|
Andy Foster — Your City Councillor |
|
ONSLOW-WESTERN |
|
123. I also put it to you that a facility that can accommodate community sport, corporate sport, concerts and some convention business, will earn a significant amount more than one that can only accommodate community sport. The expected cost of the Cobham facility is approximately $5.5 million, every year. That is in any terms a significant impost. (calculation is effective cost of $62 million x borrowing cost average 7% + $47 million building cost depreciated over 60 years + operational deficit of approx $500,000) 124. We also make the point that a Concourse based Stadium could be managed in tandem with other venues, especially TSB Arena and the Westpac Stadium. It is most unlikely that there would be a major concert at the Concourse and that the TSB Arena would also be wanted at the same time for a concert. This could be managed, and venue availability could influence dates for smaller acts which often play multiple locations in New Zealand. Therefore even if a major concert required the use of 6 of the 12 courts at the Concourse, the remaining six could be managed along with those at TSB to deliver an acceptable albeit reduced service during concert set up and dismantling. 125. The applicant has also dismissed the Concourse as viable because of conflict with Stadium event days. 126. Mr Harrod (32.g) sees this would ‘prevent community sport on at least 18 weekends a year. In (66) it is stated that ‘over 40 event days a year would prevent operation (of the indoor stadium) due to lack of parking’. 127. I detail below the Westpac Stadium programme for 2008. You will see that of 40 events, all bar 5 were evening events. Sports match kick offs are generally 7- 7.30 pm on Friday nights or weekends, though occasionally they are earlier. These are not regular community sport periods anyway – for any code that I am aware of, so it would be outside peak time for the indoor facility. 128. There is absolutely no logical reason why the community sports facility could not operate throughout the day until an hour – hour and a half before kick off time, and then the last car users vacate as any parking for the Stadium event arrived. The point is that these issues are quite manageable. I’d also make the point that it is a rarity that other sports will run at the same time as a truly major sporting event in the city. 129. It is stated that on event days parking would not be available for Indoor Sports use. Mr Maskell will detail that there has been no conversation between the Council and the Stadium Trust over managing such an arrangement. It seems eminently manageable. 130. The use of the existing carparking rather than building new carparking also represents good resource management. 131. I set out below the number and type of events held/to be held at Westpac Stadium in 2008 (Jan to Dec inclusive) · Phoenix football matches – 13 (included pre season final) · Under 17 World Cup - 4 · Lions Rugby - 8 (included finals) · Hurricanes Rugby - 6 · Rugby Test - 2 · Cricket - 1 · Club Rugby - 1 · Concert - 1 All of these bar cricket could be managed to allow indoor stadium parking during the day. · Home and Garden Show - 1 weekend · Parent and Child Show - 1 weekend · Sevens Rugby - 1 weekend · Rock to Wellington - 1 weekend 152. These latter events would be unlikely to allow for indoor stadium parking. However it is important to note that they do not preclude the indoor stadium operating, merely that on those occasions users would probably not be able to park at the Stadium. 153. I’d also note that there is obvious potential on an event day for people to do both, ie to play sport at the indoor stadium and then to go next door to the Stadium. Other Matters Nature of use of the Indoor Stadium 154. I note that the witnesses on behalf of the applicant have stated that ‘anchor sports codes’ will have priority use. I am unaware of any policy decision to support this assumption, nor am I aware of any specific logic that demands this should be the case. Furthermore there have been no decisions yet on any charging regime, which might also impact the use mix. 155. Any change from the assumed mix of users could add further to the traffic impact. The Model - All Sports in One Location 156. One of the alleged benefits of Cobham Park is the potential, at one imagines significant expense, to expand capacity by a further three courts. (Tim Harrod 30.c) 157. I understand the logic from an operator (code) point of view to have everything in one location. However such a model from a user point of view has very limited merit except for the rare largest of tournaments. Only the very rare largest tournaments will need 15 courts, and even requiring 12 for a tournament is going to be exceedingly rare. However this model of having everything in one location has been a pretty much unchallenged assumption of Council’s consideration of indoor sports provision since 2000. The ‘everything in one place’ model does impose significant access costs on users and transport networks, which a more localised multi-venue approach would mitigate. While we are not advocating the multi-venue model here, I would question the automatic assumption that if there were ever further desire for indoor capacity, it should also be provided at one end of the city as opposed to somewhere nearer the centre of population and activity. Naming Rights 158. Mr Harrod (32.j) says naming rights would be constrained at Westpac Concourse. The naming rights for what is currently Westpac Stadium come up for renewal in the next couple of years. How far advanced they are I am not sure. However I would be surprised if given the stated aspiration to construct a concert venue on the concourse that naming rights would be sold which prevented a separate naming rights offer for a Concourse sited building. 159. In any case, in any presentation I have seen there has been little value put on potential naming rights for a Cobham Park facility. I would expect that there would be greater value on an even more high profile, centrally located facility at Westpac. Impact on Neighbours 160. Mr Coop (4.45) suggests that the impact on neighbours is ‘minor, post mitigation and after disregarding baseline effects’. 161. I note that the requirement is to consider a ‘credible permitted baseline’ which means a reasonable alternative. I suggest that the location is alternately likely to be used for some form of large format retail or commerce servicing largely the local community as opposed to the city as a whole. Residential use is allowed for in a Live/Work area but it might be unlikely as the area is within the air-noise boundary and the airport company has tended to be very assertive regarding residential development even beyond this boundary. 162. The planning officer and Council’s traffic consultant Mr Dunlop both recommend residents’ parking in neighbouring streets. The applicant’s planner Mr Coop disagrees, asserting that most residents have off street parking (3.15). What nobody notes is that resident’s parking schemes come at a cost to residents, and also affect their visitors. In my opinion it would be an adverse effect on the neighbours if a scheme was warranted and if it was implemented. If the commissioners consider that there is a need for a parking scheme then this is an acknowledgement that there is an adverse effect. 163. You will have heard evidence on both sides of this argument about impact on neighbours. Section 105 says that if the effects are not minor then the application can not be allowed by the consenting authority. This application is for a highly car dependent activity with 3 times the level of parking as the permitted level, and operating at hours which considerably exceed the norm for a credible large format activity, Council's financial process 164. Normally one would not be too concerned about an applicant’s ability to financially sustain a proposal. In this case it is very clear that the scale of the proposal is such that it is squeezing out a very wide range of initiatives which would be valued by the community for social, environmental, cultural or economic reasons. It has been abundantly clear in public that all Council budgets are being squeezed, and expectations across the board are being dampened down, because of the community’s inability to continue to absorb higher rates and user charges. There is absolutely no doubt that the indoor stadium will contribute hugely to constraining other budgets, and therefore very directly to the community’s ability to provide for its needs and aspirations. This will be markedly worse if the indoor stadium is unable to achieve multiple objectives and is very expensive to run. 165. The RMA Section 5 sets out that the rate at which resources are consumed is an important consideration. Council has not yet advanced it’s LTCCP to the stage where the impacts are clear. However it is hard to see there not being significant impacts. Conclusion 166. The proposal has several key failings. Firstly transport access arrangements are contrary to sustainable management. Secondly its cost is squeezing the community’s ability to provide for its social, environmental, cultural and economic well being. Thirdly the proposed location is very much sub-optimal in terms of delivering a wide range of benefits to the city. 167. The proposal is at odds with the Council’s Transport Strategy and Urban Development Strategy which encourage the location of facilities close to those areas where people live and work. The Central City is by far the fastest growing residential part of the city. (25% in the last census period vs 7% in the Eastern suburbs) 168. While I support the provision of an indoor sports facility(ies) in the City, I oppose the application for the following reasons. · The location is wrong – it imposes substantial, avoidable, transport costs on the community and on the environment. · The location and poor provision for public transport, cycling and walking means that access will be almost wholly by private motor vehicle. This is contrary to national transport strategy, regional transport strategy, and Wellington City Council’s transport strategy. · It is contrary to the City’s policy aspirations for carbon neutrality, and to national policy to reduce carbon emissions. · At a local level there is inadequate provision for safe access by foot and by cycle. · The huge expense will prevent the community providing for its needs as set out in Section 5 of the Resource Management Act, through squeezing out other investments. This will have an adverse effect on the social, environmental, cultural and probably economic wellbeing of Wellingtonians. · The proposal fails to adequately provide for activities wanted by the community which could be better provided at another location, most notably substantial sized concerts, banqueting for large conferences, and city corporate sport. · At least one superior alternative site is available, which has been dismissed by Council for, according to my information, inadequate reasons. · Consultation processes have been poor throughout the process. 169. I request the hearings committee decline the application.
|
|
28 November 2008 Consent Hearing Page 5 |
