Auckland stadium question raised by Eke Panuku's $300m Wynyard Quarter plan
It seems a good idea until you read the small print, which can be found in Eke Panuku's own designs for the area, called Te Ara Tukutuku. They would like $300m of ratepayers' money, please, about half of it to be spent over a 10-year period.
How's that again? About $100m is for the park itself. The rest is for developing infrastructure to enable private development – and thus profits for developers – on Wynyard Point, bordering the park.
How's that again? What private development? Housing was said to be part of the mix, but it turns out Eke Panuku are planning to build up to 600 apartments on Wynyard Point. I have seen a confidential document sent out by Eke Panuku to ask for expressions of interest in a development which will sell off the land or lease it out long-term, presumably to help pay for Te Ara Tukutuku. The document refers to 600-plus homes and 133,000 sq/m floorspace potential with over 50% for housing. The proposed stadium on Wynyard Point.
If there has been any public discussion or consultation on this, I can't find it – and that raises some questions:
Firstly was Wynyard Point – the 55,000-person stadium planned for the water's edge at Tank Farm (including plans for a similar park and public spaces surrounding it) – quietly slipped into a desk drawer because of this?
The plans for Te Ara Tukutuku cover the same land as that earmarked for the Wynyard Point stadium – the proposal which seemed to me to make the most sense and was, in theory, the least expensive for ratepayers and/or taxpayers.
However, it mysteriously missed making it to the short list presented to council. Eden Park and the Quay Park (which to me seems wholly over-ambitious) were. The latter was judged to be commercially, technically and financially infeasible by the committee overseeing the decision – making the Eden Park decision easy and Te Ara Tukutuku free to proceed.
Secondly, do we really need another big park close to Victoria Park? Sure, Victoria Park is not exactly London's 170 ha Regent's Park and there will be support for bigger 'green lungs' in Auckland's centre. But two parks?
Thirdly, do we really need up to 600 apartments on the waterfront? These will not be 'affordable housing'. So do we need housing for a few – available only after $300m is spent first – at the expense of a stadium and entertainment precinct for everyone?
Access and egress have been mentioned as one reason for cooling on the idea of a stadium at Wynyard Point. However, consortium head Richard Dellabarca has previously told media of Auckland Transport figures which show that 76,000 people could be moved in an hour with the City Rail Link up and running, plus the North, East and Western busways, plus ferries and plenty of private car parks in the area.
It's difficult not to wonder if a perfectly viable and potentially iconic stadium and entertainment proposal might have fallen foul of the bureaucracy's own plans – and has subsequently been quietly buried. The Wynyard Point proposal was not just a stadium build – it was focused on rationalising Auckland's over-supply of stadiums (North Harbour, Mt Smart, Eden Park and Western Springs). Albany and Eden Park would go, sold off for development, financed by Wynyard Point consortium backer and giant investment bank JP Morgan, the money channelled into the waterfront stadium. A bridseye view of plans for the end of Wynyard Quarter.
The council has talked for years of the expense and redundancy of having four stadiums, yet this solution didn't even make it to the full debating chamber. In July, Eke Panuku is technically being subsumed into the greater council but there is no indication yet of any changes to the Te Ara Tukutuku plan to spend $300m of ratepayers' money.
To that, add $150m that the council has said will be needed to maintain and operate the four stadiums. Eden Park wants $110m of public money to build its first stage. So we are already up to $560m, for what? Establishing infrastructure so developers can build apartments, the Te Ara Tukutuku park and shoring up existing stadium facilities.
Better, surely, for the council to follow its own advice, rationalise at least some of the stadiums and build something iconic and visionary on the waterfront.
It all calls to mind the old British TV comedy Yes, Minister – a cynically funny exploration of politicians manipulated by the civil service. In one episode, Prime Minister Jim Hacker was set on a course of action cutting across the advice and self-interest of the civil service.
The head of the civil service demands to know why this is happening. One of his staff says: 'I think the Prime Minister wants to govern Britain.' To which the response was: 'Well, don't let him!'
Paul Lewis writes about rugby, cricket, league, football, yachting, golf, the Olympics and Commonwealth Games.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Te Pāti Māori, Greens outraged at 'marginalising' passport changes
Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Te Pāti Māori says the government's changes to passports are an attempt to whitewash the national identity. The government confirmed on Friday New Zealand's passport is being redesigned to place the English words above the te reo Māori text. The new look won't start being rolled out until the end of 2027. Since 2021, passports have had "Uruwhenua Aotearoa" printed in silver directly above New Zealand Passport. Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden said the positioning of text on passports will change to reflect the government's commitment to using English first. She said the redesign - which would be unveiled later this year - was being done as part of a scheduled security upgrade, ensuring no additional cost to passport-holders. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the change diminishes the visibility of tangata whenua. "Our passport is not just a travel document, it's a statement of who we are as a nation. So, the stripping down of te reo Māori, or marginalising our indigenous identity, reflects this government's sad obsession with erasing Te Tiriti o Waitangi and dragging us back to a monocultural past," she said. Ngarewa-Packer said the move undermined Aotearoa's reputation as a leading nation in recognising indigenous rights. "Restoring our reo took a long time. I mean imagine doing this in Ireland, imagine doing this to the Welsh. This was hard fought for. It's not re-ordering of words, the reformatting is deliberately done to undermine the mana [and] to sideline us tangata whenua." Benjamin Doyle Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Green Party MP Benjamin Doyle said the move is not what New Zealanders need from the government. "We are seeing day by day, the rights and dignities of minority communities being stripped away while they leave the majority of New Zealanders suffering under the government's current decisions," Doyle said. "This is not a positive vision for Aotearoa, this is not a positive step towards unifying kotahitanga and it's not benefiting anyone. Really, its just dog-whistling politics. It's the tail wagging the dog." The ACT Party celebrated van Velden's move on social media, saying the change would "restore English before te reo Māori - without costing taxpayers". The change comes as part of a deliberate push by the coalition to give English primacy over te reo Māori in official communications. New Zealand First's coalition agreement with National stipulates that public service departments have their primary name in English and be required to communicate "primarily in English" except for entities specifically related to Māori. It also includes an as-yet-unfulfilled commitment to make English an official language of New Zealand.
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Tall towers versus volcanic views: The building blocks in Auckland's development
The Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, Chris Bishop, thinks viewshafts 'eviscerate hundreds of millions of dollars of economic value', as he put it in a speech in mid-June. In other speeches in recent months, Bishop has quoted a 2018 study which suggested the toll-booth viewshaft has cost the central city in excess of $1.4 billion. So he's decided to do something about it. Others say, hang on. 'Most cities,' North Shore ward councillor Chris Darby says, 'have few really unique features. But we do. We have the volcanoes. Being able to appreciate them as you move around the city is one of the special things about living here.' Darby's view is probably shared by most of his colleagues. Over the Super City's 15-year history, Auckland Council has shown no interest in making any significant changes to the viewshafts. Bishop points out that in 2016, the council was told quite bluntly by an Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) that it should rethink its approach in order to achieve greater economic efficiency and reduced opportunity costs. That panel had reviewed the viewshaft proposals in the council's draft Auckland Unitary Plan, the big new document that was about to become the city's blueprint for what can be built where. For the most part, it didn't want them eliminated. But it did point out that the council had done 'no sensitivity analysis'. That is, despite having the necessary technology, it had not looked at whether even 'slight changes' might 'significantly reduce [the viewshafts'] impact on development opportunities while retaining views to the maunga [peak]'. Nor did it have a method for deciding if any loss in floor area of new buildings was 'an appropriate trade-off for the values of any particular viewshaft'. 'In the almost-decade since,' Bishop said in a speech in February, 'this work has not been progressed.' The Government has now told the council it must produce a new zoning plan which allows for greater density, and it must be done, with public consultation, by October 10. That's two days before postal voting closes in this year's council elections. The council is expected to consider its position at a meeting on July 31 – and a fight is brewing. There are nearly 80 viewshafts in Auckland. They're mapped like slices of pie: wedges that emanate from a single point where a person can stand, like the top of Newton Rd, or from a stretch of road you can drive along, like the northern approach to the bridge. Building heights are strictly limited inside the boundaries of each wedge, so the view of the natural landscape is preserved, and this creates an overlay on the planning zones. As a rule, buildings inside a viewshaft require a resource consent and if they are to be higher than 9m they may be regarded as 'non-complying'. In this context, it is extremely difficult for such buildings to get a resource consent. Most viewshafts have been in place since 1977, after the Pines apartment block was built on the side of Maungawhau (Mt Eden) in 1969, causing a public outcry and changes to planning rules. The outcry over The Pines, a multi-storey apartment block on Mt Eden, led to the protection of volcanic views. Photo / APN Not that views of Maungawhau have been completely preserved since then: the Department of Corrections was allowed to build a bigger Mt Eden Prison, interrupting the viewshaft from the motorway that runs past it. Much of the attention still focuses on the views of that maunga, which isn't surprising: the nearby central city is where most high-rise development occurs. In fact, Maungawhau is protected by 20 viewshafts, including one from Devonport and one from the Z petrol station on Kepa Rd in Ōrākei. But views of Te Pane o Mataoho (Māngere Mountain), Puketāpapa (Mt Roskill) and the other cones are protected too. And it's not just the cones: views of the Waitākere Ranges and some other ridgelines are also protected, along with views of the Auckland War Memorial Museum. The rules have had a dramatic effect on the city centre. The Sky Tower and the council building on Albert St are just outside the eastern edge of the toll-booth viewshaft, which is known as E10. There's another viewshaft protecting the view of Maungawhau from the bridge itself, called E16. It roughly parallels E10. If you look at the city centre from the north, across the harbour, you can see the effect plainly: east of the Sky Tower, the city is built up. But west of the tower, the level suddenly drops. The Viaduct, Wynyard Quarter, around Victoria Park and up to the new International Convention Centre on Hobson St are all part of the central city. But there are no tall buildings. Constructing high-rise buildings on all this land is prevented by E10 and E16. Bishop thinks the toll-booth viewshaft is especially absurd. Drivers on a motorway are supposed to keep their eyes on the road. But councillor Richard Hills, the chair of the council's policy and planning committee, says: '50% of morning commuters going over the bridge are in a bus, enjoying the view.' Even some of the cars have passengers. 'Tollbooth' view of Maungawhau/Mt Eden, 1962 Toll booths on the northern approach to the Auckland Harbour Bridge in 1962, showing Maungawhau/Mt Eden in the background. The protected viewshaft applies to the stretch with the toll booths. But if it was moved slightly west, to align with the stretch pointing straight at the maunga, more central city would be freed up for high rises. Photo / Whites Aviation 'Tollbooth' view of Maungawhau/Mt Eden, today The same view today, showing high rises east of the Sky Tower but not to the west, with Maungawhau clearly visible. Photo / Jason Dorday The minister rests his argument against viewshafts on the economic advantages that come with housing and workplace density, especially near major transit stations and along transit corridors. 'In a well-functioning city,' Bishop told his Committee for Auckland audience, 'a floor filled with smart people working next to each other, in a building filled with floors of smart people working next to each other, unsurprisingly, enables greater economic opportunities for productive growth. Proximity encourages collaboration and innovation.' That's on top of the more obvious benefits of having lots of people living and working near train stations and rapid bus stations. More people equals better transit services, because there are more passengers to pay for them. And that takes traffic off the roads. Having lots of people living closer to town also makes their commute shorter, which also takes traffic off the roads. This has become critical in Bishop's thinking about the City Rail Link (CRL), which will open next year, doubling the capacity of Auckland's rail network. 'The City Rail Link is a game-changing investment in the future of Auckland,' he said on June 25. 'It will unlock significant economic opportunity, but only if we have a planning system to allow businesses and residents to take advantage of it.' Chris Bishop: the minister who wants to change Auckland's volcanic viewshafts. Photo / Getty Images Because of this, Bishop used that February speech to call for zoning in Auckland to abandon the six-storey limit around major transit stops, which defines the height of most apartment blocks. That will impact E10, E16, the Newton Rd view (E20) and several other viewshafts. 'We are going to need to go much, much higher than that around the CRL stations if we truly want to feel the benefits of transit-oriented development,' he said. 'My aspiration is that in 10 to 20 years' time, we have 10- to 20-storey apartment blocks dotting the rail line as far west as Swanson and Rānui.' You can see the prototype now, in the form of the 10-storey Westlight Apartments in Glen Eden. The Westlight apartments in Glen Eden tower over the surrounding suburb. Why is there no Westlight in Kingsland, which has a train station and several bus routes? Partly, it's because of the protected views of nearby Maungawhau. It's also partly because of a 'special character' overlay, put there by the council, which preserves older housing areas. Bishop threw down the gauntlet: 'How about if our aim is to make the 'special character' of suburbs be that they are thriving, liveable, affordable communities with access to regular and reliable public transport?' In May, the council adopted new zoning rules for the central city. They allow for more density, but they leave large parts restricted to six-storey heights. The minister's gauntlet was left lying on the ground. He responded quickly. 'The Auckland CBD plan could go a lot further, in my view. It is a real missed opportunity and in due course, the council is going to have to have another look at it, particularly around the viewshafts.' On June 25, Bishop and the Minister for Auckland, Simeon Brown, pulled out their swords. They jointly announced they will legislate to require upzoning for buildings of 'at least 15 storeys' in the 'walkable catchments' around the Maungawhau, Kingsland and Morningside stations and at least 10 storeys near Mt Albert and Baldwin Avenue stations. Fifteen-storey buildings are about 50m tall. Walkable catchments extend in a radius of about 800m, which is taken as the distance of a 10-minute walk. The walkable catchment for the Maungawhau station includes the New North Rd ridge, whose current medium-rise buildings are capped to maintain the viewshaft from Newton Rd, which is known as E20. Bishop's 15-storey ambition would almost certainly spell an end to E20 and could well mean the same for E10, E16 and other Maungawhau viewshafts. The minister says he doesn't want to eliminate viewshafts. But what does he want? The signals are mixed. 'Even just minor tweaks to existing viewshafts could materially lift development opportunities,' Bishop said in February. 'The 2018 study showed that rotating the E10 viewshaft just 4.5 degrees to the left maintains the view of Mt Eden for a similar amount of time, whilst saving the city 43% of the lost development opportunity cost.' By 'to the left' he means to the west. Views of Maungawhau would be preserved not from the northern approach to the bridge, almost back to Onewa Rd, but from the stretch of highway closer to the bridge, when the maunga is more in front of you. The 4.5 degree adjustment would free up significant parcels of land for high rises. These include some of the Wynyard Quarter and the Viaduct, the Fanshawe/Victoria streets block at the bottom of Nelson St, the TVNZ and Convention Centre block on Hobson St, and the block bordered by Queen St, Karangahape Rd and Symonds St. It also includes the northern half of Wynyard Point, if the council was ever to decide a sentinel waterfront tower should be built there. But that's all within what Bishop calls 'minor tweaks'. His talk of 'economic evisceration', the 'immense' economic and social rewards on offer and new 15-storey and 10-storey buildings near stations all suggest he has more sweeping changes in mind. In August last year, he told the Herald the biggest barrier to building on the Maungawhau station site was viewshafts. And yet, when the Herald asked him directly what he wants – how his hopes for all those tall buildings relate to viewshafts – he replied with a carefully worded written response. 'The bill will provide for a qualifying matters framework which will enable Auckland Council to modify these heights [15 storeys and 10 storeys] to the extent necessary to accommodate a qualifying matter (such as the protection of viewshafts) if this level of development is inappropriate. 'However, any lower heights would need to be justified in accordance with the framework. I intend to use my Direction on the new plan change to reinforce the legislative requirement that heights and densities may only be reduced to the extent necessary to accommodate one or more qualifying matters.' This seems to mean there will be more high rises, but viewshafts could become qualifying matters that limit their extent. To some degree. The debate has ever been thus. Density is easy: almost everyone says it's a good thing, provided it's done in the right places and in the right way. But defining the wrong places and ways, known in the legal language of town planning as 'qualifying matters', is a process that defeats even the most optimistic attempts at consensus. Character Coalition chair Sally Hughes. Photo / Alex Burton Sally Hughes of the Character Coalition, an umbrella group dedicated to preserving the character of the villa suburbs, says changes to viewshafts, special character or other zoning laws are not required because there are 'plenty of under-utilised sites' near the Kingsland and Maungawhau stations 'which are ready for intensification now'. Who doesn't think, when it's their own street, their own view, their own sun at stake: don't do it here, do it somewhere over there? The source of Bishop's thinking on viewshafts is a 2018 paper called City with a Billion Dollar View, written by Geoff Cooper, a former economist with PwC and Auckland Council. It was Cooper who came up with the toll-booth anomaly, the benefits of tweaking E10 by 4.5 degrees and that $1.4b figure for lost economic opportunity. Cooper is now the chief executive of the crown agency Te Waihana: the Infrastructure Commission and, at least informally, has the ear of the minister. Geoff Cooper, author of the report that got the minister thinking. As for Cooper's old employer, Auckland Council, it does not subscribe to his analysis of the economic damage done by viewshafts. The Herald talked to the council's manager of central area planning, John Duguid, about all this in May. Duguid said he doesn't see the need for higher buildings in the E10 viewshaft. 'East of E10,' he said, referring to the parts of the central city already built up, 'there's still a lot of development potential.' Duguid also said the toll-booth story is a myth: E10 has never been just for drivers queueing at the booths. Auckland Council planning boss John Duguid. Photo / Dean Purcell He thinks if it does need to be changed, 'it could be narrowed a bit'. If you squint, that sounds a bit like the minister's 'tweaks'. Even Cooper said something similar in 2018: he called for changes that would 'provide a middle path for city planners that reduce the cost, while preserving views'. But Duguid and the council seem largely intent on preserving the status quo and the minister wants change. The council, Bishop says, has been 'dragging its feet'. Let's back up a little. First, to note that the 14 prominent volcanic maunga of Tāmaki Makaurau are governed by the Tūpuna Maunga Authority, which comprises equal membership from Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau and Auckland Council. The Government will need a strong relationship with the authority, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and the other relevant iwi, if it wants to change the way we value, see and use the maunga of Tāmaki Makaurau. Second, to note the wider planning context. When the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) was adopted in 2016, it preserved the viewshafts while also allowing for the 'character areas' Bishop is annoyed about. This provision has been used to protect the villas of the city fringe: the ring of suburbs that runs from Devonport across the harbour to St Mary's Bay, Ponsonby, Grey Lynn, Mt Eden and Parnell. In 2020, the Labour-led Government's National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) required councils in the larger centres to change their district plans (in Auckland's case, the Unitary Plan), in order to provide for more substantial housing growth than most had been willing to accept. This was followed by new Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) in 2021 and a revision to the NPS-UD in 2022. All were aimed at achieving greater density. In Auckland, the council responded by drawing up Plan Change 78 (PC78) and putting it on a slow track to approval. Most councils have now made their plan changes, but Auckland Council has completed PC78 only in respect of the central city, despite closing public submissions nearly three years ago. PC78 (Central City Zone) contains higher limits for development in some areas, but there is no rethink of the viewshafts or the six-storey limit more widely. This was largely supported in submissions from the public. Bishop is clearly frustrated. The minister speaks positively of the NPS-UD and says he will build on it, not abandon it. His Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, which will speed up urban density, is back from select committee hearings and due to become law next month. In relation to the bill, Duguid says: 'Our working assumption is that applying 'qualifying matters', including maunga viewshafts, will still be an option, albeit with more onerous requirements to justify them.' On the other hand, Bishop wants those 15-storey buildings near Maungawhau, Kingsland and Morningside stations. The new Maungawhau railway station is the patterned building in the middle distance. Six railway lines run through tunnels under here, and now the enormous empty site is ready for intense developed over the next decade or two. How tall should the buildings be? Maungawhau mountain is away to the left. Photo / Sylvie Whinray And he has told the council: 'The Government is also considering whether further amendments to the bill to fully maximise development opportunities around other CRL stations are necessary, and I will have more to say in due course.' That is, station precincts on the Western Line won't be the only ones to get new height allowances. Ōrākei, Meadowbank and Glen Innes on the Eastern Line and Newmarket, Remuera, Greenlane and Ellerslie on the Southern Line are all no further away from the city centre than the Western Line's Mt Albert. Duguid and his staff have been busy preparing options for a council response to Bishop's pronouncements, for debate by the governing body of council on July 31. Defenders of the viewshafts have taken a persuasive lead role for many decades in the planning and consultation processes of Auckland Council and its predecessors. Prominent among them have been the Auckland Volcanic Cones Society and the Friends of Maungawhau. Roy Turner of the Volcanic Cones Society was the planner charged by the Auckland Regional Council with writing the original 1976 report on viewshafts. In March, he told the Herald that he likes 'most of what Chris Bishop is advocating, but with the cones issue, some of his justification is misguided'. Turner suggests we think about it this way. 'There is a massive area of open space in central Auckland called the Auckland Domain. An economist might calculate how many billions of dollars have been lost by not developing here. The public would respond by saying this is truly an Auckland icon: hands off, no way can we develop here. 'Quite right, but can't we have our cake and eat it too? Let's just take 10%. A few years down the track, on balance, let's take another 10%, for the same reason, and so on.' Others see it differently. At Greater Auckland, Scott Caldwell has attempted to distinguish between 'the good, the bad, the ugly' and the 'bit ridiculous'. Some viewshafts are blocked by trees, others emanate from places almost no one ever goes. Better to keep the trees and the views that really are valued? Caldwell's not against all viewshafts. Maungawhau as seen from Mt Eden Village, he says, looms above the street magnificently. He'd definitely keep that one. And he has a proposal. He points out that Instagram is full of maunga photos, but they're not of the maunga. Instead, they're nearly all taken by people standing on the mountain and looking at the view from it. These are the views we really value, he says, so they're the ones we should protect. Scott Caldwell suggests the more valuable views are from the maunga. This is a viewing platform on Maungawhau, looking across North Head to Rangitoto. Photo / Alex Burton If the Government changes the viewshaft rules in favour of economic growth, affordable housing, optimal use of transit or some other purpose, how big will the benefits be? We don't know the answer to that, but last month Bishop told the Herald he has instructed officials to find out. They're looking at 'the impact of Auckland's viewshafts on development capacity and economic activity across Auckland'. He added: 'I acknowledge there are also benefits, including to mana whenua, which are difficult to quantify.' Bishop wants the work done this year, although it will probably not meet the October 10 deadline for Auckland's new plan change. But, he said, 'it will help to provide a good evidence base for future plan development as part of the new resource management system'. That all looks like a message for the council: the work you could have done, and should have done, according to the Independent Hearings Panel in 2016, is now being done by the Government. If the council won't address the challenges and opportunities for growth and housing in Auckland, the Government will. If you don't build it, we will come. And we will do it for you. Simon Wilson is an award-winning senior writer covering politics, the climate crisis, transport, housing, urban design and social issues, with a focus on Auckland. He joined the Herald in 2018.
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Auckland Council votes in favour of amendment to helipad ban Notice of Motion
Auckland richlisters Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams' newly built house on Rawene Avenue. Photo: RNZ/Maia Ingoe Auckland Council have voted in favour of an amendment to councillor Mike Lee's Notice of Motion to ban the private use of helipads in residential areas. The amendment requests staff seek a determination through the Environment Court through the Resource Consent Appeal Process or a declaration from the Environment Court on the activity status of private helipads. The amendment was put forward by councillor Richard Hills and labelled as a "stitch up" and "ambush" by councillor Lee. This in relation to the Auckland Unitary Plan. Councillors are yet to decide on the Hauraki Gulf Islands Section of the Auckland Council District Plan. The meeting has been ongoing since 10am on Wednesday. It comes after Waiheke locals said Auckland Council was ignoring the wants of the communities by allowing a proliferation of private helipads. Last month, independent hearing commissioners appointed by the council approved rich-listers Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams's request for a private helipad at their Westmere property, despite overwhelming public opposition . At the council's Policy and Planning Committee on Thursday morning, Kim Whitaker from Quiet Sky Waiheke was one of several speakers calling on the council to decline private helicopter resource consents in residential areas. He said the constant flow of helicopters was incredibly frustrating and disruptive for residents. "You can demonstrate that this committee is made up of people who believe in democratic principles and are not going to enable a small minority of people to literally fly roughshod over a majority." He said there were nearly 70 private helipads on Waiheke. RNZ contacted Ali Williams and Anna Mowbray's lawyer for comment ahead of the motion of notice and the appeal in the Environment Court. While there was no response, the couple have said in the media that they were deeply disappointed with the legal challenge and the cost to public resources it will use. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
