|
Andy Foster — Your City Councillor |
|
ONSLOW-WESTERN |
|
108. In terms of the District Plan objective to provide high quality public transport access, there is an ideally suited location available. It is not Cobham Park. From a public transport access point of view, and therefore from the perspective of the District Plan the Concourse site is massively superior. Cycling and Walking 109. Walking and cycling are also much less attractive at Cobham because the proposed facility would be close to one end of the city, let alone the region. The expectation that 1% of users would walk or cycle at weekends, is little short of pathetic in terms of sustainability. I note that according to the 2006 census 21.4% of people working in Wellington walked or cycled to work. 110. This is not merely an issue of trying to get road crossings in the vicinity of the indoor stadium right, or as right as possible, but critically of distance people have to travel. There is absolutely no doubt that the city’s urban form is crucial to delivering that. In other words location is critical to sustainable transport. By way of example 73% of people living in the Wellington CBD walked to work. A mere 4.5% of those living in Kapiti walked to work (presumably in Kapiti). 111. A Stadium location would clearly be vastly more accessible on foot or by cycle. It is superbly accessible from the CBD. During the week many people would also undoubtedly access it for corporate sport during the day or after work. Some 2000 people currently play corporate sport on the waterfront. They would not, could not, use the Cobham Drive site. 112. At a detail level the proposal’s provision for those few people who might access it on foot or by bike is concerning too, especially from the Miramar area where users would be forced to either make a significant detour or cross either Cobham Drive or Troy Street which the applicant notes are high speed environments. We know that pedestrians and cyclists (just like motorists) don’t like to make detours or suffer delays and some will take risks in crossing at a more convenient point. There is a failing in planning generally that assumes that motorists time is important, but pedestrians or cyclists isn’t. People are people ! 113. The applicant has agreed to a condition requiring ‘implementing a Travel Demand Management Plan.’ (Mr Coop 3.16) Frankly given the location at one end of the city, let alone of the region, and the applicant’s own view that virtually all users will arrive by car, it is hard to see much this condition as meaningful. Cobham Park will remain a highly car dependent facility. I have already commented on pricing which was suggested by Mr Dunlop, though I didn’t see the applicant agreeing. Carparking 114. I agree with Mr Harrod’s comments that Cobham Park would allow easier access to ‘free’ (to the user) carparking, which would require negotiation were a Stadium concourse option pursued. The applicant sees providing almost 400 free carparks at Cobham Park as a positive. I disagree. 115. However importantly it has always been clear that a Stadium concourse based indoor stadium would need far less carparks, and be much less car dependent. That in itself is recognition that a far higher proportion of users would access a Concourse stadium by public transport and active mode. It is also clear that discussions with the Stadium over access to carparking have not been advanced to any meaningful degree by the applicant, because they chose to dismiss the option. 116. Mr Maskell will confirm that no discussion has taken place with Westpac Stadium Trust over a deal to purchase access for carparking. $200,000 has been quoted as the price for 125 carparks, which would then be free to users – assuming that were desirable. This capitalises to approximately $2.8 million. Even doubling the number of carparks would cost $5.6 million. Placing a modest charge could encourage more use of public transport and active modes (given that keeping people active is a key rationale for building a stadium), while not encouraging users to drive and then park on street. The street parking option is not easily available at Westpac especially during the week. 117. I’d also note that any carparks used for the indoor stadium would not be available for daytime commuter use. In transport terms this would actually be a positive development, reducing vehicle numbers on congested roads. Access to Schools 118. The applicant has made a lot of proximity to schools, and to their decile ratings. Leaving aside that the schools closer to the Concourse are much bigger than any in the Eastern Suburbs, the applicant’s argument is based on a 2km (theoretical walking distance) and 5 km (theoretical cycling distance). From a safety and organisational perspective (as well as a programming one) I could not imagine either teachers or parents wanting classes of children to walk or cycle that kind of distance to Cobham Park, especially in what is clearly not a particularly safe roading environment. The obvious question to ask is what teacher in their right mind would walk classes of children (let alone cycle them) to a venue especially one surrounded by particularly challenging roads, and where even the applicant has acknowledged that pedestrian and cycle access from some directions (eg Miramar) is poor and unsafe. I’d be pretty surprised if parents were wild on the idea either. 119. The simple fact is that almost all school use will have to be delivered by bus. That makes the 2 and 5 km rationale somewhat superfluous. What it does mean is that the test – to be a facility for the city as a whole rather than one part of it – should have been of all schools. The feedback I have had, albeit anecdotal, is that most schools in the west/north are unlikely to make any substantial (or indeed any at all) use of the facility if built at Cobham Park. Broader Transport Issues 120. Carbon footprint. The City has adopted a goal of becoming carbon neutral. At a national level we have adopted carbon emissions reduction targets. Deliberately building the largest and most expensive recreation facility anywhere south of Auckland (in the country ?) in a location which the applicant expects to be accessed almost wholly by private car at occupancy levels of 1.2 – 1.3 is absolutely contradictory to those objectives. 121. Energy dependence. Energy prices have been hugely volatile recently. None of us know exactly they will do in the near future. However it is widely accepted that prices will increase substantially over the medium – long term. Developing a highly car dependent – energy dependent facility, when a viable option which would be much less energy dependent is available, does not seem to me represent sustainable management in terms of the RMA. The obvious potential is for the community to have spent a very large amount of money on a facility which is increasingly and unnecessarily inaccessible from much of the city. 122. Given that the requirement for this application to provide for high standard of public transport and active mode access, and the impact on an already severely congested part of the network, it is clear that adverse impacts must be more than minor. I suggest they are significant. I note even the applicant’s professionals say they are uncertain about the impact on the wider transport network. To then suggest the effects will be ‘no more than minor’ (Mr Coop 4.40) is simply not supportable. Efficient Use of Resources – Section 7 – RMA Cobham Park vs Westpac Stadium Concourse 123. Section 7 (b) of the Act. Mr Coop says that the proposal represents ‘efficient use and development of natural and physical resources.’ 124. It does not. 125. Mr Coop asserts that significant weight should be given to ‘the cumulative positive effects’. Given that the community is being asked to spend over $60 million on this proposal, one would hope that there were really significant positive effects. However the problem for with this assertion is that the positive effects of a better located facility would be much greater, and the adverse effects much smaller. 126. The application is to build a large and very expensive recreation facility, in a location that requires access almost wholly by private motor vehicle, and in a manner that deliberately ensures that the facility can not be used for concerts, and has very little likelihood of much use or convenient use for banquets. This is somehow seen as a positive ((Mr Harrod 43-45 and 64 and especially 67 and Mr Delich 64). 127. Less somehow becomes more. This appears during the process to have become regarded as a positive, probably as a result of participation sports being significantly squeezed out of the TSB Arena, but also possibly as a way of warding off alternative sites that could deliver more. I do not consider that this represents good use of the community’s limited resources. 128. The applicant recognises the value of proximity to the Eastern and Southern suburbs. (Mr Coop 4.45) However leaving aside that there is no direct bus service from the southern suburbs to the site, what the applicant does not give weight to is that this is intended as a city facility. Logically if proximity is valued, then distance is a weakness. The fact is that the proposal is at one end of the city and will poorly serve the rest of the city. 129. In terms of multiple use I table a newspaper article from Saturday 21 November. This confirms publicly that Council is considering a 10,000 + capacity concert venue on the Westpac Stadium concourse. The 12,000 seat Vector Arena in Auckland cost $80 million. 130. I discussed the concert venue proposal with people in the concert industry. 131. The view is that Wellington would get less than 10 concerts per year, probably around 4 – 6. 132. There is also disagreement with the assertion that there is ‘usually less than one months warning’ of concerts. My advice was that there is usually 3 – 4 months warning. This is both for marketing and logistics purposes. It should be noted that most concert performers don’t travel light, and that concerts are part of a tour arrangement. Set up times are usually 2 - 3 days. A rapid turn around is obviously desirable for the performer to make money. 133. I was also advised that approximately 60% of concert goers come from beyond Wellington region. At $400 per person daily spend, that means a gross economic benefit of $2.4 million per concert on the basis that visitors spend 24 hours in Wellington. Even allowing for 48 hour average stay (generous I would think) the economic benefit per concert would be $4.8 million. Using 5 concerts as the norm the total economic benefit would be $24 million. Personally I would doubt that sort of level would be sufficient to justify a stand alone concert venue. However were it part of an indoor sports venue, the value to the community would be warranted, and it would represent – in terms of the Act – good and sustainable use of resources. Building the indoor facility at Cobham probably realistically means that a concert venue cannot be built. 134. In terms of managing sport around occasional concerts, there would normally be plenty of time to schedule competition around any concert. Concerts would be expected to take up roughly 6 of the 12 courts, and unlikely to coincide with use of the TSB Arena – hence leaving 9 courts available. 135. In addition I suggest it is not compulsory for sports to always be played on the same (weekend) day. I am involved in sports governance through Capital Football. Rugby and Football in particular are advocating for artificial turf because the region has reached capacity. Playing numbers now exceed the capacity of traditional turf fields to accommodate them, even in normal conditions. A survey of game participants released this week indicated that 53% of the 1435 respondents were willing to play mid week instead of their usual weekend times. 136. An indoor community sports venue on the Concourse site would be able to accommodate indoor sports, and these concerts with their attendant economic benefit. It would also be a vastly better location for the very occasional large convention banquet. 137. I am advised that the biggest ‘gap’ Wellington has in convention facilities is the ability to banquet a large number (2,000 plus) of delegates. This could be accommodated by either Cobham or the Concourse. However the Concourse has obvious proximity benefits to the city, will not need the special traffic management processes Cobham would require, and critically is right next to the Westpac Stadium with its extensive commercial kitchen capacity. Cobham cannot match that with a small café. 138. The Concourse would also give security of provision for corporate sport especially at the off peak lunchtime period. Mr Delich suggests that business people in Kilbirnie would be potential off-peak users of the stadium. There are of course a massively higher number of potential business users in the Central City. 80,000 of the 140,000 people employed in Wellington City work in the central city (almost 60%). 139. Mr Harrod (41) states of Cobham Park that ‘the venue would not be used for corporate sport’. I agree with him that this is currently established in the central city and at Newtown. However let’s think a little outside the square here ! Firstly the Central City locations on the waterfront are not by any stretch guaranteed. That represents the ‘daytime’ corporate market. Both Sheds One and Six are temporary venues. The TSB Arena is frequently not available. A Concourse venue could provide for ‘corporate’ sport especially during the day. If ‘corporate’ sport is such anathema to the Council, there is no reason Council can not itself operate ‘pay for play’ sport, or contract it for periods of the day. Given the higher yield available from ‘pay for play’ sport this would reduce the operating deficit expected from the facility. I also fail to understand Council’s apparent view that somehow people playing the same sport on a pay for play basis are of less importance than those playing through a more traditional club based competition. Sometimes they are even the same people ! 140. Mr Maskell will detail the Concourse option and how it can be achieved, and the costs. In terms of resource use the city could deliver concerts, convention banqueting, code and corporate sport with an appropriately designed building on the Concourse, for approximately $51 million. 141. The alternative is to accommodate sports at Cobham Park at $47 million plus land at $15 million, plus a concert/convention venue at a stated $100 million, and still not accommodate corporate sport. The indoor stadium alone is barely affordable, and significantly is preventing a large number of other projects of community benefit from occurring. Many of these include other recreational investments which would do at least as much to combat sedentary lifestyles. 142. It will come as no surprise that Council and its ratepayers cannot afford that $162 million combination.
|
|
28 November 2008 Consent Hearing Page 4 |
