turbulent future.

Questions for Proposal 1: Greater national consistency and guidance

• Do you agree with the proposals in 3.1.1–3.1.4? Could they be improved? Are there any issues that you think have not been considered?

3.1.1 We do not support the combining of S6& 7 or the deletion of apparent repetition of qualities. S6 defines matters of national importance and establishes an important hierarchy of significance which should be retained and which provides a basis for Central Government involvement where not adequately recognized or provided for. S7 provides for other matters which while not of national significance are important regionally and locally. The criteria in both Sections are predominately environmental and this reflects the environmental effects nature of the RMA.

3.1.2 We support

3.1.3 We do not support, as the government powers to direct plan changes should be limited to the processes for responding to matters of national importance. Initiative and enterprising new approaches to local planning will be muted if the state has such (in effect) unlimited powers of intervention because localities fail to meet homogenous or conservative central perceptions.

3.1.4 We support

Questions for Proposal 2: Fewer Resource Management Plans

• Do you agree with the proposals in 3.2.1–3.2.4? Could they be improved? Are there any issues that you think have not been considered?

3.2.1 We support.

3.2.2 As mentioned above, a future-focused not prescriptive planning model would require new planning legislation and will have serious unintended consequences if attempted through ad hoc amendments to the RMA.

3.2.3 We support

5.2.4 We support

Questions for Proposal 3: More efficient and effective consenting

• Do you agree with the proposals in 3.3.1–3.3.11? Could they be improved? Are there any issues that you think have not been considered?

3.3.1–3.3.8 We support

3.3.9 We oppose, as the Crown has appropriate involvement in matters of national importance processes and should not be intervening in matters of regional and local importance.

3.3.10 We support

3.3.11 We do not support, as the Environment Court has proved a particularly effective and impartial process.

Questions for Proposal 4: Better natural hazard management

• Do you agree with the proposal in 3.4.1? How could it be improved? Are there any issues that you think have not been considered?

3.4.1 We support

Questions for Proposal 5: Effective and meaningful iwi/Maori participation

• Do you agree with the proposal in 3.5.1? Could it be improved? Are there any issues that you think have not been considered?

3.5.1 We support

Questions for Proposal 6: Improving Accountability Measures

• Do you agree with the proposal in 3.6.1? Could it be improved? Are there any issues that you think have not been considered?

3.6.1 We support

Alan Smith

Purpose of the Awards

To recognize projects that reflect essential / unique Wellington character, and effort and creativity beyond expected developments in the City. These will be additions and improvements to the built environment and new urban spaces which are, above all, accessible to the people of our city.

Nature of the Awards

2013 — The entries judged the top three in the Built Environment, Preservation, and Public Spaces categories will each receive a scrolled certificate, and the winner in each of these categories will be awarded a framed certificate at the Awards ceremony. There will be a additional prize awarded to recognize the inaugural Grant Tilly Memorial Award. The winner of the People’s Choice Award for public artwork/sculpture/street art will receive a framed certificate.

Rules

Qualifying Projects — projects which enhance the city of Wellington:

• Entries in the Enhancement or Protection of the essentially Wellington character may include: new buildings, restored buildings (heritage), commercial buildings, seismically-strengthened buildings, multi-unit residential developments, and precincts.
• Entries in the Innovative Public Spaces (large and small) may include parks, recreation areas, cycleways, walkways, and environmental projects.
• Entries in the Grant Tilly Memorial Award may include preservation of character buildings which Grant so ably and passionately captured in his many artworks.
• Entries in the People’s Choice category will be selected from all nominations by the Board of Trustees of the Civic Trust for publicly accessible sculpture, street art and art work additions to the City since the last Awards (early 2011). The final selection will be advertised for popular vote by the citizens of Wellington.

Eligibility

The projects nominated must be located within the geographical area that is within the boundary of Wellington City Council.

Preference will be given to projects which are of lasting value to the city.

The focus of the judges will be on the qualities of the entries which reflect the essential character of Wellington. The Awards seek to recognise special effort and creativity. The project nominated must be freely accessible to the public or have a positive impact on the public environment.

Nominations are now closed

]]> http://www.wellingtoncivictrust.org/awards-2013/feed 0 http://www.wellingtoncivictrust.org/north-kumutoto-submission http://www.wellingtoncivictrust.org/north-kumutoto-submission#comments Mon, 05 Nov 2012 01:37:56 +0000 admin http://www.wellingtoncivictrust.org/?p=487 This is the submission of the Wellington Civic Trust to Wellington City Council – Kumutoto Design COCMO2

1. The Wellington Civic Trust (‘the Trust’) would like to congratulate the Council on this public consultation exercise on the draft Design Brief that will be used to guide the future development of the Kumutoto area of Wellington’s waterfront. As could be seen by the packed Committee room on Thursday evening 1st November, there is a high level of interest in this area of the waterfront. We are pleased to note that the draft Design Brief aims to fulfil the general objectives outlined in the Waterfront Framework 2001, which the Trust has consistently supported as part of its policy. The Design Brief’s commitment that all future developments in this area will be subject to public notification is strongly supported. This should always have been the case. 
2. We applaud the Environment Court decision which ensures that Site 8 will be open space in perpetuity. We do not agree that the Environment Court decision compels the Council to allow maximum height and 100% building coverage development on Sites 9 & 10.
3. We are aware that commercial development remains the strategy of the Council and its subsidiary, Wellington Waterfront Ltd, in order to fund wharf maintenance, open space development, and pile replacement. We are not convinced that maximising commercial development in this area is the only way to ensure funding. This issue could be addressed by more creative user-pays solutions, and less ambitious expenditure on public spaces. The campervan park is an example of the former, and low cost seating and tree planting is an acceptable alternative to grand design (for example, the enhancement of Oruaiti Pa site is an excellent example of low scale quality development).
4. That the Council has committed to completing the development of North Kumutoto need not require that the whole of Sites 9 & 10 be covered by buildings. In particular, we are of the opinion that to accord with 1.1 General Design Principles “this area has a strong connection to the CBD”, the building envelop on Site 10 should be set back to align with the NZ Post building, both mitigating the tunnel effect of the view shaft from Whitmore Street, and maintaining the view of the historic Eastbourne Ferry building from the Quays. Similarly, any building on Site 9 should include the Design Brief requirement to align with Sheds 11& 13, both architecturally and in bulk.
5. Similarly, we are not persuaded that both Sites 9 and 10 should be able to build to their northern and southern boundaries respectively. Rather than “providing a gateway” to the waterfront when viewed from Whitmore Street, they would serve only to narrow the present viewshaft and further separate the waterfront from the CBD in a manner contrary to the general goal of connecting the two.
6. The Draft Design Brief is silent on the matter of the wind-funnel effect of two large bulky buildings in this location. It is well known that the Whitmore Street vicinity is one of the windiest locations in Wellington, with pedestrians often fighting to stay upright while waiting for crossing lights. Before any thought is given to maximum height and site coverage of these buildings, independent research should be commissioned to ensure the wind-tunnel effect will not be exacerbated. The Trust also suggests that independent wind tunnel analysis be a fixed prerequisite for all new structures on the waterfront.
7. Although there is much mention of shelter, there is little attention apparently paid to shadowing effects. Two large buildings in this vicinity will cast long shadows in the afternoon which will detract from the waterfront experience which present users enjoy. Again, independently produced shade diagrams should be commissioned as a prerequisite.
8. Graham McIndoe (Waterfront Technical Advisory Group) at the 1 November 2012 consultation public meeting stated that there is no intention of improving pedestrian access from the CBD to North Kumutoto to align with more intensive development in this area. There is at present only one pedestrian crossing from Whitmore Street to the area. This is at odds with 2.2 of the Draft Design Brief which notes that “improving pedestrian access across the heavily trafficked quays is critical to the success of the waterfront development”. The Design Brief needs to include clearer guidance on how developments will improve the CBD-waterfront access in this area, including all-weather access to the north of Site 10 and to the Railway Station. To concerns raised at the meeting about the existing covered pedestrian access through Shed 21 (unsafe, uninviting, unfinished), Mr McIndoe speculated that these were perhaps now irreversible, with ownership and control having passed to private interests. This situation needs to be avoided with any new building developments in this area, and warrants explicit inclusion in the Design Brief.
9. The Trust believes that adopting the Environment Court decision doggedly i.e. open space Site 8, buildings Sites 9 & 10, does not give proper consideration to the overall environmental effects in this area, and nor does it permit consideration of viable options. The Design Brief need not preclude fresh approaches devised for the area which could include:

• alternative uses for Sites 9 & 10;
• exploration of the viability of tourist and visitor-based activities, including retaining/expanding the present campervan site, a tourist information office, cafés with generous outdoor seating areas, water-based activities, covered recreational areas with visual access for passing pedestrians, and market stalls;
• low-level buildings on Sites 9 & 10 which are sympathetic to surrounding architecture;
• an overall plan for all three sites which should incorporate common architectural elements (like Sheds 11 & 13), linking landscape elements, all-weather pedestrian links, and improved access to the CBD.

10. The Trust notes that there should be no undue haste in redeveloping the North Kumutoto area. There are present uses, albeit low key, which ensure the area is attractive to travellers, tourists, pedestrians, office workers and cyclists. There appears little imminent danger of the wharf areas becoming hazardous in the near future, as present uses do not exert excessive loading.

Thank you for this opportunity to submit to the Draft Design Brief. We look forward to presenting our submissions, and trust that the Council has an open mind beyond the “permissions” of the Environment Court decision for this gateway waterfront area.

Alan Smith
Chairman
04 566 3034 | 027 285 6304

1. The Civic Trust applauds the Prime Minister’s announcement on 7 August that the National War Memorial Park (NWMP) would go ahead by passing over part of SH 1 rather than, as previously decided, be cut right across by the road.
2. The significance of the target completion date of Anzac Day 2015 has been known for the last 50 years or so, in particular since the 2004 decision to create the National War Memorial Park on this site. This has given ample time for orderly planning and due process by those responsible for making the Park happen. Now, with 130 weeks to go, it has been decided that urgency means that normal resource management and public works law must be set aside.

1. Such urgent bypassing of established law is wrong in principle. It is not something made necessary by an earthquake or by some unforeseen condition. So long as an appropriate National Memorial to the dead of all wars is the primary goal, we reluctantly agree to the Bill’s intent if Parliament is convinced that without it the participants would not be capable of achieving the task.
2. We recommend that the Bill be amended for improvement along these lines:
3. Part 1s.3(1) describes the Bill’s purpose as ‘to empower the creation of the NWMP (Pukeahu) adjacent to the National War Memorial, Carillon, and Hall of Memories… to ensure its completion by April 2015… while also ensuring the integration of the Park and roading networks within the wider City of Wellington’. In terms of both this wording and of the enduring values involved, the priority purpose must be the creation of an appropriate NWMP as part of (not just ‘adjacent to’) the area legislated under the National War Memorial Act 1992, with a secondary purpose of meeting ceremonial expectations of the Gallipoli centenary: and, only after that, its fit with the city roading network, more specifically the northbound Road of National Significance.
4. Hence s.1 of the Bill should be retitled the National War Memorial Act 1992 Amendment Bill to reinforce its primary purpose and to make clear that this is not in effect mainly a technical measure to expedite roading works.
5. For similar reasons, s.3(1) ‘Purpose’ should be re-expressed more positively as ‘The purpose of this Act is to empower the creation of the NWMP (Pukeahu) appropriate to the quality and function of the National War Memorial [as defined in the 1992 Act] to ensure its completion by…’
6. Part 2 s.9(5) presents an almost impossible conflict of interest for the Ministry. It should be expressed more positively as ‘Despite s.17 of the Historic Places Act 1993, the Agency or the Ministry shall make every reasonable endeavour to liaise with the NZHPT (Pouhere Taonga), without requiring prior consent in writing, before engaging any person…’
7. Schedule 1 Resource consents: the Wellington City Council (WCC) has an obviously close involvement with achieving the purpose of the Bill, but is virtually sidelined by its wording. The WCC has much more value to the success of the Bill’s purpose than is shown by its inclusion under s.36(2)(f) as just one of many entities on the ‘Community Forum’ to which the Minister must ‘have regard’ (s.36(3)) but with whom there is ‘no requirement to consult’ (s.36(4)). The Council of the Capital City has much more than just a technical / consents relationship with the NWMP project ­ including a financial commitment. A minimalist way of acknowledging this would be to amend s.3(2)(e) to read ‘to provide a process which involves the WCC in the independent certification of…’. We understand that WCC has put forward the concept of a ‘partnership agreement’ with the Agency and Ministry for this project ­ we support identifying this in the detail of the Bill.  While a partnership agreement is not precluded by the Bill, it is central enough to its core purposes to warrant inclusion and thereby reinforce the intent of the Capital City Initiative launched by the Prime Minister and the Mayor in 2009.
8. Schedule 10 Figure 2 [WMP01] shows a ‘cut and cover underpass envelope with park over‘ of about the same width as the existing Buckle St, whose whole width is used as the northbound-only lanes of SH1. There is still some popular belief that SH1 will, as an outcome of the ’Roads of National Significance’ project, run both ways along the alignment Karo Drive ­ NWMP ­ new Basin Reserve overbridge to solve congestion by grade separation over local traffic. Schedule 10 suggests that this is not intended and that the southbound (towards Airport) route of SH1 will continue to run as it does now through inner-city streets and Kent Terrace. We have sought confirmation of this from NZTA but at the time of writing (6 September 2012) have not had a response from them. So – we can only assume that, should in the future SH1 become 2-way along the Karo Drive ­ Basin Reserve overbridge alignment, the NWMP will have to be closed and dug up for more road trenching, so risking a repeat of the current saga. Does this detail of the Bill accurately reflect Parliament’s expectation of how the Road of National Significance will traverse inner Wellington?
9. s.36 Community Forum: entities of this sort can easily become ‘whitewash’ despite the good intentions of those who commit time and energies to them. The Civic Trust was in 2009 promised such a ‘Community Forum’ by NZTA about its Basin Reserve area (including NWMP) projects and, unsurprisingly, nothing happened. At the very least s.36(4) ought to be deleted and replaced with the more constructive wording ‘The effectiveness of the Forum shall be explicitly monitored by the NWMP review panel set up under s.27 of this Act’.
10. While the present wording of s.36(2) does not preclude the inclusion of a representative of the Wellington Civic Trust, we believe that our purpose and ‘track record’, being more than just ‘representing the interests of local residents’, justify listed inclusion. Hence we recommend adding a further clause s.36(k) ‘Wellington Civic Trust Incorporated’.

These comments are offered as constructive improvements to both the end purpose of the Bill and to its technical clarity. We are happy to provide any further information or comment.

Alan Smith
Chairman

It’s good to report back on our 31st year and, from this, to think about the future for Wellington, and how we can contribute to it. Since the Civic Trust began in 1981, our aim has been to help make Wellington the best of all possible places to live and work. Our founders, drawing on the 1960s Civic Trusts’ work in the UK, and on the later ones  in New Zealand which we heard about at last year’s AGM, set these goals (amongst others) in our constitution which still frame our work now:

• To stimulate public interest in and care for the beauty, history and character of the City of Wellington and its surroundings and adjacent countryside and coastline and its dignity as the Capital City;
• To preserve, develop and improve buildings and features of general public amenity or historic interest or beauty;
• To create or improve features of beauty or interest in and about the City and its contiguous countryside and coastline;
• To promote high standards in architecture, landscape management, building and town and country planning.

Many agencies, public and commercial, and many NGOs and community groups are also active in all of this. Our approach is that we are voluntary; are not based around any particular single issue; work for well-informed critique and information sharing; and look to how every aspect of our city interacts in often fuzzy ways to produce the distinctive character that is the enduring Wellington we live in.

All this has hard pragmatic edges. The Christchurch earthquakes have reminded all Wellingtonians of our fragility and of the risks to our urban form. We have set up a working group to anticipate the effects of such an event here so that we can make informed contributions to the inevitable changes which will follow the release of the Royal Commission’s report. Heritage, safety, and future-proofing are not just words, but things we aim to be clear about in the context of our Civic Trust purpose.

At the local authority level, the key instruments for the quality of city form are the District Plan and the Regional Plan. We keep a close watch on both, and on the RMA and other centrally-driven reforms which will affect the Councils’ ability to keep citizens confident about the essential character of the city. Wellington City’s 2040 project, which last September shaped into the “Smart Capital” goal, is we believe a good one, and is one we keep bringing into the practical dialogues about the Basin Reserve overbridge and other large projects on which we comment.

We have organised two public events this year. The first was the Civic Trust Awards programme in April 2011, which our last Annual Report described. The enduring theme of the Awards has always been to celebrate excellent design quality in our built and natural environments — and the ways in which these intertwine.

On August 14th 2011 we held a public forum at Te Wharewaka to mark the 25th anniversary of the first concept plan for redeveloping the post-industrial part of the waterfront. It was a great success, with over 80 there on a bitter day; on the strength of this, we offered all members a free copy of the printed Proceedings but were disappointed in the low take-up. The main thing is that we brought views together at the forum, created a permanent record for future reference, and contributed to raising awareness of the issues underlying what is now just taken for granted as Wellington’s “jewel in the Crown”. Nothing can ever be taken for granted; the City Council’s review of the 2001 Waterfront Framework came and went with the conclusion that it remained fit for purpose; exactly our position as noted in last year’s Annual Report. We opposed the WCC’s Variation 11 with the hearings commissioners and, with some improvements noted, have decided on pragmatic grounds not to appeal, in contrast to the stance of Waterfront Watch and some others. Our view is that the current proposals for new structures on the “campervan” site are consistent with the Framework and that a six storey building on that site is a more appropriate use than public open space. At the same time, we believe that the vacant waterfront site to the north of the Meridian building should be public open space. The quality of the whole waterfront, working port and all, is crucial to Wellington’s commercial and amenity benefits: the Civic Trust will continue to place a high importance on it.

The harbour and the hills surrounding it are the setting which gives Wellington so much of the character to whose best interests the Civic Trust is committed. We were delighted with the mid-year announcement – over a decade after our 1995 seminar on the topic — that with Defence and Prisons no longer having a use for the land they occupy on the Miramar peninsula, its future use would be as a public reserve. The future of the hilltop Town Belt, even as now shrunken from its 1839 scale, raised a submission from us to the City Council’s Town Belt Principles review; this is the Town Belt, not just another open space. At Mt. Cook, the 1920s vision of a grand boulevard sweeping down from the war memorial carillon to the sea never took hold and now we confront the decision that half of State Highway One will, because it is “of national significance”, continue to run right through the middle of the incipient National War Memorial Park there.

The Road of National Significance decision by central government to enlarge SH1 between Cobham Drive and Buckle St. was released for “public engagement” in July 2011. It was made quite clear that this was not “consultation” in the 1991 case law sense, but a communication of decisions already made along with some interest in opinions on the precise siting of the overbridge across the Terraces. Our submission was e-mailed out to members too, as we consider this to be a project with major implications for Wellington’s future on all sorts of grounds — traffic management, urban design, public transport, decision-making process, and emissions reduction among them. NZTA’s summary report on this “Public Engagement” was only posted on their website in April 2012 and we’ve not yet digested this 109pp epic; but a preliminary look confirms the intention to not take SH1 under The National War Memorial Park, and denies any commitment to build a free new grandstand for the Basin Reserve as part of the work. Watch this space — the Civic Trust will be.

We have always placed great value on good public transport as a way of lessening the demand for roading space, and for improving the “people quality” of the city. There are two projects going on right now in which we have an interest; the “High Quality Public Transport Spine” study framed (like the Basin Reserve area State Highway changes) by the 2008 Ngauranga-to-Airport Strategy; and the “Wellington City Bus Review” proposing some increased frequencies, hubbing and bus exchanges. The quality of our public transport network remains a strong Civic Trust interest.

At Kaiwharawhara the main road and rail corridors pass through a narrow throat, part of the Northern Gateway which has been the topic of three Civic Trust seminars in the past. A Ngaio-based group has been working for some time for rejuvenation of the waters of the Kaiwharawhara stream and for public access to the reclamation area (largely closed off as port and rail land) where the stream enters the sea. We have now agreed to the Ngaio group’s request that we take over responsibility for this project at the reclamation end as part of our active Northern Gateway interest.

At the start of this report I noted the importance of the District (and Regional) Plans as statutory influences on the sort of city character which the Civic Trust through its constitution seeks to protect and advance. The whole matter of whether the present pattern of separate city and regional councils is sustainable for Wellington continues as a public issue and we look forward to hearing our guest speaker’s thoughts on this at tonight’s AGM. On one level it is an intensely boring subject; on other levels it raises actual public interest because of the different approaches now taken to regional government matters in both Auckland and Christchurch. Either way, this matter is crucial for Wellington because it shapes the nature of local democracy and of decisions about city infrastructure, resource allocation and planning consents. One of the ways in which we may be able to help is our credibility and track record of sponsoring neutral public forums where awareness can be raised through informed presentation and debate on issues like this.

All these, and other, matters are debated and worked through by your Board of Trustees, to whom I am grateful for the honour of electing me Chairman. They are all busy and successful citizens, as well as a fine collegial bunch, who give much to the Civic Trust through monthly Board meetings, other task-specific meetings and much e-mail dialogue. During the year following the last AGM, Sharmian Firth resigned as a Trustee and Judi Keith-Brown, Callum Strong and Gerald Blunt were all co-opted; but our number (14) remains below the 15-20 members specified in our constitution. Linked with this difficulty in attracting Trustees, we continued to experience a slow decline in personal membership numbers. We need the numbers to do the work; we need to demonstrate the work to attract the numbers. It could be that the Civic Trust is perceived as rather old and establishment at a time when on-line presentation and single-issue enthusiasm has more appeal. The answer, as always, is “all of the above” and your Trustees are committed to building on core values while at the same time embracing new methods and approaches. Our website will continue to be developed as a reliable and attractive source of information about what we are asserting and what we are doing — there is a huge potential there, so long as we ensure that all members and others interested know about our work both on-line and in print. The work will go on. We need the help and constructive ideas of you, our members.

Finally, thanks to my predecessor as Chair, Sharmian Firth; all Trustees and to their families and friends who support this part of their lives; the Mayor, councillors and officers of the Wellington City Council; the Chair, councillors and officers of the Greater Wellington Regional Council; staff of NZTA and of Wellington Waterfront Ltd; colleagues at Civic Trust Auckland, the Christchurch Civic Trust, The Architectural Centre, Waterfront Watch, and other related groups; members and their friends and supporters.

Alan Smith, 21 April 2012

Our logo is the only graphic we use in these newsletters — because we want them to be best known for the facts they convey to members and supporters. Should we put effort into more attractive communication, or would this detract from the Board’s focus on the Wellington issues which are our core focus? Something you might like to come along to the AGM on Monday May 14th and discuss – the notice of Agenda and of our guest speaker, John Shewan, and the Annual Report of our actual work through 2011/12, come with this mailout. There’s also the invitation to renew your subscription. The Civic Trust needs your continued support, and continued new members. The annual fee is kept low, but like many small costs it is tempting to save on them. The Annual Report, and this Newsletter update, will I hope confirm the value of the Trust and the value to you and to our city of your being a supportive member.

This Newsletter is the last one to be edited by Peter Brooks, who is standing down from the Board at the AGM after a distinguished contribution over many years as a Trustee. Thank you Peter. So we need a new editor as well as further new faces on the Board. It is satisfying work with a congenial team, working together for the Wellington we love. So to each member — please think about putting your name forward at the AGM for the role of Trustee on the incoming Board.

Alan Smith 

Regional governance

An organisation, Shape the Future, has been established to push for reform of the governance structure for the Wellington region. The group supports the general thrust of proposals advanced by some regional councillors late last year. Those proposals involved the disestablishment of the current regional, city and territorial authorities in the Wellington region and their replacement by an integrated council (to most a supercity, but the authors reject the title!). As noted in the Chairman’s message, John Shewan, a member of Shape the future, will be the guest speaker at our AGM. We hope members will take the opportunity to question our guest on the implications of this radical proposal and especially whether under such a system the public would be able to have an effective say in determining the character of their neighbourhoods.

The Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) has announced that it intends to appoint a panel to develop a proposal for the governance of the region which would be referred to the Local Government Commission for its consideration and determination. At the same time the government has announced that it intends to alter the legislation to make it easier to refer such proposals to the commission. At present it would seem that before the commission could process such a proposal the GWRC would need to get the support of the other councils in the region or 10% of the electors in each of the affected districts. Alternatively the minister would have the power to submit the proposal

We are endeavouring to clarify the procedure which the GWRC would need to follow, bearing in mind that the government may well have plans to alter the current legislation. It seems unlikely that all the other councils are on side. Each appears to be taking its own course in developing options and consulting the public. What started off as a concerted regional effort under the Mayoral Forum to consider reform options, supported by a commissioned consultants report, has lost momentum and cohesion. Those that believe that all this can be sorted in time for new structures to operate for the elections due in 2013 must be counting on divine intervention from the Beehive.

Greater Wellington Regional Council long term plan

The GWRC recently invited public submissions on its draft long term plan. The board intends to make a submission on aspects of the plan. It is likely that it will comment on the proposed integrated electronic ticketing for buses and trains.

Wellington City Council long term plan

The council’s proposals for the long term plan covering the next ten years were published for public comment on 16 April. The public has until 18 May to have its say. There will be provision for oral hearings in the period 21 to 24 May. The final plan has to be adopted by 30 June 2012.

The council’s total rates requirement for 2012/13, based on the proposals in the draft plan, is forecast to increase by 4.6% (4.1% average ratepayer impact after allowing for growth in the ratepayer base). This would result in an average increase for a residential ratepayer of 3.7% and for the commercial sector of 5.3%. In her introduction to the plan the mayor says she wants to get the overall rate increase to at or below the target figure of 3.8%. The public is invited to participate in this hunt for further savings. The board intends to unleash its dogs and enter the forest.

Long term planning is a difficult task at the best of times and now times are far from their best. It is not only the need to adjust to a sulking economy, but the urgent requirement to strengthen council buildings and infrastructure networks to resist seismic shocks. Weathertight building liabilities too must be funded and these two areas account for an expenditure of $68.3 million over the first eight years of the plan. It is inevitable that many residents will be disappointed that pet projects cannot be accommodated in the foreseeable future and even more will be concerned not only with the rising rates burden, but also the increase in charges for many council services.

The board will be studying the plan over the next few weeks and will make a submission before the deadline of 18 May. We encourage members to get a copy of the plan from the City Service Centre (it is an excellent publication and a very good document for finding out some basic facts about how your city is managed). It is also available online at Wellington.govt.nz

Wellington City Bus review 

The board recently made a submission on the GWRC’s bus review proposals. The regional council’s proposals are very significant; every bus route would be changed. About 10% of passengers would need to change buses during their journeys. It is claimed that the number of people within a 10-minute walk of a high frequency all-day route would increase from 58% to 75% and the number of bus trips would grow by 15%.

There has been strong public feedback, much of it critical, and as a consequence it seems likely that changes will be made to the original scheme.

Waterfront

Last month Wellington Waterfront Ltd (WWL) released its plans for a new six storey office block on the waterfront site next to Shed 21 (Waterloo on the Quay Apartments) and opposite New Zealand Post Headquarters. The trust has previously advised the company and the council that it believes that site 10, Kumutoto, is an appropriate site for a building of that size and height. As envisaged in the waterfront framework the Kumutoto area is appropriate for new building and the revenue from site leases is needed to help fund public space development on the waterfront. That need has been highlighted by the news that the waterfront companies debt to the council has risen to $14m. The standards set for the site are set out in Variation 11 which is subject to appeals by Waterfront Watch and Queens Wharf Holdings. Hearings have been completed and the court’s decision has yet to be announced. Resource consents for the new building will not be sought until the appeal has been determined. If Waterfront Watch’s appeal succeeds the resource consent application would be notified. If the company gets its way the application would be considered without notification and therefore without the opportunity for further public involvement in the decision making process.

There has been criticism of the waterfront company’s handling of this project. Two prospective developers of the site have suggested that they offered more for the site than the chosen Auckland developer, the Newcrest Group. Wellington Tenths trustee Peter Love has criticised the company for not putting the site out to tender and Richard Burrell of Building Solutions claims the company should have first chosen a design, obtained resource consent and then put it out to the market to find a developer.

Richard Burrell, in our view makes a valid point. In response to these criticisms the council has commissioned an independent review. We welcome that; it should throw more light on an area of company operations often protected by the cloak of commercial sensitivity. However, we would not wish the company to decide development solely on the basis of who offered most for a site lease. Each proposal has to be considered in the light of the Waterfront Framework principles and the design standards established for Kumutoto. This is the waterfront not the CBD.

Moreover, there is already a great deal of information on this arrangement in the public domain. Last year the company advised the Council Controlled Organizations Performance subcommittee that it had entered into an agreement with an Auckland based property developer:“WWL entered into a formal Memorandum of Understanding with a substantial Auckland based property developer, granting the developer a three month exclusive option to develop a preliminary concept design for consideration by WWL and TAG (Technical Advisory Group). The developer’s requirement for an exclusive option is to give the developer sufficient confidence to invest significant amounts of time and money into the preliminary planning of a major development. In the event that both WWL and TAG approve the preliminary concept design the developer has the right to the grant of three further exclusive options of three months (to 29 February 2012) subject to satisfactory progress being made on the developed design. (Page 5, WWL Report to CCO performance subcommittee for the quarter ended 31 March 2011)

We are surprised that developers appear to have been unaware of the WWL’s dealings with the Newcrest Group. Not only was the above information in published council documents, but it was reported by us in our Newsletter of August 2011. If developers would like to keep abreast of waterfront and other civic issues they should become corporate members of the trust. They would be welcomed.

Kaiwharawhara Stream and estuary 

Over the last ten years Frances Lee of the Trelissick Park Trust has driven a project to improve the quality of the lower Kaiwharawhara Stream. The upper reaches of the stream, from the Karori Sanctuary and its Korimako branch through Ngaio, is of a fair quality, but affected by surrounding residential developments, stormwater run-off and leachate from old landfills. Where the stream passes through the industrial area at the bottom of Ngaio Gorge, stream quality is poor. These facts have been established by a recent ecological study, funded by the City Council, CentrePort and the GWRC. The trust has been approached by the Trelissick Park Trust with a proposal that we should take over the issue in the hope that we might be able to convince the several authorities that have an interest in the area to agree on a management plan to remedy, over time, the problems of the lower Kaiwharawhara Stream.

The trust has a long term interest in the Northern Gateway approach to Wellington, having hosted two seminars on the future development of that area. The treatment of the estuary and the development of the related reclamation area therefore come within existing areas of interest to the trust. We have agreed to continue with our work in this area. The trust intends to seek assurances from the regional and city councils and the minister for conservation that the beach and estuary will be protected as public recreation space. We will support endeavours to ensure that any resource consents for developing the reclamation will have conditions to protect the beach and estuary and public access to them and that the forthcoming review of the District Plan will also have provisions to that end.

The board does not believe that the Civic Trust’s resources would be used effectively in a leadership role in respect of the upper Kaiwharawhara Stream. Our view is that action there should be led by organisations with ecological objectives, like Trelissick Park group and possibly Forest and Bird and other organisations with strong environmental objectives.

This Newsletter was edited by Peter Brooks and issued on April 26th 2012. Feel free to quote from it, with reference to the source — Wellington Civic Trust Newsletter, April—May 2012. 

We are pleased that two regional councillors held public meetings to hear first-hand the concerns of the users of these services. We would have wished that all the Wellington regional councillors had taken the opportunity to engage directly with the public on this important issue.

Our Civic Trust interest is in how the proposed network would help make Wellington the best of all possible places to live and work. We welcome initiatives that promote greater use of public transport because it:

• reduces traffic and pressure on road widening at the expense of other land uses,
• increases the attractiveness of the CBD by letting more people get there, and
• helps induce the urban vitality and people-based activities which make up the character of the city,

We support the concept of a core service network, giving those routes a sense of permanence and encouraging transit-oriented development, and we note the other benefits that the review proposal is expected to generate.

We would like to comment on the following particular aspects:

The Golden Mile and the CBD

Bus congestion along the Golden Mile is a significant issue, and one of the ways of addressing this would be to remove some routes to other roads. While this could improve the situation, GW needs to work with Wellington City Council to safeguard the benefits of concentrating all public transport along the Golden Mile, in that it creates an easy link between every suburb and every CBD business, giving a strategic advantage for Wellington city and region. To help protect this, other ways of alleviating bus congestion also need to be considered, such as:

• reducing dwell times, e.g. by off-bus ticketing and all-door boarding and alighting,
• removing 9 of the 15 traffic lights (pedestrian crossings are only necessary because of cars on the Golden Mile and bus drivers do not leave gaps between buses when stopped),
• giving buses priority at the remaining traffic lights,
• closing side streets (e.g. Mercer Street could become like Grey Street), and
• removing private cars from single-lane sections such as Willis St northbound.

The principle that we understand is used in Zurich – that the only time buses and trams stop is for passengers to board and alight – would be a good one to introduce.

If some services are to be transferred to The Terrace, all pedestrian links between The Terrace and the Golden Mile need to be identified and upgraded, and links through buildings checked to ensure that they comply with any relevant resource consent conditions (e.g. 24-hour safe access and signage). These links would be vital to ensure the viability of any re-routing, and we would like assurance that the routing is feasible both operationally and from a passenger access point of view.

We view the proposed peak-hour routing along the quays with some concern, both in principle and in detail. It seems to have the following disadvantages:

1. it uses roads that are already heavily congested at peak time;
2. it is along the very edge of the CBD, maximising walking distance;
3. having bus stops on the far side of the multi-lane Jervois and Customhouse Quays, difficult and very slow to cross, may create significant safety risks with people in a hurry to catch their bus;
4. having to choose between a short walk to a frequent regular bus and a longer walk to a faster (perhaps) but less frequent peak-only bus may well create a barrier to bus usage.
5. putting extra traffic along the quays conflicts with the Wellington City Council’s objective of improving pedestrian access across the quays to the waterfront.

While not perfect, the routing proposed in the consultants’ report seems to be better in most of these respects than the route in the consultation document, but we wonder whether the cure would still be worse than the disease.

The trolleybus network

We note that trolleybus wiring should not stand in the way of an optimum transport network, but we have concerns about substituting diesel buses for electric ones. The environmental and health effects of extra diesel bus operation along The Terrace, and of the withdrawal of trolleybuses from Taranaki St, Constable St and suburban routes are important issues, and we urge that wiring the gaps on proposed Route C along The Terrace and Ghuznee St and through Miramar Cutting be pursued as a matter of some urgency.

To help with the provision of new wiring, we suggest that the question of ownership of the trolleybus overhead be examined carefully, with a view to rationalising the current arrangements.

Proposed interchanges

An essential feature of the proposed network is that the interchanges operate effectively. This means emphasis on:

• the physical environment (comfort, convenience, accessibility and safety);
• the duration of wait;
• the quality and immediacy of information;
• passenger-focused operating practices;
• effective bus priority to ensure that timed connections are met;
• having no financial penalty for interchange, irrespective of mode or operator.

Free transfers are long overdue: it is notable that Wellington is the only city in the region that does not already have this facility between services run by the same operator. Extending this concept to all transfers, regardless of mode or operator, will be an important step.

Relationships with the WCC Johnsonville–CBD–Kilbirnie Growth Spine and the GWRC/WCC/NZTA high-quality public transport spine

It is not clear how well the review relates to these two “spines”. The growth spine requires a seamless high-quality public transport route between Johnsonville and Kilbirnie, and the public transport spine similarly between Wellington Station and Wellington Hospital. This review does not appear to deliver on the former, and may well be overtaken by proposals resulting from the latter. We suggest a co-ordinated approach between the three parties to ensure that the three projects are aligned.

Alan Smith, Chairman

From the Christchurch Civic Trust:

Online Petition: Stop the destruction of Christchurch heritage buildings

Wholesale destruction continues. The former Sydenham Post Office: demolished. Only 2 or 3 historic / heritage buildings left on Colombo St, Sydenham: unbelievable! Christ Church Cathedral could be demolished in part or full: unthinkable! The owner of the former Chief Post Office in the Square wants to demolish. The former Christchurch Railway Station is still under threat. 

That icon of modernism, the Christchurch Town Hall, could be demolished: inconceivable! We know the signature total reached in the next week or two, including Christchurch Civic Trust hard copy versions, will have an impact. We would really appreciate your renewing / extending any contacts to increase the online total. Each signing sends the petition letter to the Minister of Earthquake Recovery, Gerry Brownlee; Roger Sutton, Cera CEO; Cera demolitions & communications managers & the Minister of Arts, Heritage & Culture. We really appreciate your powerful & heartfelt comments! A very sincere thankyou for your wonderful support from Christchurch heritage groups, IConIC and ChristchurchCivic Trust and a very sincere personal thankyou.If you have not signed the Stop Heritage Destruction petition, or have contacts you think would sign, please use the link above. We are trying to raise our grand total of signatures (currrently at about 1500) as high as possible. It is very encouraging to read many wonderful comments from around the world on the change.org site.

The Wellington Civic Trust has told the Wellington Regional Council to think again. It has asked the council to withdraw its support for the flyover alongside the Basin Reserve, and the other roading plans being pushed on to Wellington by the NZ Transport Agency.

The Trust says the roading issue is of great significance to the city and the region. It challenges the council’s belief that the subject lacks sufficient “significance.”

Read the rest of the story on Scoop.co.nz