|
Andy Foster — Your City Councillor |
|
ONSLOW-WESTERN |
|
Consultation 36. Mr Harrod rightly notes (79) that the proposal has been through the special consultative process in 2006. 37. Council’s Annual Plan and Long Term Community Council Plan consultations traditionally highlight major ‘new initiatives’. When the indoor stadium was consulted on in 2006/7 it was proposed as a $29 million, 8 court facility. I table for your information the response to a question asked on behalf of Council by AC Nielsen at the time. 38. The statistically valid AC Nielsen survey asked the question ‘The new ICSC is estimated to cost $29 million to build. Is this about right/too high/too low ?’ 39. 30% of respondents said the amount was too much. 28% said it was ‘a little too much’, 34% said it was ‘about right’ and 3% said it wasn’t enough. 40. Of course the final proposal was for a 12 court, $47 million facility, plus the $15 million value of the land. However no question has ever been asked of the public by the applicant about such a proposal. As you see most people supported the concept but at $29 million 2/3rds of respondents considered the cost was too high. At $62 million or even $47 million if you exclude land ? 41. The Council has never consulted explicitly on a $60 million plus 12 court project. 42. I am convinced that the vast majority of Wellingtonians, while supportive of the concept of an indoor sports facility do not support either the cost or particularly the location. 43. While I commend the subsequent consultation with the community (Mr Harrod 73 ff) this focussed just on the details, and had the fatal flaw that Council made it clear that location was not up for discussion, though it was clear many submitters wanted it to be. Location and Urban Development Strategy 44. The applicant has made much of stating that Cobham Park is on the City’s defined ‘Growth Spine’. 45. I have some familiarity with this concept. Can I fill out the applicant’s assertions that Cobham Park is ‘on the growth spine’ (eg AEE 5.8, Mr Coop 3.5) 46. Council’s Urban Development Strategy shows a map indicating the Growth Spine running from Johnsonville to the Airport. 47. I suggest the applicant is taking a somewhat simplistic view of the Urban Development Strategy. I table two documents from the recently approved draft District Plan review of the Residential and Suburban Centres chapters of the District Plan. Kilbirnie is being seen as an urban village, with capacity limited by the character of the surrounding neighbourhood, transport services under pressure, and sea level change through climate change. 48. The first map shows the extent of the proposed densification area around Kilbirnie. That represents the practical end of the growth spine. 49. At very best Cobham Park is right at the base of the spine by virtue of being suburban centre zoned. Anatomically it would be the coccyx. More accurately it is just beyond the base of the spine at Kilbirnie. 50. The Concourse however would be squarely in the middle of your back. 51. The Urban Development Strategy states the description of the Growth Spine as “Transit oriented development of employment and housing occurs along a spine of growth.” 52. The application says that virtually nobody will go to the Cobham Park site by anything other than private car. The Sinclair Knight Merz assessment is that access is expected to be as follows:
53. The proposal clearly fails the key intent of the Growth Spine, to reduce car dependency, and therefore pressure on infrastructure and the environment. The proposal is certainly not ‘transit oriented’ and doesn’t expect to support active modes, which is especially disappointing for a project that is supposed to be about encouraging physical activity. 54. A key principle of the Urban Development Strategy is maintaining and enhancing diverse, vibrant, accessible CBD and suburban centres. A key aim is that when you go to a suburban (community) centre you are able to do a multitude of tasks and activities in one visit. That would be the case with a Concourse based indoor facility, but cannot be delivered from Cobham Park. 55. In addition a Concourse facility would also be able to be used for several purposes, and would further add to the vitality of the Region’s CBD. 56. Cobham Park is a relatively isolated location, and would have none of these co-location benefits. 57. By way of example, Mr Harrod says that ‘community sports users’ do not generally require accommodation services, restaurants, bars etc. I suggest to you that this is because they are not available at current venues. Most sports turf codes do have clubroom facilities. I also know that many business house players, including netballers, do enjoy social time after evening matches (eg at the TSB Arena/Shed One/Six) 58. The applicant has mentioned proximity to the airport as a positive for Cobham Park. I would argue that unless a team is flying in, playing, and flying out the same day they would be likely to choose a more attractive city venue for accommodation. Given that the major one off matches (international and domestic) will be held at TSB Arena, and the tournaments which an indoor stadium would be expected to host are generally multi day, then proximity to the airport seems less attractive than proximity to the city. 59. I think what the applicant is trying to do is downplay the potential synergies, and opportunities available to users of a Central City based indoor facility. These benefits are currently not available by virtue of locations in which indoor sports are played. A Concourse stadium would allow users to walk from work (so the user who had to bring the car to work in the morning, so they could drive to Cobham Park after work, and then drive home, could instead use public transport to work, walk to the Concourse, and take PT home again). It would allow synergies with shopping or entertainment. In short it would allow people to do more things in a single trip than they currently are able to do, or would be able to do with a Cobham Park location. This would be better for the city’s transport system, its environment and for the economy of Wellington, and add to the vitality of the Central City. It is precisely the same set of public transport oriented, centrally located synergies that Wellington has celebrated since Westpac Stadium replaced Athletic Park. That vitality is critical for our region. We have the chance to reinforce it, or to undermine it. 60. To go back to Urban Development Strategy, Centres Policy, Town Centres are described as ‘the places where supermarkets, comparison retail, employment, community facilities, public transport hubs and entertainment activities locate as a first choice.’ Above ground floor residential is encouraged. 61. It is distinct from the area which by virtue of zoning includes Cobham Park as ‘Rongotai West’ which is a Live/Work Area. 62. The CBD is the biggest Centre in the city. Under every element of Council’s Urban Development Strategy it should be the first choice location for such a major community facility. 63. I also do not agree with Mr Coop’s assessment (4.43) that this location is appropriate in terms of the draft Regional Policy Statement. He quotes that development (along the spine) will ‘reinforce local centres, supports passenger transport, reduces the costs of energy use and makes services more accessible.’ 64. I could not disagree more strongly. The location – · will not reinforce any local centre to any significant degree, and possibly not at all, · it does not support passenger transport – look at the expected mode share ! · it certainly doesn’t reduce energy use – in fact it does the contrary it is not in an accessible location. For most of the city, let alone any regional users it requires traversing what is acknowledged as the most congested part of the transport network by everyone, including the City Council, Regional Council and NZ Transport Agency. 65. Greater Wellington Regional Council Mr Coop (4.50) and Mr Kelly (47) have made the assumption that because GWRC has not made a submission that it is happy that the proposal does not conflict with Regional objectives. I suggest to you that this is an assumption which does not reflect reality. The District Plan 66. I will focus on those objectives, policies and rules that relate to transport. Objective · 6.2.8: To enable efficient, convenient and safe access for people and goods within the suburban centres Policy · 6.2.8.1: Seek to improve access for all people, particularly people travelling by public transport, cycle or foot and for those with mobility restrictions. Rules · 7.1.1.7: For developments providing more than 120m parking spaces, rule 7.3.4 applies. · 7.3.4: Any activity or the erection of buildings or structures involving the provision of more than 120 vehicle parking spaces per site is a Discretionary Activity (Restricted) in respect of the generation of vehicular traffic. · A traffic report must be supplied which addresses · Details of parking to be provided on the site, and its intended use (whether it is intended for staff or customers) · Site access · Provision for servicing · Internal traffic circulation · What effect the extra traffic will have on local streets · Transportation impact assessments Assessment Criteria · In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions, if any, to impose, Council will have regard to the following criteria: · 7.3.4.2 Whether the proposed development will cause congestion or affect the safe or efficient movement of traffic on streets in Suburban Centres or nearby Residential Areas. · 7.3.4.3 Whether the proposed activity provides high standard facilities for public transport, cycling, pedestrian and vehicular movements or has easy access to those facilities or promotes the use of transport modes other than private vehicles”. The explanation is that “larger developments in Suburban Centres which generate significant vehicular traffic may cause congestion or affect the safe or efficient movement of traffic on the street. Council requires all developments to be assessed in this light, and appropriate measures taken to remedy problems. In particular Council is seeking a high standard of public transport, pedestrian and cyclist accessibility”. Transport Congestion 67. The transport assessment throughout the project has been principally focussed on the immediate locality of Cobham Drive. I am not going to concentrate to any extent on this element. It has had a lot of attention and assessment. The proposed works seem appropriate and necessary to addressing those immediate issues, though unfortunately they fail the District Plan test of high standard of provision for pedestrians and cyclists. 68. Providing for active modes and public transport effectively is a critically important part of the National, Regional and City Transport Strategies. In this application it seems an afterthought, probably because the proposed location is poor for all these sustainable modes. 69. That said I do agree to some extent that the planning officer’s comments (65) that the failure to fund and implement roading improvements in the proximity of Cobham Park prior to the lodgement of the application ‘serves to undermine the entire credibility of the current application.’ It would have been useful to have certainty that the works are to be funded. While I agree with Mr Coop (3.12) that it would not be usual for applicants to undertake offsite roading improvements in advance of receiving consent, the works will need to be subjected to a prioritisation process at a regional level early next year, and their delivery is not assured. It would have been helpful to have that funding surety. 70. However the wider transport issues, the impact on the network, and on energy use, and on climate change were not addressed at all in the application, and have only received any attention by the applicant in having to respond to submitters’ concerns.
|
|
28 November 2008 Consent Hearing — Page 2 |
