Wellington City Council defends process that led to decision to demolish City to Sea Bridge
The council on Tuesday was presenting its side of
a judicial review
into plans to demolish the bridge - which connects the city's waterfront to Civic Square - in the Wellington High Court.
Lawyer Bridie McKinnon said applicants the Wellington Civic Trust had
cast council officers as the villain in their testimony
, alleging the officers filtered out options that did not adhere to a predetermined preference to demolish the bridge.
She said the officers worked under intense pressure and public scrutiny.
McKinnon said officers costed multiple solutions to make the bridge earthquake-safe, and set up workshops with engineering firms that councillors were able to attend.
She said the council was within its rights to focus on solutions that achieved its goals of safety, affordability, maintaining the site's aesthetic and allowing other construction work in the city's Civic Square to go on uninterrupted.
"Nowhere in the Local Government Act is the council obliged to identify all reasonably practicable options. That is not the standard. The obligation is to seek to identify them. The extent of those inquiries is at the council's discretion," McKinnon said.
"It is not an open ended inquiry which never ends. The process of local government decision making would grind to a halt."
She said public consultation on the fate of the bridge acknowledged demolition was a preferred option at that point.
She said council officers put forward six separate options, including lesser strengthening options, "with a host of reports" explaining why these options were preferred or otherwise.
"Council officers undertook a significant amount of work to investigate the available options and present relevant information to councillors for their decision.
"They held site visits, held workshops with engineers and experts - [including] workshops open to councillors - to hear directly from experts. They concepted designs that were considered reasonable by experts even if they weren't considered reasonably practicable.
"Most, if not all, of the options that the Trust says were not provided to the council were - in fact - provided to councillors as options and were considered by council staff."
McKinnon countered the Trust's characterisation of public consultation as relating to demolition options only as a reasonable reflection of the council's goals for the precinct within the context of its funding limitations.
"The nature of consultation often contains predeterminations in some sense. To consult on strengthening would have been disingenuous when the council did not have anywhere near the funding required to do so based on the information council had at the time."
On Monday, lawyers for the Trust suggested that reducing the Importance Level (IL) - a measure of earthquake risk - of the Capital E building could open up a greater variety of options for strengthening the bridge to a level that was more aligned with its current use, following the closure of Capital E after it was designated earthquake-prone following the Seddon earthquake in 2013.
But McKinnon told the High Court on Tuesday that even with the lower IL2 designation, the building was unlikely to achieve more than 34 percent of its strengthening requirements.
McKinnon cited consulting reports into the building works going on about Civic Square in buildings such as the Town Hall, the former Capital E site - beneath the bridge - and the nearby Council CAB building.
She said the Civic Square area was subject to multiple issues - relating to flooding, earthquake damage and sea level rise - and all structures and public spaces in the area would have to be designed and built with a "high degree of resilience" to withstand future events.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
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
Signing date announced for final design contract for Wellington's Golden Mile
Mayor Tory Whanau turns the first sod for the Golden Mile project. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The final design contract for the Golden Mile is expected to be signed in November. Nearly six years on from when work first started on the capital's Golden Mile upgrade, ground was broken back in April, despite construction contracts not being signed for the entire project. The project has been controversial , as some businesses do not support it. In a briefing to elected members on Thursday morning transport and infrastructure manager Brad Singh said that when the Wellington City Council had taken the project over from Lets Get Wellington Moving design had not been completed. After the council had completed it, he said in February it was discovered it was $20 million over budget. The design had since been reviewed and brought back into budget. The council was still awaiting a final price from the contractors before signing the contract, but expected it to be signed in November and within budget. The total cost budgeted for the project is $139.4 million. That's made up of $116.3m in implementation cost and an additional $9.5m in contingency costs. However, during questions from councillors Singh conceded that as the contract would be signed after the local body election it was possible a future council could choose to stop the project. The Labour Party's candidate for Wellington mayor, Andrew Little, told RNZ in May [ it would be unethical for the current council to sign any more contracts for a major construction project. "I'd expect the mayor and current council to read the room, frankly. This is a city, a central city, and central city business leaders are really under the pump at the moment. "The one thing they don't want is more disruption."
The Spinoff
2 days ago
- The Spinoff
Windbag: The waterfront fences debate isn't really about fences
Wellington City Council rejected a proposal to build these fences on the waterfront. What looks like a fight about safety, cost and aesthetics is really about something bigger. Windbag is The Spinoff's Wellington issues column, written by Wellington editor Joel MacManus. Subscribe to the Windbag newsletter to receive columns early. Roger Calkin, whose son Sandy drowned on the Wellington waterfront in 2021, stood up in front of Wellington City councillors on Thursday last week and told them they had a moral responsibility to stop further unnecessary deaths. 'It is our perspective as a family, having sat through five days of full coronial inquest and listened to evidence given by various experts from all sides, that these social and moral responsibilities have never been met,' he said. It set up the awkward position in which councillors found themselves. Seven people have drowned on the waterfront since 2006. A grieving family is begging for change. A coronial inquest told the council it needed more edge protection. On the other hand, the general public absolutely hates the idea of fencing the waterfront. It's united left and right, young and old. The fiscally minded hate the cost, and the design-minded hate the aesthetics. In Thursday's meeting, councillors voted on a paper that proposed spending $7 million on fencing around Kumutoto and Queens Wharf. The mayor's office had previously made it clear they wanted a public consultation with multiple options. But that's not what council officers presented. They recommended a direct council decision, with no consultation. The proposed design, released just one day before the meeting, was a heavy steel monstrosity that cost more than $3,000 per metre. Council officers have a conservative instinct. They want to put up the safest fences possible. Cost and popularity are not their top priorities. If officers had provided councillors with a middle ground – say, a cheaper and prettier chain-link fence – they might have got the council's support. But they sent a signal that the council needed to act now, and this was the only option. The proposed fences around Queens Wharf. With Calkin in the room, councillors voted the paper down emphatically, 13-4. The vote sent a clear message: councillors are not happy with council staff. The 13 votes against included mayor Tory Whanau and all the committee chairs bar Laurie Foon. That's notable. Whanau and her chairs have generally put a lot of trust in officer advice and rarely push back (Rebecca Matthews being an occasional exception), but there's a growing frustration that officers are attempting to steer councillors by forcing rushed decisions, withholding information, or giving all-or-nothing options. The worst example this term was the town hall cost blowout. I remember sitting in the meeting where a team of staff told councillors they needed to cough up another $130m, taking a project initially budgeted at $30m to $330m. Councillors reacted with shock at having this info sprung on them with little warning. They frantically asked questions. Could they pause construction? Mothball it? Would getting the heritage listing removed help? Could they have some time to deliberate and assess what's happening here? The answer from the staff was, basically, no. They told councillors that any delays would just increase the cost of the rebuild. There was no time to think. They needed to write a cheque right this minute. Even in the eyes of an untrained outsider, the whole thing looked sus. There was a similar spat over the airport sale, where councillors complained that staff wouldn't let them see relevant legal advice. The Reading Cinema sale, too, was a case of officers promoting an idea. They managed to get Whanau and several other councillors on board, but it was a political miscalculation. Temporary fencing around the Wellington waterfront. Officers and councillors each have important roles within the council. Usually, officers know more than councillors do; they're subject matter experts, while councillors spread their focus across a broad range of topics. But there's a reason unelected bureaucrats aren't responsible for the final decisions: they don't have to think about public opinion. Good politicians need to know how to use the expertise of the public service without being led around by the nose. Being too trusting of advice is a classic pitfall of left-wing politicians, who see public servants as their natural allies, while the right is typically more suspicious of bureaucrats. This is one area where a former minister like Andrew Little has an advantage over other would-be mayors; he knows how to deal with the public service, and when to give them a firm smack-down. So what's going to happen with the waterfront fences? It's not entirely clear. Councillor Ray Chung had planned to bring an amendment calling for public consultation, which would have been only the second amendment he proposed during his entire term. But Chung instead used his time to give a rambling speech, completely forgetting about his amendment. By the time he remembered a few minutes later, the deadline for new amendments had passed. With no formal direction from the council, staff will be scrambling. It's still possible they could come back to the table with a new paper offering a broader range of fencing options and a proper public consultation. Or, they could punt it to the next council and hope they can convince a new batch of inexperienced councillors to make a rash decision.
RNZ News
06-08-2025
- RNZ News
Wellington and Ramallah sign Friendly City Agreement
Ramallah Mayor Mayor Issa Kassis and Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau held an online meeting and simultaneously signed the Friendly City Agreement. Photo: Supplied / Wellington City Council Wellington and the Palestinian city of Ramallah have signed a partnership agreement aimed at promoting collaboration and cooperation between the two places. The Friendly City Agreement was signed simultaneously by Mayor Tory Whanau in Wellington and Mayor Issa Kassis, who joined online from Ramallah. Whanau said she was proud to formalise the partnership. "In light of the genocide in Gaza, this partnership serves as a powerful symbol of solidarity and hope. It is through such relationships that we can promote understanding and work towards a more peaceful future." Kassis said the agreement marked a milestone for the people of Ramallah and all Palestinians. "At a time of profound hardship for our nation, this gesture of friendship resonates deeply. "It embodies the values of solidarity, dignity, and international cooperation. We look forward to building strong bridges between our communities and working together to advance peace, cultural exchange, and mutual understanding." Whanau and Kassis held their first online meeting in April last year and during their discussion explored how to foster collaboration between the two cities. In 2023, Wellington City Council voted to initiate a Friendly City relationship with Ramallah, the first step towards becoming sister cities. Ramallah has a population of about 85,000 people and is located 16 kilometres north of Jerusalem on the West Bank. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
