|
Andy Foster — Your City Councillor |
|
ONSLOW-WESTERN |
|
Resource Consent Hearing –54 Tacy Street, Kilbirnie Indoor Community Sports Centre (Indoor Stadium) 28 November 2008 Submission of Andrew (Andy) JW Foster Introduction 1. Thank you for the opportunity to make an oral submission, particularly for your flexibility in allowing us to do this today. 2. I have 16 years professional and leadership involvement in civic issues. My principle areas of focus over that time have been leadership roles in urban planning including the District Plan, Transport and Infrastructure, the Built and Natural Environment and Recreation. 3. I have with me as expert witnesses Ian Maskell of Ian Maskell and Associates and Gary Clark, principal of Traffic Concepts Ltd who I have requested to give evidence. Ian has a career spanning some 30 years overseeing major project development and commercial operation. Gary has some 20 years experience in traffic and transport planning. They will introduce themselves in greater detail during my evidence. 4. By way of additional background I have been and remain an active sports participant. I have been involved in sports administration and governance at a regional level. Some years ago I organised Wellington’s tennis competitions. I am currently involved at regional and club level in football administration. In terms of relevant sports I play football, occasional netball and tennis and pre-children often played netball two or three times a week in corporate or social leagues. 5. This submission is not made lightly. The easy course would be to ‘go with the flow’. Making a submission takes a lot of time, and ‘rocking the boat’ is regrettably not without considerable stress. However it is my firm and considered view that while an indoor sports facility will be greatly appreciated by many in our community, the proposal before you is absolutely not in the best interests of the city and it should be rejected. 6. The principle reasons for rejection are: · That it is poorly located and will have adverse transport impacts that are more than minor. · That it will not represent efficient use of the community’s resources. 7. We will also set out for you that a markedly superior option exists, and that Council has made its decision on flawed information. 8. The clear, consistent and strong impression from feedback over the last couple of years is that most Wellingtonians cannot believe the Council is serious about actually going ahead with the Cobham Park proposal. They almost without exception believe Council has got the location completely wrong. 9. Structure of my Submission · The Objectives of the Resource Management Act · Section 105 Test · History of the Proposal · Location and the Urban Development Strategy · The District Plan · Transport and Parking · Consideration of alternatives – the advantages of the Westpac Stadium Concourse location · Other matters · Financial issues – the Community’s ability to pay The Resource Management Act 10. Particularly relevant are the following sections of the Act Purpose - Section 5 In this Act, ``sustainable management'' means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while--- (c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. 11. In my opinion the proposal fails to meet the purpose of the Act by consuming too great a proportion of the community’s resources at a rate which is challenging, while meeting too narrow a scope of that community’s needs. In doing so, if approved, it would squeeze out a wide range of other uses of resources which would have greater social, economic, environmental and cultural benefits. It would also have adverse effects on the environment which are at very least more than minor, and in all probability significant. 12. In terms of Section 7 of the Act, the proposal fails 7 (b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources 7 (ba) the efficiency of the end use of energy. 7 (i) the effects of climate change 13. We shall set out that the location will constrain the types of use, in all probability preventing the community from realising other objectives, both because of reason of affordability and of viability. 14. The proposal’s location and car dependency also prevents it facilitating efficient end use of energy or reducing climate change impacts. Section 105 2 (b) Test 15. The application is non-complying. 16. The Act Section 105 – 2(b) states a consent must not be granted (b) For a non-complying activity unless, having considered the matters set out in section 104, it is satisfied that--- (i) Any effect on the environment (other than any effect to which subsection (2) of that section applies) will be minor; or (ii) Granting the consent will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the plan or proposed plan; 17. I note that though some witnesses for the applicant have suggested the application is consistent with the Council’s Urban Development Strategy (I certainly do not agree with that assertion), no witness has endeavoured to argue that the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of the District Plan. 18. Therefore the hurdle targeted to meet the requirements of Section 105 2 (b) is the assertion that the effects are ‘minor’. 19. I shall set out below the effects and suggest to you that they are more than minor. On that basis the hearings panel can not approve the application. The History of the proposal 20. The applicant has laid out some of the history of the project and of work comparing Cobham Park and other options. Mr Maskell will review in detail the process issues and assertions regarding relative risk of and performance of Cobham Park and Westpac Stadium Concourse as options. 21. First from my experience I will discuss the history and respond to or add to a number of Mr Harrod’s comments and conclusions. The Centreport proposal. 22. In his point 21 Mr Harrod discusses the consideration of a Centreport option. The details of these options were not provided to most councillors until June of this year, despite being available a year earlier. When councillors voted for Cobham Park in 2007 most of them had not seen the work done on the Port options. 23. The principal reason for dismissing the Centreport option was the anticipated cost of placing 12 courts in one location there. The option of 8 courts at Centreport and 7 at Hataitai was canvassed. It would have been in land inclusive terms cheaper than the 12 court option at Cobham. 24. However the ‘core’ codes drove the decision by insisting all 12 courts be in one place. I understand their desire for ease of management but note that many sports are quite able to manage their activities at multiple venues. That insistence led officers never to put a formal proposal to Centreport and to recommend to Council against the Centreport option. That option has now been lost, as some key bargaining chips are no longer available. The Peer Review 25. I also want to address the ‘independent peer review’ which Mr Harrod discusses in 28 – 30. 26. This peer review was conducted in just 6 days, and based entirely on information provided by the Council, which as an organisation was set on the Cobham outcome. 27. The ‘review’ was only called following a debate at the Strategy and Policy committee on 19 June 2008, after the committee had voted 7 – 7 on the matter of the Stadium location. 28. The ‘review’ was completed in time for Councillors to be briefed on the 26th. That 2 – 2 ½ hour briefing was in fact the most comprehensive briefing for councillors in the entire process, but in my opinion was still critically flawed. Most of the background conversations such as with the port, and regarding the concourse, were never reported to councillors as they occurred. In fact councillors were not aware that the discussions were going on until well after the fact. Furthermore the June 2008 briefing did not allow for alternative views to be made available. Had they been, then I am sure that councillors would have been much less willing to confirm the decision for Cobham. 29. Councillors were also presented with highly debatable costings comparing a Westpac Concourse option with Cobham Park. 30. I detail these here.
31. We should bear in mind that there is no land cost or opportunity cost in these figures. There are two key areas of difference, the construction costs, and the associated roading costs for grade separation along Waterloo Quay. 32. Mr Maskell will deal with the construction (development) cost differences suggested by Council officers. In our view they do not hold water. 33. The roading argument doesn’t either. The suggestion that grade separation on Waterloo Quay (having to bridge the railway lines) would be required as a result of an indoor stadium at Westpac or the Port simply never made sense. Rail volumes do not warrant it, and with the realisation that was the case, grade separation was dropped from the Ngauranga to Airport Transport Study. 34. Removing these two elements would bring the Concourse to the same price as Cobham Park, excluding the land value of Cobham Park, or the airspace at Westpac. However if the airspace on the Concourse is proposed to accommodate a concert venue, then it might much better do two things at once, and in a better location. 35. So, as Mr Harrod noted, on the basis of the information proffered, Council confirmed its support for Cobham Park the following day. In addition to the limited and arguable information councillors were presented with, I’d also note that there was a significant amount of political activity during that week which persuaded many councillors to leave aside their doubts. Those doubts still exist for many councillors.
|
|
28 November 2008 Consent Hearing — Page 1 |
