IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER of a Board of Inquiry appointed under s149J of the Resource

Management Act 1991 to consider Notice of Requirements

and applications for Resource Consent made by the New

Zealand Transport Agency in relation to the East West Link

roading proposal in Auckland.

STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF GRAEME ROBERT MCINDOE

ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL

URBAN DESIGN

29397746_3.docx Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION AND EXPERIENCE

1.1 My full name is Graeme Robert McIndoe. I am engaged by Auckland Council

and Panuku Development Auckland to provide urban design advice and

evidence.

1.2 My qualifications and expertise are set out in my primary evidence dated 10

May 2017.

1.3 I confirm that this rebuttal evidence has been prepared in accordance with the

Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court

Practice Note 2014.

1.4 My rebuttal evidence addresses the following matters:

(a) Providing vehicle and universal access to the Mangere Inlet coastal

edge walkway (Traffic and Transport JWS, paragraph 3.16; and

Urban Design and Landscape JWS, Mangere Inlet Reclamation and

Naturalisation).1

(b) Undergrounding the 110 Kv power transmission lines (Urban Design

and Landscape JWS, Te Hopua, paragraph (d), (i) and (ii).

(c) Realignment of the pedestrian and cycle underpass (Neilson Street

Area JWS, paragraph 6.2)).

2. VEHICLE AND UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO THE COASTAL EDGE OF THE

EWL

2.1 Mr Murray and Mr Tindall identify the traffic safety challenges of a vehicle

access to the EWL for the purpose of facilitating universal access (Traffic and

Transportation JWS, Foreshore vehicle access and parking, paragraph 3.16).

General concerns regarding safety and flow effects are raised that imply that

vehicle access should not be provided. Furthermore, Ms Hancock and Mr

Lister agree in principle that some coastal access parking would improve

1 Joint Witness Statement Traffic and Transport, page 10, paragraph (m)

29397746_3.docx Page 2

accessibility to the shoreline, but consider that the parking on the landward

side of the EWL will be sufficient to provide public and universal access

(Urban Design and Landscape JWS, Mangere Inlet Reclamation and

Naturalisation).2

2.2 By way of response while I recognise that safety matters must be addressed, I

consider that the direction implied by these statements is inconsistent with

obligations to follow the principles of universal design, and as part of that to

provide universal access. In my opinion the engineering and spatial design

should be resolved to allow both the necessary safety outcomes and universal

access to the Mangere Inlet coastal edge. In addition, the NZTA proposed

parking is not in a location where it provides universal access. This is

explained below.

Definition of universal design and the related concept of universal

access

2.3 Auckland Council defines universal design and the rationale for it as follows:

What is Universal Design?

Universal Design is a design philosophy that aims to deliver products,

services, facilities, spaces and systems which can be used by

everyone. In the context of parks, universal design promotes safe,

accessible, barrier-free play and recreation opportunities for people of

all ages and abilities.

Why is it important?

At some point in our lives, through accident, illness or old age, every

one of us will experience disability or impairment. Universally

designed built environments are essential to ensuring equity and a

high quality of life for everyone. Accessible places provide easy

access to facilities for all people, from those with limited strength,

stamina or vision impairment, to persons recovering from an accident

or using a wheelchair or pram.3

2 Joint Witness Statement Traffic and Transport, page 10, paragraph (m)

3 Universal Design Hot Topic Article

http://content.aucklanddesignmanual.co.nz/resources/articles/universal-design/Documents/Universal%20Design%20Hot%20Topic%20Article.pdf Accessed 14 June 2017.

29397746_3.docx Page 3

2.4 The New Zealand Disability Strategy 2016-2026 makes the following

distinction between accessible design (which is likely to be provided by the

Proposal) and universal design:

Universal design is distinct from accessible design. Accessible design

represents the minimum accessibility requirements in built design,

whereas universal design seeks accessible design outcomes that

work for everyone.

This assists in understanding the distinction between the type of accessibility

that is provided by the Proposal and the universal design that is required.

The Proposal

2.5 A public parking area is provided at Hugo Johnston Drive and the EWL

connects into the parking at Taumanu Reserve. Both of these areas provide

for general public access by vehicle, and are suitable as starting points for

cyclists and fit and able walkers to use the coastal walkway. However at

around 1.0km and 0.7km respectively to the nearest part of the path along the

edge of the Inlet, in my view they are too far removed from the edge of the

Mangere Inlet to provide universal access to that edge.

2.6 The EWL proposes a pedestrian-cycle overbridge at Alfred Street, and at-

grade crossings at Galway Street and Captain Springs Road, and the Port

Link Road but none of these in my opinion provide for universal access.4

(a) Proposed Alfred Street overbridge

Elderly and other people with chronic heart and/or lung conditions

(hereafter referred to as ‘elderly and infirm people’) will often be less

mobile than wheelchair users. Bridge access requiring climbing is not

sufficient as many within this former category of users will not be able

4 My experience in this area relates to my practice as an urban designer and architect

including considering and providing for accessibility and universal access including coordinating with the Wellington City Council’s Accessibility Advisory Group addressing public access to and on the Wellington waterfront, and planning and facilitating for Auckland Council a large stakeholder workshop on universal access to inform the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. I have also taken advice from an accessibility expert who is also a member of Auckland Transport’s Capital Projects Accessibility Group (Ms Vivian Naylor, Barrier Free advisor and educator, CCS Disability Action Northern Region).

29397746_3.docx Page 4

to summon the effort or energy to cross. While carparking is proposed

at the end of Alfred Street, that demands use of the overbridge, and

therefore the Alfred Street connection will not provide for this user

group and does not provide universal access.

(b) At-grade crossings

There are no car parks close to the proposed light controlled at-grade

crossings at intersections of the EWL with Galway Street, Captain

Springs and the proposed new Ports Link Road. Even if an elderly

and infirm person was both willing and able to cross at the lights they

would have to walk a significant distance just to get from their car to

the light controlled crossings there before crossing five lanes of traffic,

being the four main carriageway lanes and a turning lane. Elderly and

infirm users also may not be able to summon the speed to cross a

four lane road at grade within the allocated time. That might be in part

addressed with a mid-road refuge, however a crossing experience

that requires extended pause in the middle of the road is unlikely to

be pleasant or attractive for the user. Because of the combination of

absence of immediately adjacent carparking and crossing type, the

at-grade intersections therefore also do not provide for universal

access.

Existing vehicle access to and parking at edge of the Mangere Inlet

2.7 The Proposal eliminates the three current opportunities to directly access the

existing coastal path along the edge of the Inlet by vehicle and park close to

that edge. Figures 4, 5 and 6 (images from Google Earth 3D) illustrate the

existing situation which allows access by vehicle right to the coastal edge path

in three locations:

29397746_3.docx Page 5

Figure 4: Existing vehicle access directly off Onehunga Harbour Road to a parking area directly adjoining the existing coastal path at the western edge of the Inlet. (Parking is indicated with the letter P.)

Figure 5: Existing access to the coastal edge within Waikaraka Cemetery – with scope for vehicle access to the edge, car parking there, views to and over the Inlet, immediate proximity to the coastal edge path. Picnic tables and trees provide recreational amenity.

P

P

29397746_3.docx Page 6

Figure 6: Existing vehicle access to the end of Alfred Street. While a vehicle cannot be parked in the turning head, a mobility impaired passenger might be dropped off at the edge of the immediately adjacent coastal path, and the driver might chose to park along Alfred Street.

Purpose of a ‘coastal access area’

2.8 To provide for universal access I recommend that a ‘coastal access area’ is

created within the proposed reclamation. A ‘coastal access area’ would be a

sub-destination on the Mangere Inlet section of the wider recreational coastal

trail. This would logically be located in the region of Waikaraka Park and

Cemetery, somewhere between Captain Springs Road and Alfred Street. It

would, as a public facility, be logically associated with the existing public open

spaces there, should be more or less centrally located to give a reasonable

aspect over the Inlet, and should be sufficiently far from SH20 that it will not be

dominated by that structure.

2.9 The purpose of a ‘coastal access area’ is area is primarily to provide an

opportunity for all user groups to access the edge of the Mangere Inlet,

including those elderly and inform people who would be precluded from doing

so if there were to be no vehicle access. This is also to help mitigate coastal

severance, and to compensate for the loss of existing vehicle access to the

coastal edge.

P

P

29397746_3.docx Page 7

Recreational potential for mobility impaired people

2.10 The coastal pathway, including all related pause and viewing points, and

areas of seating are a valuable recreational resource. For elderly and infirm

people, use is likely to be passive rather than active, sitting at the edge and

enjoying viewing the Inlet, including the birdlife there. Some in this category

may be sufficiently mobility impaired that they cannot leave the vehicle. Other

mobility-impaired users might take the opportunity to walk a short distance

along the coastal path. The EWL as currently proposed would preclude

access for that type and quality of experience (such as currently available

within Waikaraka Cemetery – see figure 5) for those people who must drive or

be driven to be able to access the coastal edge.

Responsibility to provide universal access

2.11 Expectations for and requirements to provide universal access are well

established. I reference relevant documents and, where appropriate, include

comments in table 1 (attachment 1).

Practicality of providing access

2.12 Finally, the technical challenges identified by Mr Murray and Mr Tindall in the

JWS are in my opinion matters of detail that might be resolved by technical

studies (if required) and design to interrogate and resolve the issues arising5:

(a) Possible u-turns (at Captain Springs Road) might be addressed by

investigation to quantify risk, and design as appropriate to address

any risks that arise.

(b) Technical investigation could determine appropriate parking capacity,

and approaches to a coastal access area may be designed to

minimize /eliminate risk of queuing and any consequent disruption of

traffic on the EWL.

(c) The potential conflict of parking access across the proposed

commuter cycle lane and footpath might be eliminated by locating the

5 In writing this I make no claim to traffic and transportation engineering design expertise. However my urban

design experience includes working with traffic and transportation engineers over several decades, and this gives me confidence that the engineering profession is well able to resolve such technical challenges.

29397746_3.docx Page 8

parking and vehicle access close to the edge of the EWL, and cycle

lane and footpath route outside this. This would be similar to the

proposed diversion around the outside of the overbridge ramp as

already proposed here.

Recommendation

2.13 My recommendation is that there should be a consent condition for a ‘coastal

access area’ located between Captain Springs Road and Alfred Street and

close to the Waikaraka Cemetery/Park area. This should provide some

designated ‘accessible’ parking spaces in addition to a small number of other

parking spaces for general public recreational use and also maintenance. The

size and configuration of such an area or areas, and the means of vehicle

access to and from it/them should be subject to technical study and design

exploration.

29397746_3.docx Page 9

3. UNDERGROUNDING THE 110 KV POWER TRANSMISSION LINES

Figure 7: NZTA’s view simulation

Figure 8: NZTA’s view simulation modified with removal of the powerlines

29397746_3.docx Page 10

3.1 There is disagreement in Urban Design and Landscape expert conferencing

on the extent of benefits of undergrounding the Mangere-Roskill A 110Kv

transmission lines (refer to JWS Te Hopua (d) (i) and (ii)).

3.2 By way of response and to inform consideration of that disagreement I have

prepared a visual comparison based on the NZTA schematic approach as in

Ms Hancock’s evidence. This (figure 7 above) demonstrates an accumulation

of elements to the point where not only are trees screened or removed, the

edge of Te Hopua is dominated by predominantly new infrastructure.

3.3 In figure 8 I have had the pylons and overhead transmission lines removed

using Photoshop, which assumes that the lines are undergrounded. The

primary benefit of removing the pylons and overhead transmission lines is to

achieve mitigation at that part of the Te Hopua tuff ring most compromised by

the ramps and infrastructure of the EWL. It also reduces adverse effects on

the Sea Scouts building, and improves functionality there by freeing up land

close to the building for use of the public or uses within the building.

3.4 Should the extent of undergrounding be from the north end of Taumanu

Reserve to Tower 30 at Mangere Bridge, further consequential benefits are:

(a) Removal of overhead wires reduces visual clutter above and

enhances the amenity of Taumanu Reserve;

(b) Reduced infrastructure over entrance to the Mangere Inlet; and

(c) Removal of overhead lines and pylons from the Mangere Wharf Area.

4. ENTRANCE TO THE PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE UNDERPASS

4.1 The underpass links Onehunga Mall to the New Old Mangere Bridge and The

Landing. The multi-disciplinary JWS for the Neilson Street Area in relation to

the alignment and shape of the underpass under SH20 agreed under item 6

that “after discussion it was acknowledged that there would be severe

engineering and constructability constraints to the realignment of the

underpass”. Having departed the conferencing after item 4, I was not party to

that discussion and do not agree for reasons below.

29397746_3.docx Page 11

4.2 In response to that statement, first, ‘realignment’ is not necessarily required

and the statement omits to consider a lower intervention option of ‘splaying

out’ the north-western corner of the underpass. I consider the lower

intervention approach to be desirable as stated in my Evidence in Chief at

paragraph 14.14(b). Any splaying would be to achieve a more direct north-

south connection with enhanced visibility to and from the Onehunga Mall end

to enhance both legibility (way-finding) and safety. This is described in figure 3

(at page 36) of my Evidence in Chief which is reproduced below:

Figure 3: Concept diagram for extended land bridge and related works

4.3 The current situation is illustrated in figures 9 and 10 which demonstrate that

wing wall structures close off the entry and edge planting further screens it

from view. The route through is highly indirect, and a user must be very close

to the entrance before they can see through the underpass.

29397746_3.docx Page 12

Figure 9: The existing underpass viewed from the Onehunga Mall side

Figure 10: Approach to the existing underpass from Onehunga Mall.

4.4 I agree that ‘constructability’ constraints of realigning the underpass (being

likely to include progressively disrupting the entire width of SH20) are likely to

be severe, however realignment is neither proposed nor in my opinion

necessary.

4.5 Classification of ‘engineering’ constraints as ‘severe’ could lead to the

inference that opening out of the northern section of this underpass is

29397746_3.docx Page 13

infeasible. But from advice received that is not necessarily the case.

Engineering investigation by AECOM concludes:6

From a structural and constructability perspective the proposed gradual widening of

the existing pedestrian underpass at the Onehunga Mall side of the underpass is

feasible. The as-built drawings would need to be checked to finalise what vertical

clearance could be achieved but from photographs and a site visit evidence suggests

that it is likely that the current 3.0m clearance could be maintained.

The major concern with this proposal is that the southbound carriageway of SH20

would require to be partially closed for approximately 15 weeks and a contraflow be

put in place while the construction works progress. This would reduce the capacity of

the route significantly and would require consultation with NZTA.

Graeme Robert McIndoe

20 June 2016

6 See Rebuttal Evidence of Innes Flett.

29397746_3.docx Page 14

Attachment 1 - Table 1: Review of documents relating to universal design and access

29397746_3.docx Page 15

DOCUMENT COMMENT

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – December 2006

Article 1: Purpose The purpose of the present Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. (page 3) Article 2: Definitions For the purposes of the present Convention: “Discrimination on the basis of disability” means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation; “Reasonable accommodation” means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; (page 4) Article 9: Accessibility 1. To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation… …shall apply to, inter alia:

(a) Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces;

(page 8)

New Zealand Disability Strategy 2016-2026

Outcome 5: accessibility We can also access all public buildings, spaces and facilities with dignity and on an equal basis with others…” (page 32)

29397746_3.docx Page 16

DOCUMENT COMMENT

Auckland Council’s Disability Operational Action Plan – December 2015

Theme 1: Creating accessible buildings, places and spaces We aim to make it easy for everyone to move around the city and to participate fully in community and civic life.

“…Over time we aim to improve Auckland’s urban and natural environment and our services to make them easier to understand and use. Wherever possible this will be guided by the principles of universal design.” (page 4, my highlighting)

Such provision along the Mangere Inlet is in my opinion possible, and can be integrated with good design, including mitigation of traffic safety matters identified by traffic experts.

Appendix Two to this document identifies “seven principles of universal design - an approach to design that considers people at all life stages, abilities and potential scenarios.” Two of these are particularly relevant:

2 Flexibility in use: the design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities

Absence of vehicle access fails to accommodate a wide range of individual preferences and abilities, including those mobility-impaired persons who prefer to travel by car to their destination, and those who do not have the physical capacity to access by any other means.

6 Low physical effort: the design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue

An overbridge as the only means of access to the Inlet portion of the EWL from the only area of parking proposed close to the edge requires high physical effort to cross.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

Objective 4 To maintain and enhance the public open space qualities and recreation opportunities of the coastal environment by:

recognising that the coastal marine area is an extensive area of public space for the public to use and enjoy;

(page 9)

This is for the public, with no implication that it is only the able-bodied public. Policy 19 (2) (c) (iii) below specifically identifies people with disabilities.

Policy 19 Walking access (1) Recognise the public expectation of and need for walking access to and along the coast that is practical, free of charge and safe for pedestrian use. (page 20)

Access by vehicle to the coastal path is necessary for practicality of access for the elderly and infirm category of mobility impaired persons.

(2) Maintain and enhance public walking access to, along and adjacent to the coastal marine area, including by:

(c) identifying opportunities to enhance or restore public

29397746_3.docx Page 17

DOCUMENT COMMENT

walking access, for example where: (iii) physical access for people with disabilities is desirable; or (page 20)

(my emphasis)

Policy 20 Vehicle access (2) Identify the locations where vehicular access is required for boat launching, or as the only practicable means of access to private property or public facilities, or for the operation of existing commercial activities, and make appropriate provision for such access.

In this case for certain mobility impaired persons, vehicle access is the only practicable means of access to an important public facility (being the coastal path), and should be appropriately provided.

The Auckland Plan – A Plan for all Aucklanders TE MAHERE A TA -MAKI MAKAURAU - MA - TE KATOA O TA -MAKI MAKAURA

Chapter 10 – Priority 2 Demand good design in all development Box 10.1 – GOOD DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Integration: Development in Auckland should support uses, activity centres, energy systems and movement networks which are well-connected, and provide convenient and universal access to a range of services and amenities…” (page 247)

(my emphasis)

Chapter 13 – Priority 2 Integrate transport planning and investment with land use development 755_ For the transport system to support Auckland’s vision and future growth and development, it must support the six transformational shifts and the land-use directives of this Plan. The following must be effected:

the system must be designed for safe and universal access for all, including children, older persons and those with disabilities. (Point 5 pg322)

While this relates to the transport system, it also establishes the importance of universal access including for older persons.) (my emphasis)

Auckland Unitary Plan – (Operative in part)

Chapter B Regional Policy Statement (RPS) B2 Tāhuhu whakaruruhau ā-taone - Urban growth and form B2.3. A quality built environment B2.3.2. Policies (2) Encourage subdivision, use and development to be designed to promote the health, safety and well-being of people and communities by all of the following:

(a) providing access for people of all ages and abilities; (page 5)

(my emphasis)

29397746_3.docx Page 18

DOCUMENT COMMENT

Auckland Council’s Open Space Provision Policy (Adopted June 2016)

‘Make safe and welcoming places’ Apply universal design principles to ensure parks and open spaces are accessible to everyone. (page 10)

The coastal walkway would be categorised as a ‘Connection and linkage open space’ in this document (page 19) so this policy applies.

Auckland Council Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan:

Connect our parks and open spaces …. We will enhance accessibility so that all Aucklanders can easily access and enjoy the opportunities our parks and open spaces have to offer. (page 16)

Connect our communities We must ensure that our network of parks and open spaces are inclusive and accessible, for all Aucklanders to enjoy.

(page 24)