TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF INQUIRY Basin …€¦ · 5 other folders with it as well. Mr...

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BOARD OF INQUIRY

Basin Bridge Proposal

HEARING at

BASIN RESERVE, MT COOK, WELLINGTON

on 09 April 2014

BOARD OF INQUIRY:

Retired Environment and District Court Judge Gordon Whiting (Chairperson)

James Baines (Board Member)

David Collins (Board Member)

David McMahon (Board Member)

Basin Reserve, Wellington 09.04.14

APPEARANCES

<GAVIN CRAIG LISTER, on former oath [9.35 am] ............................. 4743

<FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILNE [9.35 am]4743

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONES [11.32 am] ................. 4780 5

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON [12.03 pm] ................ 4790

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.21 pm] ....................................... 4815

<SARAH LOUISE POFF, sworn [2.23 pm] ............................................. 4816

<EXAMINATION BY MR BENNION [2.23 pm] ........................... 4816 10

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS ANDERSON [2.44 pm] ......... 4824

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON [3.44 pm] ........... 4842


[9.34 am]

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Just before we start. I left my

folder with my notes in our retiring room, I think there is a couple of

other folders with it as well. Mr Milne. 5

MR MILNE: Sir, just some document management, Madam Registrar has

pointed out that I have been lax in my document management. In terms

of providing references to the Board to material, I have referred to – the

first document I referred you to yesterday Mr Lister was the High 10

Landscaping Assessment Guidelines, the Highway Landscaping

Section 3, Highway Landscaping Assessment.

Can you confirm that you are familiar with that document and that it is

Transit document that you have worked with previously on previous 15

projects?

<GAVIN CRAIG LISTER, on former oath [9.35 am]

<FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILNE [9.35 am] 20

MR LISTER: I am familiar with it, I haven’t worked with it particularly.

MR MILNE: So the Transit Project you refer to in your evidence-in-chief,

you didn’t use these guidelines or refer to these guidelines? 25

MR LISTER: No. As I explained yesterday, they are not very useful and

they are out of date and they are not best practice.

MR MILNE: So if they could just be given a reference, sir, just for ease of 30

reference - - -

CHAIRPERSON: What is the point of cross-examining in some detail on

these documents. How is it going to assist us?

35

MR MILNE: They set out, concepts, methodologies, criteria - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Well it is not for us to decide on the appropriate concept or

methodology surely, it is a number of methodologies that landscape

artists use or landscape experts, some are better than others and at the 40

end of the day, we have to assess the evidence as it is.

MR MILNE: Yes, sir. The relevance is to some concepts which I have

addressed to this witness and other witnesses - - -

45

744


CHAIRPERSON: You are entitled to put concepts to him but I don’t want a

detailed – it is not an examination. It is a cross-examination but it is

not an exam.

MR MILNE: Yes, understood, sir, and I am just asking him to confirm really 5

that those concepts which are in there, in this document and flow

through into the document he has been author of commonly understood

concepts - - -

CHAIRPERSON: And whether he used them? 10

MR MILNE: Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

15

MR MILNE: Yes, and how he has used them in this case.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it he hasn’t used those concepts at all in his

evidence because he has already said that he hasn’t used a specific

methodology, he has described the area and the effects as he sees it. 20

That is as I understand your evidence?

MR LISTER: Yes, that’s right, and just to explain, the document is not so

much flawed because of what it says, but what it doesn’t say and that is

the reason that the new guidelines - - - 25

MR MILNE: Sir, I am not dealing with the document anymore, it is just that I

have referred the witness to it and if the Board wants a convenient

reference for it, it is something the registrar pointed out to me, that the

document - - - 30

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR MILNE: I was just hoping to give it a reference.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Good, I thought you were going to embark on another

cross-examination.

MR BAINES: Sir, do we have to actually it a reference, I mean, it could have

a label. 40

MR CAMERON: The position that we have all reached, sorry, that the Board

has reached and Mr Milne appears to have accepted, the document can

now be put to one side can it not?

45


CHAIRPERSON: Well, he has referred to it and it is in the bundle of

documents as I understand it, isn’t it?

MR MILNE: Yes, sorry, sir, the first one may not be, sir, but it can be put into

the bundle of documents - - - 5

CHAIRPERSON: We don’t need it put in the bundle of documents unless you

think it is absolutely necessary.

MR MILNE: No, sir, I don’t, I am happy to move on with the document we 10

do have.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you are entitled to put concepts, there is nothing

wrong with that and say this has got a certain methodology and have

you followed it, and he said he hasn’t so - - - 15

MR MILNE: Yes, sir, it was more a matter of convenience for the Board and

in closing submissions, whether the document gets given some sort of

reference or not. If the Board doesn’t think that is helpful then we will

move on. 20

The next document with this - - -

MR CAMERON: Just so I can tidy it up because I have got this bundle of

documents and the bundle is an agreed bundle so far as the NZTA is 25

concerned, in other words, what is in the bundle is available and can be

used - - -

[9.39 am]

30

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but Mr Milne is entitled to put another document to a

witness and if need be produce it somehow. I don’t know how he

would do it but he’s entitled to put a document to a witness.

MR CAMERON: Absolutely, sir, and I’m signalling that I - - - 35

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CAMERON: I don’t think that to be either necessary or helpful in this

instance. 40

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but normally when documents are put to witnesses the

extract is read out and that becomes part of the record and that’s all we

need.

45

MR MILNE: Yes, and that’s all I need for these current purposes.


So just moving to the next document, the next document is your

version of what was originally called McCarthy C I think, which is the

list of effects from the joint witness statement.

5

Now, sir, I realise I didn’t do this with Ms Popova either so there are

three versions of this document. They are different documents. So

each of the witnesses have put their own comments and references on

to the document and so McCarthy C was the first document which was

put - - - 10

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MILNE: - - - to Mr Brewer.

15

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brewer, yes?

MR MILNE: And then if we could perhaps give some sequential numbering

to it so in terms of Popova, her version of this could be McCarthy C2

and this one could be McCarthy C3, so that we all know what we’re 20

talking about.

CHAIRPERSON: So are the documents not the same?

MR MILNE: No. No, the documents are different because each witness has 25

made - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Oh?

MR MILNE: So this witness has added his own comments and - - - 30

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I realise that. Well what I have done, and I’m sure the

other Board members have as well, is as each witness has that

document put to them - - -

35

MR MILNE: Yes?

CHAIRPERSON: - - - I just file it with that witness’s evidence - - -

MR MILNE: Yes. 40

CHAIRPERSON: - - - and put their name on it, and I think that’s all the

identification we need.


MR MILNE: Well except it may become confusing in the sense we’ve got a

McCarthy C but it is not the same document, there are three different

versions of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it’s the same – yes, I know what you mean, because 5

the comments are different.

MR MILNE: Yes, the comments and the references are.

MR McMAHON: C-1, C-2. 10

CHAIRPERSON: C-2, McCarthy 1, A, B and C.

MR MILNE: Yes, okay. Thank you, sir.

15

CHAIRPERSON: That’s the easiest way to do it. Just for the - - -

MR MILNE: So the first one - - -

MR BAINES: So we’ve got McCarthy C as an agreed document label, 20

haven’t we?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So what’s this, this is McCarthy?

MR MILNE: The first one was McCarthy C so - - - 25

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I had it the wrong way around. C1, 2 and 3.

MR LISTER: Yes.

30

MR MILNE: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So this will be C3.

MR MILNE: C3, thank you, sir. That is in fact what I had labelled it. 35

EXHIBIT # McCARTHY C3 – LIST OF EFFECTS

MR MILNE: Sir, the next matter was the document that was getting copied

for the Board overnight, and if I could just refer you to that – which is 40

document 8-60 in the bundle and it’s that document. Do you have that

in front of you, Mr Lister?

MR LISTER: Yes.

45


MR MILNE: And we confirmed yesterday that you are the author of that

document, aren’t you?

MR LISTER: Yes.

5

MR MILNE: So, sir – 8-60, yes. So this is document 8-60, Landscape and

Visual Assessments guidelines which you are the author. And I take it,

sir, that it doesn’t need to be formally produced, it’s in the bundle?

CHAIRPERSON: No. 10

MR MILNE: So I don’t want to dwell on this, Mr Lister, but if I could just

take you through what the document does briefly. There’s relevant

statutory and non-statutory provisions at page 103 and then at the next

section, Existing Landscape Description and Evaluation, and there’s 15

some factors which I think come from the Pigeon Bay decision there in

terms of typical factors and there’s some relevant footnotes on that

page. Is that correct?

MR LISTER: The factors don’t come from the Pigeon Bay factors. Some of 20

them are the same but it’s a longer list than that – longer list than the

Pigeon Bay factors, and one of the important principles of this

guideline is to set out that the factors that might be relevant in each

case will differ and that these are listed simply as typical factors that

may or may not be relevant in a particular case. 25

[9.44 am]

So one of the underlying principles of the document is to get a way

from the formulaic approach that has been followed in the past, 30

typically through use of the Pigeon Bay factors or the Pigeon Bay

criteria as they are also sometimes called. And so this document brings

that into line with recent case law such as the MainPower decision that

you referred to yesterday, plus others such as the Upper Clutha Tracks

decision and the Unison Networks decision and the Board of Inquiry 35

decision into the Hauora Hauraki wind farm.

MR MILNE: Thank you, Mr Lister. And you have set out a definition of

landscape at the beginning?

40

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR MILNE: And I think we agreed yesterday that if one substitutes the word

townscape, that concept applies equally to townscape, doesn’t it?

45


MR LISTER: Yes, and as I explained yesterday, townscape is used in different

ways by different people.

MR MILNE: Yes. And looking at those typical factors would you agree here

that looking at perceptual aspects, orientation legibility is relevant in 5

assessing the before and after environment in the current context, isn’t

it?

MR LISTER: Yes, it is, and I’ve referred to that in my evidence-in-chief.

10

MR MILNE: And aesthetic qualities are relevant, aren’t they?

MR LISTER: Yes, and I’ve referred to that as well.

MR MILNE: Yes. And coherence (the extent to which human patterns 15

reinforce the underlying natural landscape, that’s important too, isn’t

it?

MR LISTER: Yes, and I’ve referred to that as well.

20

MR MILNE: Yes.

MR LISTER: But in terms of the perceptual aspects that are listed there I’ve

also referred to a number in my evidence which are not listed there,

which goes back to the point that the factors that may be relevant in 25

each case will differ and it’s the job of a landscape architect to identify

the ones that are pertinent to that particular case - - -

MR MILNE: Yes.

30

MR LISTER: - - - and to identify how the different factors come together or

relate to each other to create the sense of place that is unique to

everything.

MR MILNE: And that’s a matter I’m going to come back to with you later on. 35

Associative aspects, historical associations, is something that’s very

important here, isn’t it?

MR LISTER: Yes, and I cover that in my evidence.

40

MR MILNE: And tangata whenua associations, is that relevant here?

MR LISTER: It is relevant. Not so important in this particular case but it is

relevant and it’s been given reference to in the design.

45


MR MILNE: And recreational use is another very important concept here

given we’re dealing with the Basin and the National War Memorial

Park and other associated open space areas, isn’t it?

MR LISTER: Yes. 5

MR MILNE: And there’s a reference there to emblematic aspects, e.g. an icon

for an area. There are some iconic buildings and features of this area,

aren’t there?

10

MR LISTER: Yes, there are.

MR MILNE: And the Carillon will be one of those and the Basin Reserve

itself is one of those?

15

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR MILNE: And the last factor there – there is reference to transient factors,

and we discussed those yesterday. Turning the page, in terms of

evaluating the landscape, under 6.3 there is a reference to what are the 20

characteristics that give the landscape its value, how significant is that

value and what are the reasons for your overall judgement?

You would agree that in reaching an evaluation those are important

steps along the way? 25

MR LISTER: Yes, and that is how I have dealt with my - - -

MR MILNE: Yes?

30

MR LISTER: - - - description of the existing environment.

MR MILNE: And - - -

MR LISTER: I would – on that page I’d like to refer to the paragraph above, 35

which I think encapsulates what we’re talking about. And that is the

paragraph, “However the landscape description should not simply be a

catalogue of factors” - and I’d just interpose there, that was the issue

that came up with the Pigeon Bay criteria or factors, they were being

used in that way so people were missing the wood for the trees, if you 40

like.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well in my view (and I think a lot of people’s view)

the Pigeon Bay factors got elevated beyond a list of factors which

applied in that case to rigid factors and they almost became a legal 45

construct, and I think we’re moving away from that.


MR LISTER: Yes, exactly. So if I just finish that paragraph because I think it

is important – “that every landscape is a particular combination of its

different factors and it has its own particular sense of place. It is how

they, that is the factors, it is how they come together collectively that 5

makes a landscape. The writer should therefore in describing the

pertinent factors and how they interrelate with each other to create each

landscape.”

[9.49 am] 10

MR MILNE: Yes, thank you. And there is a section on alternatives and then

there is Section 8, Landscape and Visual Effects. Your box on

identifying landscape issues, and in terms of amenity values, you would

agree that all of those components there are relevant to the current 15

Inquiry?

MR LISTER: Yes, they are, they are examples of landscape issues and those

are all relevant one way or another, but in my evidence, I have gone

further than that and extracted what I think are the most relevant issues 20

and can put them in a format that relates specifically to this context. So

I have identified four, what I think are the four main landscape issues in

terms of this project and this particular environment.

MR MILNE: Yes, and under Section 9, the rating scale low to high, that is the 25

rating scale that has been used by Ms Popova in her approach, isn’t it?

MR LISTER: Yes, it is.

MR MILNE: And in terms of analysing effects, you have got the little boxes 30

up the top, so nature plus magnitude minus mitigation equals actual

effect. Where, if at all, does positive effects or do positive effects fit

into that equation in your understanding?

MR LISTER: In terms of that equation there, if you like, mitigation measures 35

– one way of achieving mitigation is to include something which has a

positive aspect to it, so for instance, in terms of the bridge design, if the

effect of the bridge on amenity is mitigated by giving the bridge a more

positive aesthetic, if you like, so it comes into mitigation in that sense,

but elsewhere in the document I have also said that the assessment 40

should list positive effects.

It is on the opposite side of the page, the second bullet point down. So

I have noted there that effects include positive as well as adverse

effects. 45


The footnotes, the numbering for the footnotes is out of synch, and just

by way of explanation, this document has been put together rapidly by

somebody else, and reading through it last night, I realised that in that

process the numbers have been put out of synch, so the footnote to that

should actually be number 32 which refers back to Section 3 of the 5

RMA which defines effects, so that effects include both positive and

adverse effects.

MR MILNE: Yes. In terms of a particular effect – first, could I clarify that

what you are dealing with here in terms of actual effect, is a specific 10

effect, so by way of example here, effect on the character of the Basin

Reserve entrance area, for example?

MR LISTER: Yes.

15

MR MILNE: That is how you would calculate that or assess, evaluate, that

particular effect on that basis, isn’t it?

MR LISTER: Yes, I would use this if I was carrying out a detailed landscape

and visual assessment in which I have broken down things into little 20

parts for the sake of analysis and in particular, for visual effects where

that is the nature of that methodology.

MR MILNE: And do you agree that if you are dealing with a wider effect,

that is the overall, for example, here, the overall effect of this proposal 25

on the character of the overall historic precinct, that there is another

component which is taking into account effect 1 plus effect 2 plus

effect 3 and reaching a conclusion as to the overall sum of effects of the

various component parts that have been examined?

30

[9.54 am]

MR LISTER: No, I am very cautious of doing that. In that regard I am

somewhat different to Mr Brewer for instance, because you end up with

a pseudo-mathematical equation that balances oranges and apples, 35

whereas I think it is clearer to set out what the different effects are and

the extent to which they might have significance and might be

mitigated and that overall weighing up of things is a job for the Board

in my view.

40

MR MILNE: Ms Popova has provided some useful tables with groups of

effects, groups of areas, groups of viewing audiences, and she has

provided her assessment of those effects, hasn’t she?

MR LISTER: Yes, that is a visual assessment that she has carried out. 45


MR MILNE: Well, she has also carried out a townscape assessment, hasn’t

she?

MR LISTER: Yes.

5

MR MILNE: Yes, and that is the approach she used there as well?

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR MILNE: And my point here is that in understanding the Board reaching a 10

conclusion as to the overall effect on a particular component, let’s say

the historical associations and character and peoples appreciation of

that - I am expressing it clumsily - but do you agree that it is not a

matter of saying, this is the effect on views to the National War

Memorial Carillon, what one needs to do is look at all of the relevant 15

effects, all of the effects that are relevant to that and reach a conclusion

as to the overall effect in terms of that particular matter?

MR LISTER: Yes, in terms of historic matters, there is specific evidence on

heritage aspects which is not my expertise. In terms of landscape the 20

historical associations are part of that and they go towards an overall –

they go towards the overall amenity of the landscape and in terms of

assessing effects, you would be assessing effects on the extent to which

the project undermined that component, or those characteristics and

qualities of that landscape. 25

MR MILNE: Mr Lister, that was just an example, but there are a number of

areas here where there are overall values, so there is overall historical

values associations, there is overall recreational outdoor space

character, there is overall value in terms of the capital city function. 30

Whichever of those overall areas of amenity one is looking at, do you

agree that one needs to evaluate and reach a conclusion as to what that

overall effect is and to do that you need to take Ms Popova’s tables and

other evidence, and say well, this effect is relevant to this, this effect is 35

relevant to it, this effect is to it, and the conclusion is whatever.

You need to look at the sum, don’t you?

MR LISTER: Yes, the Board will need to look at the sum clearly. 40

MR MILNE: Yes.

MR LISTER: What I have done in my evidence is identify what I consider the

four main landscape issues and I have analysed or assessed the effects 45

of each of those.


MR MILNE: And you understand the concept of cumulative effects, don’t

you?

MR LISTER: Yes. 5

MR MILNE: So the sum may take the approach - on some effects there will

be a cumulative effect, that is the effect in terms of this particular

matter or this particular location plus the effect of this location, plus the

effect at that location, you end up with a cumulative effect that may be 10

more than the sum of the individuals. Do you agree?

[9.59 am]

MR LISTER: Or less. 15

MR MILNE: Yes.

MR LISTER: That is why I’ve grouped them into the four main issues rather

than going through a very reductive process such as would happen for 20

instance if you went through that table and tried to give a score for each

of those elements. So amenity is experienced in the whole. It’s not

experienced just because of shading effect or just because of noise or

just because of a particular view. It’s experienced in the whole.

25

MR MILNE: Understood. Ms Popova and to extent I think you have used the

concept of referring to the different quadrants, so the northwest, the

northeast, the southeast etcetera and you’ve made references to – I

think we had a discussion yesterday as to which quadrant there is the

greatest effect. 30

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR MILNE: Yes. But do you agree that even on that approach which is

grouping effects together within a quadrant there are a number of 35

effects within that quadrant that you need to consider and the overall

effect in terms of that quadrant will require a valuation of all of those

effects in that area won’t it?

MR LISTER: Yes and that is what I’ve done. 40

MR MILNE: Yes and then the overall effect for the whole area, and in this

case the area I’m talking about is the area from Taranaki Street through

to the tunnel portal. By way of example. The effect of that whole area,

one then needs to consider the effects of each of those quadrants to 45

reach a conclusion as to the overall effect doesn’t one?


MR LISTER: Yes I would say that the correct way to do it is to consider each

of the issues that relate to that area that we’re discussing.

MR MILNE: And then if I could take you through to page 115. So under 5

scoping report there’s a reference to absorptive capability.

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR MILNE: I took it from some answers you gave yesterday afternoon that 10

you didn’t – well, do you consider that that concept of absorptive

capability or absorptive capacity - - -

MR LISTER: Absorption capability, yes.

15

MR MILNE: - - - is relevant not only to assessing rural landscapes but also to

assessing urban landscapes and effects on those landscapes?

MR LISTER: It’s not relevant in this instance. As I said and I’ve explained to

you that tool is useful for weighing up wide areas for the purpose of 20

sieving, making a sieving choice for a route. So I can’t think of an

instance where it has been applied in an urban setting, but it is used

from time to time when you are considering for instance a complete

new alignment for a highway in which you’re first sieving will be at a

very broad scale. And for that purpose that is useful, but it is not useful 25

for assessing a particular project for the simple fact that you’ve actually

got a project to consider the effects of. There is no point to assess the

ability of an area to accommodate a hypothetical situation when you’ve

got an actual one that you can consider.

30

MR MILNE: Whereabouts in this guide does it state that qualification? That

is that it’s only to be used – well, if I can put it this way. Do you agree

that a starting point for - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Milne, I said this is not an exam. 35

MR MILNE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it this gentleman wrote this guide and it’s

only a guide and he’s saying the way he would use it. 40

[10.04 am]

MR MILNE: Yes.

45

CHAIRPERSON: As an expert witness.


MR LISTER: For clarification it does – I am happy to answer it. It does say

in the last sentence of the preceding paragraph. It says, “the baseline”

– and just to put in context we’re talking about the Acre (ph 0.27)

approach which is a sieving method. So from area down to corridor 5

down to route down to easement. And as I say it’s a particular method

for route selection at the scoping stage and which options are narrowed

down. And then a baseline landscape assessment is a component of the

Acre process in which landscape units are scored as part of multi

criteria analysis in terms of the following attributes and it lists the two 10

of them. Landscape quality and absorption capability. And that is the

only instance in which I would use that particular concept.

MR MILNE: Do you agree that in the townscape context we’re dealing with

here that the concept of the sensitivity of the area is important in terms 15

of guiding an evaluation?

MR LISTER: The significance of an area is important and sensitivity of

viewing audiences is important, but to give a sensitivity score to a

landscape in which you’ve got an actual project that you’re assessing 20

the actual effects of is a pointless exercise.

MR MILNE: Well. Are you saying that the - - -

MR LISTER: Because you can assess the actual effects. 25

MR MILNE: Are you saying here that the question of the sensitivity of the

receiving environment in which this proposal is cited is not a highly

relevant matter in terms of evaluation of the effects of the proposal?

30

MR LISTER: I think the more relevant matter is the significance of the

environment and its actual characteristics and attributes and the actual

effects of the project. So applying absorption capability such as

topography, likely extent of earthworks, settlement density, extent of

vegetation and land use complexity is not going to help one bit in this 35

particular project. It’s just not relevant.

MR MILNE: Turning to the assessment tools Ms Popova has carried out a

visual assessment hasn’t she?

40

MR LISTER: Yes she has.

MR MILNE: And there are some tools listed there in terms of visual

assessment.

45

MR LISTER: Yes.


MR MILNE: And one of those is identify the people who will see it, viewing

audience and the relative sensitivity of those types of audience to

landscape matters. Do you agree that the sensitivity of the viewing

audience is relevant. 5

MR LISTER: Yes and I just answered that a few moments ago. And that is

the process that Ms Popova has followed very thoroughly.

MR MILNE: And she has also considered the sensitivity of the various 10

different areas she’s focussed on hasn’t she?

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR MILNE: Just moving off that document. 15

MR COLLINS: Just before you do Mr Milne, could I just check. What is it in

appendix 2 – it starts at page 95 and I can’t see a date on it. It’s part of

a bigger document isn’t it?

20

MR MILNE: Are you able to help with Mr Lister in terms of - - -

MR COLLINS: It’s labelled “appendix 1” to something.

MR LISTER: Sorry, what was the question again? 25

MR COLLINS: It says its appendix 1 NZTA landscape and visual assessment

guidelines. It started at page 95, so what’s the first 94 pages?

MR MILNE: Appendix 1 to what document? 30

MR LISTER: It’s the landscape guidelines. I’m not sure exactly what the

proper title is for it, but it’s the equivalent of the urban design

guidelines.

35

MR COLLINS: So the whole document is about landscape guidelines and - - -

MR LISTER: Yes so it covers a range of things to do with landscape. Such as

specifications and designing processes and so on.

40

MR COLLINS: So this appendix, is it a summary of the whole document?

MR LISTER: No. It’s an appendix. It’s dealing with landscape and visual

assessments. So the writing of the technical documents for a project.

45

MR COLLINS: And what’s the first 94 pages of the document?


MR LISTER: Sorry?

MR COLLINS: What’s in the first 94 pages of the document? This starts at

page 95. 5

MR LISTER: Yes so this is the appendix. So the rest of the document is to do

with landscape matters for highways in general so it includes a whole

range of matters to do with landscape design and specifications for

construction of landscape works and maintenance requirements - - - 10

MR COLLINS: I see.

MR LISTER: - - - and a relationship between landscaping and road safety

and all those kind of things. 15

[10.09 am]

MR COLLINS: What date is it and what status does it have. Is it a draft or a

final? 20

MR LISTER: I carried out the – I wrote the material and put it in my evidence

in chief - - -

MR COLLINS: If you don’t know, don’t worry. 25

MR LISTER: It was 2011 and 2012, - - -

MR COLLINS: Very recent.

30

MR LISTER: Sorry?

MR COLLINS: It is very recent.

MR LISTER: At the moment it is being put out to the profession for 35

comments and feedback and for that reason it is still in draft.

MR COLLINS: Good, thank you.

MR McMAHON: Can I just follow on from that. Presumably this will be an 40

NZTA document, will it?

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR McMAHON: Yes, so will it replaced the Highway Landscaping 45

Assessment?


MR LISTER: Yes, that is the purpose of it.

MR McMAHON: Thank you.

5

CHAIRPERSON: What number in the bundle is it?

MR……….: 8/60.

CHAIRPERSON: 8/60. 10

MR MILNE: Mr Lister, moving on from that and you are familiar, aren’t you,

and I think you have just referred to the Maniototo Environmental

Society decision, the Lammermoor decision?

15

MR LISTER: Yes, I am, I didn’t refer to that one actually.

MR MILNE: And in that, the Court noted that in terms of describing a

landscape, a description of the values is required including naturalness,

legibility, transient values, people and community shared and 20

recognised values and memorability.

Do you agree that all of those factors are relevant to a description of the

existing environment, the existing townscape?

25

MR LISTER: They are relevant as factors to take into account when you are

carrying out your own professional assessment. That is, it is not

appropriate, for instance, to go through those and to assess each one

where they are not relevant. And clearly, different factors are going to

be relevant in an urban setting such as this that is relevant on the 30

Maniototo.

MR MILNE: So where the Court concluded that to describe and delimit a

landscape, the consent authority needs to at least consider the matters

set in 1 and to the extent necessary and proportion it to the case, those 35

set in 2 and 3.

Do you not agree with that because all of those came from item 1?

MR LISTER: I think that you have to read that case in context, that is talking 40

about a landscape in a rural setting and I think that it has to be read in

the context of the other case law which also refers to the Lammermoor

decision and saying that best practice now is to assess landscape in

terms of three broad attributes, the physical, the perceptual and the

associative. 45


There are decisions such as the Mount Cass, such as the MainPower

decision that you referred to yesterday, refer back to the Lammermoor

decision and point out that those factors all fall within those three

attributes, and that approach of simplifying it to three main attributes,

has been endorsed in the Upper Clutha Tracks decision and the Unison 5

Networks decision and the HMR Wind Farm decision, and the relevant

case law is that the factors were varied between - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, it is not case law.

10

MR LISTER: It is merely comments in cases about facts relating to the

particular case which are persuasive.

MR LISTER: Apologies.

15

MR MILNE: Mr Lister, you referred to perceptions there as one of those

matters, didn’t you?

MR LISTER: Yes.

20

[10.14 am]

MR MILNE: And again in Lammermoor, the Court made the comments that a

reasonably representative selection of perceptions direct or indirect,

remembered or even imagined, are the space usually of subsets of the 25

more expansive views of the proposed landscape, and the views,

experiences and associations of persons who may be affected by the

landscape should be considered.

Do you agree that those matters are relevant here? 30

MR LISTER: Yes, perceptual matters are relevant and I addressed those in

my evidence-in-chief in describing the existing environment.

MR MILNE: And in the MainPower decision, the Board there made the 35

comment that it is important to keep in mind that when considering

what are loosely termed landscape or natural values, we take into

account peoples values rather than assessing the landscape values as

aspects apart from people.

40

Do you agree with that?

MR LISTER: Yes, and that goes back to the principle that landscapers are

cultural construct and it is inherent in the definition of amenity values

and the quality of the environment, and it is how I conceived my 45

evidence.


MR MILNE: I want to move away from those documents and those concepts

but look at how they have been applied here.

I am still wanting to understand your approach to where sensitivity fits 5

in. So we have an existing environment which has a degree where

some areas will be more sensitive than others. Do you agree with that?

MR LISTER: Yes.

10

MR MILNE: And we have a proposed environment with this proposal in it

and then the difference between the two is the effects. That is a

simplistic way of looking at it but that is basically the approach, isn’t

it?

15

MR LISTER: Yes, in a simplistic way, the effects are the effects on the

characteristics and qualities of that environment.

MR MILNE: That’s right, and in assessing and evaluating those effects,

whether at a specific level, so is the effect on the view to the Carillon, 20

or whether in terms of an overall effect, the effect on the amenity

values of the historic precinct, as part of that evaluation you need to

consider a sensitivity of the receiving environment, don’t you?

MR LISTER: I would consider the actual qualities and characteristics of the 25

environment and they may be more sensitive or less but it is inherent in

that description.

MR MILNE: And in reaching conclusions on overall effects, whether for a

particular area, say the south-east quadrant or the north-east quadrant, 30

or whether for an overall area, in looking at the individual conclusions

of, for example, Ms Popova, in terms of moderate, low etcetera, one

also has to look at those within the context of the sensitivity of the

receiving environment.

35

So a moderate effect in one area, which is more sensitive than another,

needs to be considered differently, doesn’t it?

MR LISTER: That would be taken into account as part of your assessment of

effects, it is not a mathematical equation, and as I have pointed out, I 40

also haven’t carried out that kind of analysis that Ms Popova has done

because she has already carried that out.

MR MILNE: I just want to come to two of the overall effects of this proposal,

and I am going to deal with separately. The first one is the overall 45

effect on people’s appreciation of the overall outdoor space and the


historical precinct, and in terms of that – lost my reference. Do you

accept firstly, Mr Lister, that this area (and by the “area” I’m talking

about the area from Taranaki Street through to the tunnel portal,

including the schools), do you accept that this area has some nationally

significant values? 5

[10.19 am]

MR LISTER: Yes, it does and I’ve identified those in my evidence-in-chief.

10

MR MILNE: Yes. And - - -

MR LISTER: But they are quite – but I’ve identified them more precisely

than just a general statement such as that.

15

MR MILNE: And Ms Wraight, in answer to questions – and I’m referring to

Day 30, page 3489, sir – said that in terms of nationally significant

places I’d refer that to the expert on heritage in terms of nationally

significant spaces and places. I consider that they are nationally

significant - exactly where they rank in terms of heritage in relationship 20

to Parliament I’d refer to an expert on that.

Ms Wraight used the term “nationally significant” quite extensively in

her evidence and under cross-examination. Do you agree, Mr Lister,

that there are nationally significant elements such as the Carillon, the 25

Basin Reserve, Government House?

MR LISTER: Yes. Yes, there are.

MR MILNE: And they comprise an area, a precinct, which together 30

represents a “whole”, and that whole has national significance as a

corridor of buildings, places, associations which together give it a

status as being of national importance as a precinct (whether it’s called

historical, cultural, commemorative or something else)?

35

MR LISTER: No, I don’t agree with it in quite the way that you have put it. I

think that there are nationally significant elements there, they’re quite –

they’ve got their own particular significance, but it is an eclectic mix of

elements.

40

So the Basin Reserve has got its own significance and it’s quite

unrelated, for instance, to the significance that’s attached to the

Carillon, as the National War Memorial Park or to Government House.

They happen to come together in a complex urban environment but I

don’t think that extends to putting a line around them as a precinct and 45


saying that that precinct therefore has national significance because of

that eclectic mix.

MR MILNE: Well, do you disagree with Ms Wraight where she referred to

nationally significant open spaces (Day 29, page 3305)? 5

MR LISTER: Well I wasn’t here when Ms Wraight gave that statement. I’m

giving my own evidence.

MR CAMERON: The question is unfair. 10

CHAIRPERSON: Well he’s answering it quite adequately and he’s saying he

wasn’t here and therefore he can’t answer it.

MR CAMERON: As your Honour pleases. 15

CHAIRPERSON: Let’s move on.

MR MILNE: So, so far as Ms Wraight used the term nationally significant

open space you don’t accept that it is such? 20

MR LISTER: I don’t know what context in which she used that statement.

MR CAMERON: That was my point, sir.

25

CHAIRPERSON: Well he’s answering it quite well. In fact his answers are

perhaps - - -

MR CAMERON: Yes, well - - -

30

CHAIRPERSON: - - - and wondering whether the question should have been

asked.

MR CAMERON: Yes.

35

MR MILNE: And Mr Brewer also referred or accepted that the area was

nationally significant on Day 36, page 4117. Do you disagree with

that?

MR LISTER: I don’t recall and I’m not sure that I was here for that. 40

[10.24 am]

MR MILNE: In terms of the components, the cultural associations – the

various things that are important in terms of this area – do you agree 45


that each of these are important, Mr Lister? The heritage values and

associations?

MR LISTER: Yes, and I’ve addressed those in my description of the existing

environment. 5

MR MILNE: Yes. The historic associations?

MR LISTER: Yes, once again.

10

MR MILNE: The capital city associations – the functions that are associated

with a capital city - - -

MR LISTER: Yes.

15

MR MILNE: - - - such as hosting royalty, etc?

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR MILNE: The gateway function of the area as one comes out of Mount 20

Victoria Tunnel and comes through the hill and out into the Basin with

views of the city?

MR LISTER: Yes, and my evidence is quite explicit on that and I’ve

answered questions yesterday on the gateway experience. 25

MR MILNE: And the commemorative function of the Carillon and now the

whole National War Memorial Park?

MR LISTER: Yes, and there’s a section in my evidence that deals with that. 30

MR MILNE: And the recreational functions in terms of Basin Reserve?

MR LISTER: Yes.

35

MR MILNE: And the international functions or significance in terms of

international cricket matches?

MR LISTER: Yes.

40

MR MILNE: And the fact - - -

CHAIRPERSON: These are all matters that have been agreed on in the joint

witnessing statement.

45

MR MILNE: Sir, there’s just one last matter and - - -


CHAIRPERSON: So we don’t need to have them reiterated.

MR MILNE: Mr Lister, the last matter is the fact that this is a hub through

which thousands of people a day pass whether going north/south or 5

east/west. That’s another factor that makes this area important and

sensitive because there are so many people passing through it. Do you

agree with that?

MR LISTER: I think that is the fundamental characteristic of the area that is 10

at the heart of this case, that the very factors that make it significant in

the landscape sense are the same factors that cause the issue that this

project is attempting to resolve, and so I’ve addressed that in my

description of the existing environment.

15

If it would help I might refer to the joint witness statement which sets

out what all the participants agreed were the important characteristics

and qualities from the Basin Reserve area and each one of those is – in

fact my evidence more or less mirrors that list precisely.

20

So for each of that matters are paragraphed in my evidence - - -

CHAIRPERSON: And are you referring to paragraphs 23 through to 27?

MR LISTER: Yes. So I could give a paragraph reference for each one of 25

those bullet points with the exception I think of one that I overlooked

or didn’t take into account.

MR MILNE: Your evidence doesn’t reach an overall conclusion as to the

effects of this proposal on the whole area – the area as a whole in terms 30

of each of those characteristics and the characteristics taken together,

does it?

MR LISTER: Not individually – no, it doesn’t.

35

MR MILNE: Or overall? It doesn’t bring them altogether on a “the whole is

greater than the sum of the parts” basis principle and say there are a

whole lot of things here which are important and this is the effect of the

project on this important area?

40

MR LISTER: I’ve identified the important characteristics and qualities of the

area and then having done that I’ve identified what I consider to be the

main landscape issues facing the project, and in paragraph – to preface

that in paragraph 5.2 of my evidence-in-chief I’ve set out that effects

are context specific and in this case consideration of such effects - - - 45


[10.29 am]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what paragraph are you referring to?

MR LISTER: 5.2. So to read the whole paragraph then I’ve said, “I consider 5

it worth emphasising that change is a fundamental aspect of how cities

evolve and can have positive as well as adverse effects and both types

of effect are context specific and in this case considerations of such

effects should take into account the extent to which they add or detract

from the qualities” and I might have added “characteristics” there as 10

well to make it align precisely with sections 7C and 7F. “That make

the Basin Reserve an important part of Wellington’s landscape”.

And that sets the framework for the rest of my effects, rest of my

section of evidence that deals with effects. 15

MR MILNE: But I take you to your paragraph 8.14 at page 40 of your

evidence-in-chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what was that Mr Milne? 20

MR MILNE: 8.14 and 15 at pages 40 and 41 of the evidence-in-chief.

Mr Lister, is this – this is the only conclusion isn’t it in your evidence

regarding the historical aspects of the area and the effects of the

proposal on it? 25

MR LISTER: I’ve already explained the way in which I’ve structured my

evidence and considered the effects. This is dealing with a specific

aspect of amenity so it’s a particular aspect of an effect.

30

MR MILNE: Well is there a conclusion - - -

MR LISTER: And as I’ve said there I’ve sought to frame my evidence – so

the whole evidence in a sense is framed in a historical concept. In a

historical context and I’ve given a reference back there to 35

paragraphs 3.10 to 22.

MR MILNE: Yes. You’ve described the historical context but you haven’t

reached any conclusion have you as to the effects of this project on the

historical precinct and the amenity values, cultural, recreational, 40

etcetera for that precinct.

MR LISTER: I’ve come to an overall conclusion in terms of effects on this

area. In terms of the issues that I’ve identified, but I haven’t gone

through in a reductive manner and given a score for individual aspects 45

of it, that’s true.


MR MILNE: Your overall conclusion is the conclusion at 9.1 that there will

be some unavoidable adverse effects isn’t it?

MR LISTER: Yes. And carrying on from that to say – so I accept that so to 5

spell it out if you like therefore if you were doing this project just for

the sake of it then obviously it would be unacceptable. But that in the

context of this project and if the Board deems that it’s warranted

because of the other evidence, in that context then this is the best of the

alternatives in my view based on the actual effects because it has the 10

best fit to urban form and it avoids what would otherwise be much

greater effects and that the effects are remedied and mitigated as good

as it gets if you like. And then the body of my evidence gives the detail

for those conclusions.

15

MR MILNE: Yes. Could you look at this document, please Mr Lister. Firstly

do you agree that there is an overlap between heritage values, historical

values and amenity values?

[10.34 am] 20

MR LISTER: Yes there is an overlap, but they are not exactly the same thing.

MR MILNE: And indeed at the feasible options reporting stage the Agency or

the specialists, three specialists, dealt with heritage values. They came 25

into urban design, urban design review and a heritage assessment and

the latter was carried out by Mr Bowman. Are you familiar with that?

MR LISTER: Not particularly. I wasn’t involved in that process.

30

MR MILNE: In terms of this area as we just discussed there are both heritage

values from built heritage and wider heritage and there are historical

associations aren’t there?

MR LISTER: Yes. 35

MR MILNE: This document is Mr Bowman’s document from the scheme

assessment report 2012. Are you familiar with that?

MR LISTER: No, I’m not. 40

MR MILNE: If you could just turn to his conclusion at 2.3.

MR CAMERON: Just a minute - - -

45


MR MILNE: Sorry, the document reference – Ms Wedde, if you could assist

me, it’s in the bundle at 8/?

MS WEDDE: Is it 8/9 – but I don’t think it’s his report from the SAR stage.

5

MR MILNE: Sorry, it’s 2012. I think it was his annex to the SAR stage.

MS WEDDE: I think his assessment at the SAR stage is in 8/5. So it’s a

different document.

10

MR MILNE: So this document reference is sorry 8/?

MS WEDDE: 9.

MR MILNE: 9. This report relates to Option A which is the option before the 15

Board and Mr Bowman concluded at 2.3 effects on heritage value.

“The bridge will be a large and dominating intrusion into the historic

landscape as a physical and visual obstruction causing a dramatic

change in the context of the Basin and its immediate and wider

environs”. Do you agree with that statement Mr Lister? 20

MR LISTER: Well in my evidence I’ve already said that it will be a dominant

structure and that it will be intrusive. I’ve commented more precisely

on matters to do with severance and obstruction. I don’t agree with his

comment in relation to that. And will cause a significant change. I 25

think “dramatic” is perhaps overstating it a bit. But these are

Mr Bowman’s comments in relation to heritage I assume.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what did you say you do not agree with?

30

MR LISTER: It’s actually where he says, “it will be a physical and visual

obstruction”. I don’t agree with that at all. In fact it will in terms of

physical connections the bridge will improve those and in terms of a

visual obstruction I think that that is overstating the effects.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MILNE: And he refers there to a “historic landscape” rather than just

heritage values doesn’t he?

40

MR LISTER: Yes he does. I’m not sure in what context he’s using that.

MR MILNE: And that’s the point I’ve just put to you which is that neither

you nor Ms Popova reach an overall conclusion on the effect of this

proposal on the historic landscape do you? 45


MR LISTER: You’ve asked me that question several times and I’ve answered

it in the same way each time. Now in terms of the historic landscape or

the heritage landscape I assume from the photo because I haven’t read

this – I assume that Mr Bowman is talking about the connection

between Cambridge Terrace and the Basin Reserve which relates back 5

to the original city plan and the original intention to build a canal in the

Basin, so in my evidence I have identified those qualities in the existing

environment, I will refer back to that, so that is in paragraph 3.11 and

those several paragraphs deal with historical associations. I have then

put it in an historical context in the next section where I have noted that 10

the original idea was abandoned because of the earthquake and that that

set in play a number of consequent changes to the character of the area.

[10.39 am]

15

So rather than being an industrial centre it became a park and

institutions coalesced around it, and then the context which is at the

heart of this case, that it became a strategic junction in the city when

the Mount Victoria Tunnel was built, and the blight that followed on

from that intersection. 20

And then, so that is in terms of existing qualities and characteristics of

the environment.

And then I’ve gone on and identified that connection between Kent and 25

Cambridge Terrace and the Basin Reserve as one of the four issues to

be dealt with and I have addressed those at 5.13 and 5.14 of my

evidence and it overlaps with the previous section which talks about the

Gateway Building so paragraphs 5.11 and 5.12.

30

But in the end, you are quite right, I don’t come and say, come to a

score and say there is a moderate-high effect on historical associations

or anything like that, and I have explained and I think that that

approach would be reductive and not particularly helpful in this project.

35

MR MILNE: Mr Lister, it is not just a matter of coming to a score as you put

it, you don’t actually discuss the overall effects, do you. You describe

the context, you describe some individual effects, you reach a

conclusion that there are unavoidable effects, but there is no evaluation

of the overall effects? 40

MR LISTER: In those effects that we were just talking about on the

connections between Kent and Cambridge Terraces, I have noted that

the project of the bridge and more particularly, the Northern Gateway

Building, will close off the connection. 45


I don’t know what more you can say about that particular effect. I have

gone on and explained how that could be mitigated through the design

of the Northern Gateway Building and so on and balanced that

particular effect against the effects on amenity with the Basin Reserve,

and then within the overall context of the project, I have come to the 5

conclusion that there will be significant adverse effects.

So I have come to an overall conclusion, I have dealt with the details of

it in terms of particular qualities and characteristics.

10

MR MILNE: Where do you reach that conclusion that there will be significant

adverse effects, is that the reference to unavoidable adverse effects?

MR LISTER: Yes it is, and I accepted in cross-examination yesterday that

they would be significant, and I think that is clear from the various 15

parts of my assessment of effects.

MR MILNE: Yes. I would like to take you to a specific viewing area and

firstly to understand the value of that area. So the area I am talking

about is the proposed National War Memorial Park extension. 20

Do you agree, Mr Lister, that that extension is important in terms of

providing both visual and physical linkages between Kent/Cambridge

Terrace and National War Memorial Park?

25

[10.44 am]

MR LISTER: Yes, so to be precise, are you talking about National War

Memorial Park or the extension as proposed?

30

MR MILNE: I am talking about the extension with the zigzag track going

down the hill connecting Kent/Cambridge Terrace to National War

Memorial Park?

MR LISTER: Yes. 35

MR MILNE: Ms Popova took the Board through – well the one visual

simulation or rendition, it wasn’t a Truescape rendition, from the top of

the zigzag, and the bridge is fairly prominent in that view. Are you

familiar with that view, it also happens to be the view that is on the 40

EPA website for this Board of Inquiry?

MR LISTER: So this is the view from the Tory Street Bridge over the approach

to the community.

45


MR MILNE: The view from the - it is a simulation of the view from the top of

the zigzag. It is a rendering, yes. Is that a view that you have

considered in preparing your evidence?

MR LISTER: Yes. 5

MR MILNE: Do you agree that the park enhances the experience moving

down through that area in terms of providing – leaving aside the bridge

– provides a connection and both physical and visual through from the

National War Memorial Park down to Kent/Cambridge? 10

MR LISTER: Yes, and I have covered that in my evidence in paragraphs 5.20

and 5.21.

MR MILNE: Yes, so you have covered that as being a positive effect of the 15

project?

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR MILNE: I put a hypothetical situation to Ms Popova which is that this 20

extension is already built and if one was considering the before and

after environment, that is with and without the bridge but with this

extension, do you agree that the bridge is prominent in terms of the

view here and, in particular, the view across to the Mount Albert

Tunnel portal area, and the Basin Reserve itself? 25

MR LISTER: Sorry, the Mount Victoria Tunnel?

MR MILNE: Yes.

30

MR LISTER: Yes, obviously it is prominent.

MR MILNE: And Ms Popova reached a conclusion, or summarised in her

table at page 60 that views from Buckle Street, National War Memorial

Park were low to moderate depending on distance. The effect on views 35

was low to moderate depending on distance.

MR LISTER: From where, sorry?

MR MILNE: Buckle Street, from Buckle Street/National War Memorial Park. 40

MR LISTER: So I presume that refers to a different location than this.

MR MILNE: Well that is the only location she has in terms of from National

War Memorial Park, that is the only category she has there and I did 45

explore this with her in terms of what her area was.


MR LISTER: Right, I would consider National War Memorial Park is the

area that is identified as that, up west of the crèche building - - -

MR MILNE: so this is on the boundaries between – it is the area where 5

everyone goes for what is currently proposed as National War

Memorial Park into the extension.

MR LISTER: Yes.

10

MR MILNE: Do you agree that the bridge will have an adverse effect on the

views and the character of that area if one assumes that the extension is

already in place.

[10.49 am] 15

MR LISTER: Yes if you assumed that, but that is a hypothetical situation.

This work is proposed as part of this bridge project. So it would seem

back to front to - - -

20

MR MILNE: Are you aware of any reason why this work wouldn’t be carried

out irrespective of the bridge project?

MR LISTER: Why it wouldn’t be carried out?

25

MR MILNE: Why it couldn’t be.

MR CAMERON: That is extending the hypothetical to the point that it is - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Well no. Does he know of any reason? He can say yes or 30

no. If he knows of a good reason why it could be. If he know of no

reason why it couldn’t be. He doesn’t know.

MR CAMERON: Sir, but that is to extend a hypothetical to the point that it is

endeavouring to give a different colour entirely. 35

CHAIRPERSON: Well no he gave an answer. His answer was you’re putting

the cart before the horse.

MR CAMERON: Yes. 40

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Milne is simply saying well why can’t you put the

cart before the horse? Is there any reason why you can’t? Do you

know of any reason?

45


MR LISTER: I don’t know of any reason why it can’t be hypothetical, but I

can think of scenarios in which it might not happen. For instance - - -

MR MILNE: The crèche is being shifted isn’t it?

5

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR MILNE: As part of the other project.

MR LISTER: Yes. 10

MR MILNE: And this area is under the control of the Agency isn’t it?

MR LISTER: Yes. And normally in my experience with highway projects

when land is no longer required for a transport function the Agency 15

often seeks to sell it. And I’ve got no idea what the Agency’s

intentions might be with this land, but I imagine that is one potential

scenario.

MR MILNE: Mr Lister, just one more hypothetical which is if this proposal 20

was declined and if the Agency had to consider other means of dealing

with public transport and congestion issues here this area could still be

used as part of the mitigation for those works couldn’t it?

MR LISTER: Yes it could. 25

MR MILNE: So moving away from that area to another topic area and they’re

not intended to be exclusive. These are two areas which seem to have

some importance. That is the appreciation of the journey. The

appreciation in this case of the journey up Kent Terrace, around the 30

Ellice Street corner, into Dufferin Street and down to Government

House and into Government House entrance. And I want you to put

yourself in the mind’s eye of a visiting dignitary taking that route or

equally a visitor to Wellington taking that route.

35

And equally there’s another journey which is the journey which

thousands of motorists a day will take. Up Kent Terrace and around

into the tunnel entrance. Do you agree that those are both important

journeys?

40

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR MILNE: And you’ve agreed there are experiential values involved in

amenity assessment, landscape assessment, people experience the

journey don’t they? 45


MR LISTER: Yes, they do.

MR MILNE: And are you familiar – or I understand you hadn’t seen the

Truescape dry fire until yesterday. Is that correct?

5

MR LISTER: That’s correct.

MR MILNE: And when you viewed that did you view it from the direction of

people coming up Kent Terrace and undertaking that journey I’ve just

discussed? 10

MR LISTER: Yes I looked at all the - - -

MR MILNE: Could we get that up on the screen please? Just before we turn

to that, you discussed – it may seem like I’m going to different topics, 15

sir, but I’m coming back to this.

[10.54 am]

You discussed limitations in terms of the Truescape imagery or 20

imagery of that type didn’t you and the fact that they’re simply tools.

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR MILNE: And equally the same applies to these video simulations doesn’t 25

it?

MR LISTER: That’s right.

MR MILNE: Yes. In terms of the Truescape images that are before the Board 30

I didn’t entirely understand what – you seem to have a concern about

those images. They were done in a different way from what you would

normally use as I understood it. Is that correct?

MR LISTER: The scale that they are reproduced at is smaller than I consider 35

best practice. In the A3 format.

MR MILNE: But do you agree that the appropriate way to use those

Truescape images or images of this type – let’s go back to what you

just said. The normal size is what – it’s about this big isn’t it? About 40

the size of a large trout.

MR LISTER: Yes, super A1.

MR MILNE: Mr Lister what is the normal size for these types of viewing 45

images?


MR LISTER: The Truescape images - - -

MR MILNE: No, for what you would normally use.

5

MR LISTER: Different people use different formats. The format that my

practice uses is a double A3 format because we consider that gives the

best balance between field of view and what can be printed at the right

scale for a good reading distance.

10

MR MILNE: And with that size image what’s the appropriate distance to hold

the image – to make it as realistic as possible to what the eye has seen?

MR LISTER: In the format that my practice uses it’s 400 millimetres.

15

MR MILNE: And in the format that Truescape is using?

MR LISTER: I think it’s 240 millimetres from memory.

MR MILNE: And do you agree that in using that tool the most appropriate 20

use for it or the most useful use for those images is to take them out

into the environment, stand at the viewpoint, hold the image at the

appropriate distance and compare what the eye is seeing with what the

image is showing. Do you agree?

25

MR LISTER: Yes. And if you do do that with the Truescape images the scale

becomes self-evident.

MR MILNE: And there are difficulties aren’t there with viewing these images

on screens such as this or on a laptop or on an IPad because you can’t – 30

you’re not viewing them appropriately and against the context of what

the eye is actually seeing.

MR LISTER: That’s right and I mean – in saying that, but that’s the most

appropriate way to view the images. I mean in reality we look at them 35

in our offices on desks that’s actually how it’s mostly done and then

you rely on that when you go out in the real world and make your

assessments. So they are only a tool and I think you have to be quite

conscious of that when you’re using them. So not to overly rely on

photographs or videos or other tools such as that. 40

MR MILNE: So if you were giving advice to the Board as to how best to use

those images at particular locations that may have been discussed

during the hearing, let’s say over Kent Terrace looking towards the

Carillon which was one of the viewpoints that was discussed with 45

Ms Popova that would be the most useful thing to do, to have the image


at the appropriate viewing distance to compare it with what the eye is

in fact seeing. Do you agree?

MR LISTER: With the Truescape images one useful way would be to view

them as they’ve intended them to be viewed in the full size and on their 5

stand.

[10.59 am]

And that’s another appropriate way to use them out in the field and if 10

they are being used at one’s desk to be quite conscious – in this

particular instance to be conscious that they are printed at a smaller

scale than would represent reality at a reasonable viewing distance.

Because it’s very hard – I can’t read at 240 millimetres. It’s just too

close. So just to be conscious of that. Take that into consideration. 15

MR MILNE: So what you’ve just said in effect is there are limitations looking

at these images in an environment such as this without being in the

actual physical environment.

20

MR LISTER: Yes. You have to do both.

MR MILNE: And there are limitations aren’t there in terms of looking at

these images on the screen. There are additional limitations in doing

that? 25

MR LISTER: Yes on the screen they don’t have the same resolution that they

do when they’re printed.

MR MILNE: And in your assessment in coming to your conclusions in your 30

evidence did you take the Truescape images and take them out to the

relevant viewpoints and compare them in that way?

MR LISTER: No I didn’t. I viewed them and then I went out on site. So I

rely on my understanding moving around on site. 35

MR MILNE: Is it your understanding that Ms Popova also didn’t carry out

that exercise?

CHAIRPERSON: He can’t answer for her. 40

MR LISTER: I’m not aware.

MR MILNE: So moving back to the journey. If we could just bring that up.

So it’s the journey up – correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think we have 45


the journey under the underpass around to Dufferin Street do we? We

just have going up the ramp? We have both, okay.

So if we could deal with the first one which is someone going around –

coming up Kent Terrace and around into Dufferin Street. Is it possible 5

to slow that down or is it just at one speed? Thank you. And if we

could just take it back and run it again and if you could stop it at the

point which is where Ms Popova took her visual, or where the visual

simulations are. I’ll try. Just stop there. You would agree that in that

image Mr Lister the bridge is highly visible as is the green screen? 10

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR MILNE: And the Northern Gateway Building. And that’s a narrow field

of vision from the driver’s perspective. We have some visual 15

simulations which I’ve discussed with Ms Popova looking across to the

Carillon which is what a pedestrian or cyclist might be seeing. Do you

agree?

MR LISTER: Yes. 20

MR MILNE: And they too are undertaking a journey and a slower journey.

Do you agree that throughout that journey until one goes under – that

journey and that’s obviously only a part of a longer journey – until one

goes under the flyover and comes out the other side into Dufferin Street 25

the flyover and the Northern Gateway Building are dominating that

journey and that experience?

MR LISTER: Yes.

30

MR MILNE: And if we could just go to the other drive by which is the drive

by going up the ramp to the tunnel.

[11.04 am]

35

Do you agree, Mr Lister, that all but the last six or seven seconds of

that clip, the flyover and the pedestrian cycle bridge and in some cases

the Northern Gateway Building were dominating the experience?

MR LISTER: Yes. In paragraph 5.3 of my evidence I cover these aspects. I 40

say that the bridge will erode some of the spatial definition of the Basin

Reserves perimeter streets introduce a different curvilinear highway

character in contrast with the underlying grid and the bridge will also

be a dominant structure and will adversely affect street level in its

vicinity. 45


And then in the next paragraph I go on to provide more detail,

specifically in the northeast corner that we were just talking about, so

referring there again to the curvilinear alignment at that place and the

wider footprint because of the two bridges that were – the fact that the

bridges splay apart – the diminishing headroom and the fact that that 5

alignment will prevent the reinstatement of what had previously been

the spatial definition on that edge of the Basin Reserve.

MR MILNE: And I had a discussion with Ms Popova about the difference

between how people perceive and remember the environment or the 10

landscape, the townscape, depending upon whether they are moving or

stationary, and if they’re moving, depending upon the speed at which

they are moving. You would appreciate that - - -

MR LISTER: Yes. 15

MR MILNE: - - - or understand that, wouldn’t you?

MR LISTER: Yes.

20

MR MILNE: And she agreed that people moving through in a car, for

example, or at greater speed will focus more on form and structure

rather than matters of detail such as ground planting and tile patters etc.

Do you agree?

25

MR LISTER: People travelling in a vehicle will concentrate on less detail

than on foot but I don’t accept that they will therefore not focus on

matters such as landscaping and other matters like that.

MR MILNE: Both you and Ms Popova refer to the concept of memorability 30

and you deal with that in your evidence and you talk about memorable

form at paragraph 3.7 and following of your evidence.

MR LISTER: Yes, it comes into those factors – it comes into a number of

different aspects, in particular mental maps at 3.14 as well. 35

MR MILNE: Yes, and the thousands of people a day who use those routes

currently have a mental map and a memory of that area and with the

bridge they will have a different memory and experience, won’t they?

40

MR LISTER: Yes, it will differ in some aspects.

MR MILNE: And as is clearly illustrated by those two video clips the

difference in memory will be that at least that part of the journey will

be dominated by roading infrastructure and a new building, the 45


Northern Gateway Building, which is blocking out sky and views to the

hills. Do you agree?

MR LISTER: Yes, and opening up views into the bright green pitch of the

Basin Reserve, which will appear like a pool of light, if you like. 5

[11.09 am]

MR MILNE: Is there an image which shows that?

10

MR LISTER: It was apparent in the drive through that we were just looking

at.

MR MILNE: Maybe if we could just get the drive through up again and show

me where we see the bright green? You tell us where to pause. 15

MR LISTER: Well, it’s evidence in the whole sequence up until now.

MR MILNE: So you’re talking about the removal of the current Dempster

Gate, which is a heritage feature, and the removal of parts of the fence 20

to open up that area. Is that right?

MR LISTER: Yes, the Dempster Gate of course is not visible in that

particular sequence because it’s - - -

25

MR MILNE: And neither - - -

MR LISTER: - - - opposite Cambridge Terrace.

MR MILNE: Neither of those things – that is, removal of the fence or 30

removal of the Dempster Gate – are necessary parts of the project, are

they? They’re not necessary to build a flyover?

MR LISTER: They are not necessary but they are part of the project.

35

MR MILNE: Thank you, Mr Lister.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Milne. Shall we take the morning tea

adjournment now? Mr Jones, we’ll take the morning tea adjournment

and then give you the floor after that. 40

MR JONES: Thank you, sir.

ADJOURNED [11.11 am]

45

RESUMED [11.32 am]


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Jones.

MR MILNE: Yes, Mr Milne, yes, thank you.

5

MR JONES: Before I start could we pull up the drive-through going south that

we were viewing before the break and I will just call out when to stop.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONES [11.32 am]

10

MR JONES: First of all, Mr Lister, I want to turn to your evidence-in-chief

and I am referring here to 5.8 on page 19.

You say there, you say, “As discussed structures of different length and

design are proposed within the application envelope to screen views of 15

the bridge from within the Basin Reserve. The extent to which

structures are 45, 55 or 65 metres are necessary for playing cricket is

outside my expertise. However, in amenity terms, the 65 metre options

which would provide the greatest screening from within the Reserve.

Such structures in conjunction with the additional pohutukawa trees 20

proposed on the embankment on the north-east corner would screen

most views of the bridge from within the central part of the grounds.

The remaining views will be glimpses through the trees and I believe

that that image is an interpretation of where those trees will be.”

25

In her, under cross-examination, Ms Wraight said that the trees would

offer only partial screening and that even this screening would take

between five to 10 years after construction ceases to reach its full

extent. And I should say that that is hearing transcript A31, pages 3580

to 81. 30

Given that Ms Wraight has stated this, would you agree that in fact,

there would be considerably more than glimpses of traffic on the

flyover, visible from (a) the playing service, and (b) spectator areas?

35

MR LISTER: I think Ms Wraight is probably the person to give the most

accurate evidence on that matter given that she is the one who has

prepared the design. But my understanding is that there would be just

glimpses, and in coming to that conclusion, I have looked at the trees

which are to be transplanted – I have looked at where the gaps are on 40

the embankment, and the manner in which those are proposed to be

filled by transplanting trees.

Perhaps we should go to the plan. There is a plan which numbers the

trees which are to be transplanted and locates them. I am having some 45

difficulty finding it.


CHAIRPERSON: Just while we are looking for that, Mr Cameron, is that the

55 metre building in that video?

MR CAMERON: Sorry, I wasn’t listening, sorry. 5

CHAIRPERSON: In the video?

MR CAMERON: 65, sir.

10

CHAIRPERSON: That is the 65?

MR CAMERON: That goes to the edge of - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is the 65? 15

MR CAMERON: That is 65.

MR McMAHON: And all of the video images are based on 65?

20

MR CAMERON: They are all based on 65.

MR McMAHON: Thank you.

MR LISTER: Sorry, I am going to just confirm with Ms Wedde just in case I 25

give the wrong answer, that is my understanding, and that is correct.

[11.37 am]

MR CAMERON: I think the key to look for, sorry, I don’t think I need to refer 30

that.

CHAIRPERSON: It is 5A.01 I think you are looking for, Mr Lister, the

overall landscape plan.

35

MR LISTER: There is a plan that I have seen that identifies precisely which

trees are to be located to precisely which location.

MR COLLINS: 5A.03, the next one in.

40

MR LISTER: Ah yes.

CHAIRPERSON: 5A.03?

MR LISTER: Yes, I have got that. 45


CHAIRPERSON: It shows you the transplanted trees?

MR LISTER: Yes, and that cross references to, so the numbers there cross

reference to plan 5A.12. So for instance, on plan 5A.03, maybe it is

easier if I point to the plan, there is a tree that is labelled, RAE, for 5

relocated 02 - - -

The existing screening on the embankment is pretty good with the

existing trees but there are some gaps. The main gap is this one here - -

- 10

CHAIRPERSON: Can you identify it please for the record?

MR LISTER: It is in the location of the relocated tree numbered number 2, so

RE 02. 15

And the tree that is proposed to be transplanted to that location to fill

that gap is an existing tree which is identified on plan 5A.13, sorry

5A.12. So that is that tree there, so that tree which is reasonably large,

is to be transplanted over here and the two smaller trees that are 20

existing there at the moment are going to be transplanted so there is a

leap frogging arrangement done, and I understand, that the purpose of

that is to maximise that screening around the (INDISTINCT 4.38).

So there will be glimpses through the trees as I said, but they will be 25

glimpses.

MR JONES: Just before I move off this point. So as you have said, Ms Wraight

is the primary expert in the area of plantings, to it would be reasonable

for the Board to continue to refer to her evidence and her points made 30

under cross-examination about plantings?

MR LISTER: Yes.

[11.42 am] 35

MR JONES: Thank you, for that. I would like to turn to the evidence of Mr

Martin Sneddon, specifically his 1.23C which is on page 6 of his

evidence. In that point he says, “The motion of cars on the Basin

Bridge will not be regular and predictable. Unless full mitigation is 40

provided, traffic will periodically and irregularly pass through a

batsman’s line of sight in the gap between the Northern Gateway

Building and the foliage on the bank.” Moving an eye for direction is

obviously incorrect in this case.

45


“The sudden appearance of fast moving vehicles against a stationary

background, the sky, will be much more pronounced and distracting

than the slight and continuous movement of a crowd when viewed for a

distance.”

5

Would you agree that what you refer to as glimpses through the trees,

could also be described as the sudden appearance of vehicles against

the sky?

MR LISTER: Yes, I haven’t read the cricketing evidence and it is outside my 10

area of expertise, so - - -

MR JONES: I appreciate that, I am purely asking whether that would be, in

your view, an equivalent description of the same phenomenon?

15

MR LISTER: I would call it glimpses of traffic through the trees.

MR BAINES: Excuse me, Mr Jones, could you just please give me that

paragraph number in Sneddon that you refer to?

20

MR JONES: That is Mr Sneddon’s evidence-in-chief 1.23 paragraph C.

MR BAINES: Thank you, very much.

MR LISTER: Can we just bring the photo sim from the centre of the Basin 25

Reserve up on screen perhaps. Sorry, what is the number?

MS WEDDE: 7B.45.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to put that on - - - 30

MR LISTER: The point that I was wanting to make is that one of the benefits

of the green screen is that it provides a backdrop against the sky so that

the vehicles will be seen against a backdrop rather than against the sky.

35

MR JONES: Just to clarify, the green screen is on the far side the proposed

flyover at the Basin Reserve?

MR LISTER: Yes, it will provide a backdrop is what I am saying.

40

MR JONES: Yes.

MR LISTER: The vehicles will still be visible but rather than being against

the sky, they would be seen against that backdrop of the green screen

which, you know, will reduce their prominence to some extent. 45


MR JONES: I will refer briefly here to 7B.45 since we have it up, and

unfortunately, it is not an easy image to see under these light

conditions, I think it is clearer in the plan set itself, that to the right of

the proposed 65 metre Northern Gateway Building which is shown in

this picture, there is an area of the flyover which is visible and there 5

are, at least as shown in this image, some trees blocking parts of the

gap, I should say partially blocking it since obviously there would be

glimpses through the foliage.

But there are also sections which are not screened from the position 10

within the Basin Reserve shown, and of course, a couple of things to

bear in mind here is this is shown in the condition of low light on the

flyover and also that no vehicles are shown.

So in your opinion, does this represent an accurate representation of 15

what the view from this particular position within the Basin Reserve

would be to the right hand side that the proposed 65 metre Northern

Gateway Building?

[11.47 am] 20

MR LISTER: This is my understanding of what it would look like. I have

relied on Truescape to produce that image accurately.

MR JONES: Thank you. So to confirm there it’s clearly shown that there are 25

portions that will be visible. Now Mr Sneddon also mentions in his

evidence and I’ll find the reference. Yes it’s 1.23(d) in his evidence.

He refers here to Mr Sanderson’s evidence. “As Mr Sanderson notes

emergency vehicles and sunlight flashes on windows could exacerbate

the distraction potential of traffic movement”. “Should a speeding 30

truck appear in the gap alongside the pavilion and sunlight reflect off

the truck onto the playing field” and I guess it doesn’t have to be a

truck “and this occurs around the time the bowler is delivering a ball

there is a real risk of the batsman being distracted”. And I should say

here that Mr Sneddon has also dealt with the risk of distraction of 35

fielders but he’s not dealing with that in this particular point.

So I wanted to ask has the applicant conducted any studies or done any

analysis of the expected incidence of sunlight reflecting from vehicles

travelling on the proposed flyover reflecting onto the playing surface? 40

MR CAMERON: This witness won’t know the answer to that. I can tell you

that. I don’t believe he will know the answer to that. I need to tell the

Board this. Because it’s a matter that’s been troubling me overnight.

This is an issue that has emerged from cross-examination that has been 45

occurring in the last two or three days. And yes there have been such


studies done or a study done. An assessment one. And I think that in

all of the circumstances it may now be necessary for me to lead

evidence on the point and I’m turning that over in my mind, given the

way in which the issue has emerged because it hasn’t been advanced as

an evidential issue but it’s rather something that is developing out of 5

cross-examination. As I understand the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Well okay, thank you for that.

MR CAMERON: I don’t want Mr Jones to be left with Mr Lister’s answer 10

which actually is unhelpful to him - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Well we haven’t heard Mr Lister’s answer yet.

MR CAMERON: He gave me a very knowing no I don’t know. 15

CHAIRPERSON: Well he’s not meant to. He’s not meant to have any

communication with counsel during cross-examination and that

includes body language communication.

20

MR CAMERON: I thought it was entirely appropriate in the circumstances,

sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway did you hear that Mr Jones.

25

MR JONES: Yes certainly and naturally I look forward if the decision is

made to bring that into evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: And we’ll see if Mr Lister has anything to add to that?

30

MR LISTER: No, I’ve got no idea.

MR JONES: Now just a couple more things. I would like to move on now to

your rebuttal evidence at 4.15. In response to Mr Reid’s, Ms

McCready’s and Ms Poff’s comments about the replacement of any 35

new building within the Basin Reserve and in particular to the

suggestion that any new building should be placed in the southwest

corner you say, “while I acknowledge the undesirability of closing off

the historical spatial connection between Kent Cambridge Terraces and

the Basin Reserve my understanding is the Northern Gateway Building 40

would nevertheless be in a sensible location in terms of the Basin

Reserve’s internal order. It would be sub-parallel to the wicket”.

Like you say a building in the southwest corner would be side on to the

wicket which I understand is not the most desirable angle. So I don’t 45

understand the term “sub-parallel”. What do you mean when you say


that the Northern Gateway Building would be “sub-parallel to the

wicket”?

MR LISTER: Well by that I mean it won’t be exactly on the – looking

directly along. It will be off at a slight angle. That’s what I mean by 5

the term.

MR JONES: Thank you. Perhaps this is – I’ll ask the question anyway. I

realise it may be going outside your area of expertise. Are you familiar

with the fact that in most major international cricket grounds which 10

happily we can call the Basin Reserve viewing positions for

particularly the players who generally end on to the pitch rather than

partially or completely side on to the pitch?

MR LISTER: That is outside my area of expertise. 15

MR JONES: Thank you, I’ll take that up again with the cricket witnesses.

Now I just want to draw your attention to the evidence of Mr Jason

Wells. (ph 4.55) And I’m referring here to his evidence 4.3 on page 4.

20

[11.52 am]

He says, “crucial to the maintenance of international cricket status” and

I think he’s referring here – this is his evidence about mitigation.

“Crucial to the maintenance of international cricket status will be 25

screening of traffic on the bridge from the Basin. Should mitigation

involve a building it should be noted that a modern player lounge with

media facilities and covered seating is potentially crucial to

maintaining the international status of the ground. The best locations

for such a lounge is at either end of the pitch looking directly down the 30

pitch. Not across it”.

And I should add here that Mr Wells is a former first class cricketer.

So do you disagree that the proposed Northern Gateway Building

would be looking across the pitch rather than being at one end of the 35

pitch?

MR LISTER: No, it would be at one end of the pitch. Not exactly at the end,

but sub-parallel is the term that I’ve used.

40

MR JONES: So even as it’s extent you would still say it is sub-parallel?

MR LISTER: Yes. It’s not side on to the pitch.

MR JONES: The final area I’d like to cover in your evidence is in 6.5(d) 45

design execution. That’s on page 29. In which you say, “the new

87


Northern Gateway Building design or alternate Gateway structure is

understated and subordinate to the R A Vance Stand but will have a

civic character. It’s in keeping with the character of the Basin Reserve

as a cricket ground and will effectively avoid remedy or mitigate

effects of the Basin bridge within the Basin Reserve”. 5

Now it’s already been stated and I heard you restate the point this

morning so I won’t belabour it that you’ve agreed in the BB75 joint

witness statement on urban design landscape and visual – you have

agreed with the points made in that at point 45 regarding the adverse 10

effects of building a Northern Gateway Building at the Basin Reserve.

I’ll pull that up if necessary. Perhaps you should pull up the joint

witness statement BB75?

CHAIRPERSON: What paragraph? 15

MR JONES: So it’s paragraph 45 on pages 10 to 11. That’s the one, yes

thank you. 45. Right now I just want to check there’s a number of

points here which you’ve already been referred to about including

adverse effects of the proposed Northern Gateway Building. I just 20

want to check that you were one of the witnesses who agreed to this

point.

MR LISTER: Well the point is that we agreed that these are potential effects

of the Northern Gateway Building not that they are actual effects so the 25

whole joint witness statement has lists of potential effects that the

witnesses couldn’t agree on, or they couldn’t agree on whether they

were positive or negative or the significance of the effects.

MR JONES: You did agree however – you were among those however who 30

agreed - - -

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR JONES: - - - that these were potential effects. 35

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR JONES: Yes okay. And if we just move - - -

40

MR LISTER: But in terms of actual effects I’d refer to my evidence which is

- - -

MR JONES: Certainly, thank you. If we move just down slightly to point 46

in the joint witness statement. So again you’re in agreement with the 45


statement here that if a bridge is declined by the Board there should be

no Northern Gateway Building?

MR LISTER: Yes.

5

MR JONES: And in point 47, just going down one more, where there are

different points were signed up by different experts, you were among

the group who said that a 65 metre Northern Gateway Building was

preferable and one of the reasons for that was it would provide optimal

screening of the bridge. Is that correct? 10

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR JONES: And how do you define “optimal” in that context6?

15

MR LISTER: Well in that context it’s in the – it’s compared to the other

options. So - - -

MR JONES: “Optimal” screening does not mean the same thing as full

screening. Is that correct? 20

[11.57 am]

MR LISTER: Yes, I am not saying that it is going to screen everything, as I

have already said in evidence, there will be glimpses of traffic 25

remaining.

MR JONES: Right, so just to clarify, your view of the various mitigation

options under discussion which include the 45 metre, 55 metre, 65

metre NGB, and includes screening on the proposed flyover, the 65 30

metre option for NGB option provides optimal - - sorry, I will restate it.

The 65 metre NGB would provide, in your view, the best screening out

of those proposed options?

MR LISTER: That’s right. 35

MR JONES: (INDISTINCT 0.42). I just want to go back – so we have

established that there are a number of effects from the construction of

the Northern Gateway Building. I think I am right, that I have heard

you agree that some of those effects are adverse. 40

The point I would like to put to you is that in fact, the 65 metre

Northern Gateway Building which has a number of adverse options,

would in fact provide only partial mitigation of the view of traffic on

the flyover from the playing surface at the Basin Reserve. 45


Would you agree with that?

MR LISTER: Well, it is not full mitigation, that’s correct, but partial suggests

that it is only a small part that will be mitigated and I think it provides

substantial screening of the bridge. 5

MR JONES: So it provides substantial screening. I just have one further

question, and this has to be a hypothetical question. If it were proposed

that the Basin had to be completely screened from the flyover so that

there were no views possible from the playing surface, any point of the 10

playing surface, of the proposed flyover, would you accept that this is

not a proposal that is before the Board at this time.

Would you regard that as optimal screening?

15

MR LISTER: Sorry, can you repeat that.

MR JONES: What I am suggesting is, it has been established that the

currently proposed screening take in together the various measures, do

not provide full screening from all points on the playing surface of the 20

moving traffic on the flyover.

MR LISTER: Right.

MR JONES: In your view and taking into account the urban design heritage 25

and landscape effects of the results, would it be a better option to have

full screening of the playing surface from the flyover so that no views

of traffic on the flyover would be possible?

MR LISTER: It is hypothetical and it is involving a number of different 30

aspects, some of which are outside my expertise. If you were to

provide full screening, there are different ways in which that might be

done and you would have to consider those on their own merit.

One way would be encircle the whole ground in a grandstand, for 35

instance, grounds such as the MCG are, that would be one approach.

The other would be to relook at the whole concept of the bridge and

design one in which the traffic is enclosed within a structure, so rather

than the pared back concept that has been promoted by the designers,

you would go to more of a statement type bridge and once again, 40

Melbourne comes to mind in terms of a couple of examples over there,

so I think you would have to consider that – you would have to have

some more details in which to make a sensible comment on that.

I would say that one of the nice things about the Basin Reserve is the 45

green banks and I would not like to see those disappear, and also I offer


the comment as a non-cricket aficionado that one of the characteristics

of the Basin Reserve is the fact that it is in a roundabout and it is

circled by traffic and at the moment you can see glimpses of traffic

moving around the perimeter of the grounds, and if you are listening to

cricket at the Basin Reserve, one of the clues that it is at the Basin 5

Reserve is that you can hear the horns and the sirens and the noise of

traffic circling it, so it is part of the character of the Basin Reserve as

well.

[12.02 pm] 10

MR JONES: One more point of clarification there. You quite correctly, you

can see traffic from various points of the spectator areas, such as the

top of the bank where you sit, is it your opinion that it is currently

possible to view traffic from the playing surface? 15

MR LISTER: Yes, even out in the middle of the playing surface you can see

glimpses of traffic on Sussex Street for instance.

MR JONES: But it is not normally in the batsman’s eye line? 20

MR LISTER: No, that would be side on to the batsmen.

MR JONES: Okay, thank you.

25

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jones. Mr Cameron.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON [12.03 pm]

MR CAMERON: I think – sorry, I will start again. In discussion with 30

Mr Milne, he went through with you a range of issues regarding

mitigation. Do you recall that conversation?

MR LISTER: Yes.

35

MR CAMERON: Or that part of your cross-examination. And if we turn to

paragraph 6.1 – sorry, if we turn to paragraph 6.1 of your evidence-in-

chief, you summarise in that paragraph various measures which in the

third sentence of paragraph 6.1, you say will be effective in avoiding,

remedying or mitigating such effects. 40

Do you see that?

MR LISTER: Yes. I might just add there, in reflection, reading this again last

night item D is actually not a mitigation effect, it is more a factor to 45


take into account when assessing effects because they involve things

which are not part of this project.

MR CAMERON: Yes.

5

MR LISTER: So I might ask that that item be struck out.

MR CAMERON: Yes, fair point. Is the mitigation – sorry, in the context of

the discussion you were having, you made comment to Mr Milne on

the quality of that mitigation. 10

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR CAMERON: And I think you were part way through your answer in

relation to that and the topic moved on from that topic. Would you like 15

to just give us your view please, in full, regarding the quality of the

overall mitigation package please.

MR LISTER: Well, I mean, to be frank it as good as you will get, I think it is

very good mitigation and I have set out some of the reasons for that in 20

paragraph 6.5 in relation to the design execution, but I think it is – I

would summarise it as saying that the design has been carried out in a

way that is deeply understanding of the context, it has been carried out

in a way that is aware of what the potential effects are and has sought

to address them. 25

[12.07 pm]

The mitigation is integrated into the design. It’s not added on

afterwards, it’s intrinsic. The designers clearly sought to address every 30

detail of the design so there’s been an attention paid to things. And I’d

add that the designers involved, from my view as competitors of ours,

have got an eye – they’re people in particular that I respect because

they’ve got an eye for design and a tenacity that they won’t give up on

– sometimes to their own detriment. But they won’t give up on 35

pushing the design.

And I think also that it’s clear that when you look back at the principles

and the bridging the gap document which sets out 10 principles for

design this project clearly meets nine of those principles. So the first 40

nine. The one that it doesn’t meet is the one that calls for low

maintenance and I think that’s appropriate in a context like this.

MR LISTER: And I think for the Board’s reference you’re referring to the

document which is in the bundle as document number 8/61 and the 45


principles that you’re referring to can be found on pages or in section 3

of that document. Gosh it’s hard to read the page numbers on this.

MR McMAHON: Mr Cameron you were going to provide the Board with an

A3 version of that document I believe. 5

MR CAMERON: Yes, I thought I had.

MR McMAHON: You may have. I may have lost it. I hadn’t seen it.

10

MR CAMERON: Here it is. Sorry, I really thought that that had been handed

out. So if we turn to page 25.

CHAIRPERSON: It’s been bound back to front unfortunately.

15

MR CAMERON: I’ll have it rebound. It was done in a hurry I know that. So

at section 3 from pages 25 through to 39 and you’ve referred to 10

principles and all but the last one, number 10, achieving a low

maintenance design, you say has been achieved in this instance.

20

MR LISTER: Yes there are some – particularly the ones at the top end.

Moving down to things like designing with nature and in this instance

that’s a relatively minor consideration but it has still been addressed

through the use of the rain gardens and the references to the original

context of the Waitangi lagoon and so on. 25

CHAIRPERSON: I’ll give you that back. It’s impossible to read. It’s bound

from the back and every second page is upside down.

[12.12 pm] 30

MR CAMERON: As your Honour pleases. Can we just work through it in

terms of pages 25 to 39, sir. Just while I’ve got the witness here and

I’ll have it redone?

35

CHAIRPERSON: It makes it hard enough doing this case as it is without this

sort of thing.

MR CAMERON: So we’ve got page 25 – let me make it easier, Mr Lister.

You’ve referred to the 10 principles that are on pages 25 to 39. Are 40

there any that you would like to discuss in detail or do you feel that the

answer encapsulates what you’re wanting to convey without having to

take the Board through the document itself?

CHAIRPERSON: Page 25 has 10 principles set out. 45


MR CAMERON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then if we turn the page upside down and look at the

next page we can start seeing how they worked and if we go to the next

page and we turn it upside down like this and that’s just ridiculous. 5

MR LISTER: So I don’t intend to - - -

CHAIRPERSON: We don’t expect you to do that Mr Lister.

10

MR LISTER: So for those principles designing for context I think that’s – I

think the design clearly expresses that. Integrating transport and land

use. That’s been done through the project as a whole but specifically

things like the building under the bridge and so on through the others.

They’re contributing to good urban form. All modes of movement. 15

Supporting community. Cohesion and connectivity. Respecting the

cultural heritage values. That’s relatively minor but it has been dealt

with. Designing with nature and positive road user experience.

MR CAMERON: Yes. 20

MR LISTER: So the designers addressed those aspects.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think there has been any criticism of the design itself

by anyone. I think most witnesses have accepted from my reading of it 25

that the design is as good as you could expect in the circumstances. It’s

whether or the design sufficiently mitigates is the issue I think.

MR CAMERON: I think Ms Webber is coming later and does comment

specifically on the point whether this design would be the one that you 30

would choose in these circumstances. I’ll just check that - - -

CHAIRPERSON: That’s a different issue isn’t it?

MR CAMERON: I think that generally speaking your Honour is right. But 35

there are – it’s not embraced quite as wholeheartedly as the applicant

would like. I don’t want to put - - -

CHAIRPERSON: And you’re taking the precautionary principle into account

aren’t you? 40

MR CAMERON: Probably and whether I’m correct in doing so in these

circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: You only get one opportunity, yes. 45


MR CAMERON: Indeed.

MR LISTER: I just made a reference before to paragraph 6.5. It should have

been 6.3 when I was setting out the part of my evidence that gives

background to the design quality. 5

MR CAMERON: Yes. All right. Now in your opinion - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before we go on. I presume Mr Lister these

values or principles have been carried through into the urban landscape 10

design framework?

MR LISTER: Similar.

CHAIRPERSON: Principles. 15

MR LISTER: Yes. Sorry, I’m at cross purposes. Yes in terms of the design

framework and I address that in paragraph 6.2 and following, yes.

MR CAMERON: Now my learned friend, Mr Milne, put it to you that there 20

were elements for example of this mitigation package that were not

necessary to build a flyover, that was the question. Is the mitigation in

your opinion however necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate the

adverse effects of building a flyover?

25

MR LISTER: Yes, clearly.

[12.17 pm]

MR CAMERON: And you were also asked a question relevant to the issue of 30

adverse effects and I think that arose out of a discussion in terms of the

first paragraph of your conclusion 9.1. And you added in answer to

Mr Milne - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry what paragraph was that? 35

MR CAMERON: 9.1. You inserted the word or added the word or

acknowledged that some effects may be significant.

MR LISTER: Yes. 40

MR CAMERON: And so what were you intending to convey in the context of

that paragraph and the addition of that word by that answer?

MR LISTER: By “significant” – the way I would use the word – the way I do 45

use the word “insignificant” is that it’s anything more than minor so


anything that consideration should be given to. In this instance the

range of effects – the scale of effects varies so there are some situations

in which the effects are high, in particular in relation to residents on

Ellice Street for instance and other instances in which the effects are

moderate and so on. 5

And so to put that in context of my conclusions it would be to say to

the Board that if this project was being built just for the sake of it then

it would be unacceptable from a landscape point of view, but in the

context of the other matters, if the Board deems it is warranted taking 10

into account transport and planning evidence and so on, that the effects

would be acceptable.

MR CAMERON: Mr Baines wishes to follow up on this and - - -

15

MR BAINES: Could I please?

MR CAMERON: Absolutely.

MR BAINES: Twice you used it – once just now and once previously to a 20

question by Mr Milne this morning you’ve used - - -

MR CAMERON: You wanted to ask the question then and I - - -

MR BAINES: - - - you used the phrase and it’s just jumped out of my head. 25

You used – you qualified or you said in your response if this – there’s a

key phrase in there and I just wondered what you mean by it. It’s to do

with – you used - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Being built just for the sake of it. 30

MR BAINES: Just for the sake of it. What do you mean by “just for the sake

of it”?

MR LISTER: Well it comes back to questions that are levelled at witnesses 35

all the time about being seen to be relying on other things to justify

effects. So for instance a question “are you relying on transport

evidence in order to justify landscape effects” and an answer I gave to

one of the questions was that landscape matters don’t exist in a

vacuum. They have a context and that is the reason that I insert 40

paragraphs that just refer to my understanding of what those other

matters are. I’m not making an overall judgement on that myself, but

am providing the context in which my assessment might be understood.

MR CAMERON: Can I assist – and tell me if I – when you used the phrase 45

“just for the sake of it” in doing so are you drawing a connection


between – are you drawing a connection between the issue of the need

for the work on the one hand and the effect of the outcome on the

other?

[12.22 pm] 5

MR LISTER: Yes, I am just putting it in context.

MR CAMERON: You are putting it in that context?

10

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR CAMERON: And are you endeavouring to convey and I think this is

reflected in the joint witness statement as well, that in the absence of

that need for the structure, that the outcome or the proposal in your 15

view, should not be granted?

MR LISTER: That is exactly my mind, yes.

MR BAINES: Thank you very much. 20

MR CAMERON: That is what you are endeavouring to convey, isn’t it?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, could you repeat that last question?

25

MR CAMERON: In the absence of the need for the project, is it your evidence

that it should not otherwise be granted?

MR LISTER: Yes.

30

MR CAMERON: That was the question. Was that the question, Mr McMahon?

MR McMAHON: It was and I think we can break that down to its crudest

element, if need goes to positive effects, and the other equation is, if

effects on the adverse side – it is how do we come out on the other side 35

of the ledger, when you compare positive effects to negative effects.

MR CAMERON: Yes, and perhaps I could leave you to explore that with

Mr Lister directly rather than having this conversation.

40

MR McMAHON: I don’t think I need to, but it is a matter that the Board

ultimately is going to have to decide in their overall evaluation under

part 2.


MR CAMERON: Yes, and indeed, if you were listening, and no doubt as you

were listening to that Mr Lister, that was really a critical element of

your conversation with Mr Milne, wasn’t it?

MR LISTER: Yes. 5

MR CAMERON: It is coming back to that whole notion of how that is to be

weighed having regard to all of the mitigation and the outcomes that

you have identified relevant to the assessment, and the way that you

have undertaken that assessment relative to need? 10

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR CAMERON: Is that a fair summary?

15

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR CAMERON: Thank you. If we come back to the 9.1 point again, is it

your opinion that assuming that need can be demonstrated, that

nonetheless, there will be some unavoidable, and I think you have 20

added the word ‘significant’ adverse effects. Is that what you were

endeavouring to convey to Mr Milne?

MR LISTER: Yes.

25

MR CAMERON: What I am asking is, so that the Board can be clear about

what you mean by that, - can you please tell us what you mean by that

in terms of how that should be understood and applied in the context of

the assessment that you have undertaken?

30

MR LISTER: The details of that are in my evidence and so you need to go

back to the part of the evidence that I discussed those. The way that I

have structured my evidence is to identify what the key characteristics

and qualities of the area are, and then to identify the main effects on

those qualities and characteristics and the extent to which the 35

mitigation would deal with it.

[12.27 pm]

MR CAMERON: So what is the - - - 40

MR LISTER: So I would add to that in my view, taking all those things into

account, the effects would be acceptable because those qualities and

characteristics will still be retained more or less within the area, so just

going back to the way that I have structured my evidence, so the Basin 45

Reserve, for instance, will remain the best little cricket ground


surrounded by a roundabout, the surroundings will still function as a

roundabout in terms of people’s mental maps and the connection

between Cambridge and Kent Terrace and the Basin Reserve, there will

still be a connection, albeit quite different to the form that it is at the

moment and so on. 5

MR CAMERON: And so this paragraph, if you like, relates back to the

analysis and the specific issues that you have analysed through your

evidence?

10

MR LISTER: Yes, yes, back to the qualities of the existing environment, how

they translate to the issues that fall out of this project and how those

effects are addressed.

MR CAMERON: Good, thank you. 15

MR McMAHON: Mr Cameron, sorry, what paragraph was that again.

CHAIRPERSON: 9.1.

20

MR McMAHON: It is 9.1, thanks.

MR CAMERON: Now in terms of the table which you completed for

Mr Milne at his request, would you please - - -

25

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think we got that, did we?

MR BAINES: Yes it is McCarthy C3.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but was it handed up? 30

MR CAMERON: Yes. At the outset it was McCarthy C3.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we did too. It was late last night.

35

MR CAMERON: C3. Can you please tell us what in your view – sorry, I will

rephrase the question please – could you please tell us what a system in

your opinion, this table may provide the Board in terms of undertaking

its role or function as a decision maker, or as the decision maker.

40

What is the purpose of this list as you see it?

MR LISTER: The purpose of the list of potential effects in the joint witness

statement as I understand it, is a scoping or almost a breakdown of

things that you might look at. So I guess that is the first point. 45


So you first of all would have to sieve that and decide what is actually

relevant and what isn’t, and also to organise them into meaningful

issues or meaningful effects. At the moment they include a lot of parts

of effects, things and there are some things that there were just

comments on, factors - - - 5

CHAIRPERSON: And some are just statements?

MR LISTER: Sorry?

10

CHAIRPERSON: Some are just statements?

MR LISTER: Just statements, so it is no more useful than a starting point to

start to identify the issues in my view.

15

CHAIRPERSON: And it is not for the others to tell the Board how to write its

decision.

MR LISTER: And it may be useful as an index to pass in my evidence where

I have addressed things, it was useful for me as an indexing tool. 20

MR CAMERON: But in terms of its wider application, sorry, but in terms of

an understanding of the effects themselves, that is to be found where,

obviously?

25

[12.32 pm]

MR LISTER: From my point of view it’s found in my evidence and if I was

undertaking an exercise with a list like this, this would be my starting

point. 30

CHAIRPERSON: It’s a useful tool to gather information if and when we need

it.

MR LISTER: Yes. 35

MR CAMERON: Now lastly you were asked some questions about a journey

to the south.

MR LISTER: Yes. 40

MR CAMERON: And obviously that was intended to be a journey that would

be undertaken by people here or visiting the city, particularly for public

occasions or to see the Governor General or someone of that level of

importance. 45


MR LISTER: Yes.

MR CAMERON: Having regard to the principles that we were discussing

earlier in bridging the gap creating a positive road user experience how

does one contextualise that issue relative to that journey if for example 5

the road were to be congested?

MR LISTER: Well the congestion would have its own adverse effects. Is

your – can you just clarify the question. Are you referring to a journey

to Government House or a - - - 10

MR CAMERON: Yes. I’m talking about - - -

CHAIRPERSON: The answer is to do what they do in Paris and just put five

Police cars in front with their sirens going and everyone stops. But 15

they’re dignitaries.

MR CAMERON: Yes for dignitaries that would be an alternative wouldn’t it.

MR LISTER: Even for ordinary people there will be some - - - 20

CHAIRPERSON: You won’t get five Police cars.

MR LISTER: - - - adverse effects on amenity as part of that journey as we

discussed earlier and that relates to a certain section of my evidence. 25

But to contextualise that it is part of a sequence of effects. It’s not

something that you suddenly pause in a particular place unless you are

stuck in traffic - - -

CHAIRPERSON: But you do get more time to look at the landscape don’t 30

you?

MR LISTER: But in terms particularly of the relationship to Government

House for instance or the relationship between Government House and

Parliament for example which is one of the matters that’s listed in the 35

list of potential effects the point is that those institutions are separated

for a reason, for a symbolic reason and that journey between them is a

journey through the city.

So you’re passing all sorts of things as you’re driving between 40

Parliament and Government House depending on which way you go.

And there comes a point on that journey where you leave the city and

go through the gates of Government House and that’s quite a marked

change and it’s another 500 metres or so up through parkland and

gardens until you get to Government House. 45


And conversely if the Governor General or anybody else is leaving

Government House by the front gates they’ll wind down through that

parkland and the point – when they reach the gates that the point at

which you emerge into the hustle and bustle of the traffic of the city.

It’s into an urban environment and then you travel through a whole 5

range of good and bad things that you will pass in making that journey.

[12.37 pm]

MR CAMERON: Given that separation between these significant institutions 10

that you were discussing and having regard to the issue that I’ve raised

which is one of congestion what relevance does that have to the notion

of – or to the importance of accessibility between these two elements

within our nation’s fabric.

15

MR LISTER: I’d be reluctant to over-egg that particular point. If the

congestion decreases around the Basin Reserve because of the project

and the amenity is improved to a small extent around that south-eastern

part of the Basin Reserve then that journey will become a little more

pleasant perhaps. But weighed in the context of the effects of the 20

flyover as well.

MR CAMERON: Indeed and that’s a fair answer. Thank you. I have no

further questions.

25

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much Mr Cameron. Mr McMahon?

MR McMAHON: Thank you, sir. Good morning Mr Lister. I just have one

question for you. And it relates to your paragraph 1.5 of your

evidence-in-chief. And here you set out your scope of your evidence 30

and you touch on your role and you say that you were engaged to

provide an independent review of the design quality of the Basin bridge

project landscape components. And I know you’ve taken questions

before. I’m interested in the word “review”. You seem to have

qualified that word during the course of your examination and the 35

words that I’ve heard you use were the words “over view”. “Review”

has a particular connotation. You’ve gone to pains to make it clear that

it’s not a peer review.

MR LISTER: No, it’s not a peer review. I’ve used the word “over view” later 40

in the paragraph in terms of my evidence.

MR McMAHON: Yes.

MR LISTER: So my evidence is intended as overview evidence. The review 45

aspect of it relates to the design quality and I’ve addressed that in my


evidence as well. But to add to that before I was engaged to give

evidence I was asked to look at the design in its draft form. Not in a

peer review role and I’m not sure that the designers knew that I was

doing that, but I was asked what do you think of this design? Can you

have a look at this? And my response to that was that it’s – I think the 5

words were that’s as good as you’re likely to get.

MR McMAHON: Yes. Sorry, my mistake. So there were two roles in fact.

A review of the design quality and then an overview of the project’s

landscape effects. 10

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR McMAHON: Okay so a dual role if you like.

15

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR McMAHON: Okay. Just in terms of that first role what were the key

documents that you used to undertake that independent review of the

design quality? 20

MR LISTER: It was the ULDF and the plans, the landscape plans. They

would have been not the final version, but an earlier draft version

would have been the ones that I looked at initially.

25

MR McMAHON: Yes. And do we find that assessment in your evidence?

The outcomes of that assessment in terms of that first role?

MR LISTER: No in terms of the first role it was an informal review – as I say

I didn’t carry out a peer review. I was asked by counsel for NZTA to 30

look at it. I imagine just to get another opinion on it from someone in

the area. Somebody who works in that area. But in terms of my

evidence I’ve reviewed the design, that’s section 6.

[12.42 pm] 35

So that carries through my observations from that earlier informal

review. And elaborates on them.

MR McMAHON: Yes, okay. And you come to a conclusion on that at 40

paragraph 9.4. Your very last paragraph. Thank you.

MR LISTER: Yes. When I refer to ULDF there more precisely I’m actually

referring to the ULDF and the landscape plans in conjunction. I saw

them as part of the same package. And I shouldn’t have been precise 45

than that.


MR McMAHON: Yes, thank you. This sort of assessment you’ve undertaken

for this project have you undertaken similar assessment for other

projects? I mean you were at pains to emphasise it’s not a full visual

impact assessment. It’s been a – and I don’t want to put words in your 5

mouth – it’s been at a higher level obviously.

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR McMAHON: Have you undertaken similar assessments of similar 10

projects?

MR LISTER: At a high level?

MR McMAHON: Yes. 15

MR LISTER: I’m sure I have.

MR McMAHON: Let me rephrase that question. What were the key factors –

was that your brief? 20

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR McMAHON: Yes and was that the key factors in determining that brief?

Was it the timing or was it – I mean you were involved later in the 25

piece and that’s not a criticism, that’s just an observation. I think you

said you were involved initially in February but it wasn’t until around

June or July of 2013 that you were officially briefed to do this

evidence.

30

MR LISTER: Yes I think – my understanding of the background is that there

was a desire by NZTA’s counsel for evidence that might bridge

between the evidence of Ms Popova and Mr Brewer, and in particular

to complement Ms Popova’s evidence which is a very detailed and

methodical assessment of townscape and visual matters. And a desire 35

to look for complementary evidence that might put that in a broader

context. And to put that into context for instance by way of an

example, I carried out the work for Transmission Gully which I noted

for some reason I haven’t included in my list of relevant experience. I

think probably because I used that evidence as a template for this one 40

and I haven’t copied over the new project into it.

But on that project I carried out the work that Ms Popova did in detail

and the approach that I took – and that formed part of the technical

document, but the approach I used there was to put a lot of that detailed 45

stuff into appendices so that then allowed me to step back and take a –


kind of synthesise that and provide more meaningful overview of the

project.

MR McMAHON: Yes and a couple of questions arising from that. It’s still

on this very first question. I put some questions to Mr Brewer about 5

the extent to which his assessment was informed by others such as

Ms Popova and you might recall his assessment focussed on three key

issues – assessability, amenity and connectivity I think were the three

matters and he referenced the assessibility back to Mr Dunlop and Ms

Baxter. The amenity he drew on Ms Popova and the – I can’t 10

remember what the third one was.

[12.47 pm]

But have you found it necessary to provide the same references and be 15

informed by the same witnesses in a similar way to which Mr Brewer

was in your production of evidence?

MR LISTER: I have referred in my evidence to other witnesses and their

evidence, you know, where it is relevant. 20

MR McMAHON: Particularly, Ms Poff, to what extent has her assessment,

given that it was a more detailed visual impact assessment, to what

extent has that influenced your overall conclusions.

25

MR LISTER: I see, um - - -

MR McMAHON: Mr Brewer indicated that it was part of his assessment, and

I am just wondering whether you, in your review or overview, have

also relied on in some part, her evidence? 30

MR LISTER: I have read her technical report - - -

MR McMAHON: TR 9.

35

MR LISTER: - - - and I concurred with and without going back and repeating

it, it was credible and I concurred with the methodology and so on, so

to that extent I would have been influenced by that work but in

preparing my evidence I didn’t refer to her evidence until very late in

the piece when I read it to check consistency and so on, but it was 40

written independently.

MR McMAHON: In giving that answer, you appreciate that her evidence was

largely based on her TR 9?

45

MR LISTER: Yes.


MR McMAHON: Yes. Just finally, and it is a sort of a more broader question.

If you were to have undertaken your own visual impact assessment and

perhaps referenced with the sort of criteria and guidelines that Mr

Milne was referring to in relation to the document he put to you, is it 5

possible that you could have arrived at a different conclusion about the

nature and scale and significance of landscape effects?

MR LISTER: No, I don’t think so at all. Carrying out those exercises is a

discipline and it is very analytical and it helps form your overall view 10

and I can’t imagine that I would have come to different conclusions to

Ms Poff, except in some minor – there will always be differences

around particular things, but in an overall sense I can’t imagine I would

have come to a different conclusion.

15

MR McMAHON: Yes. Just on that, thank you for that, but my question was

actually would you have arrived at a different conclusion yourself from

the one that appears in your 9.1 and 9.2, and 9.3 and 9.4?

MR LISTER: No, I think I would have still - had I done the whole exercise 20

myself, I think the approach I would have taken hypothetically, would

be that my evidence would be the same as it is now but there would be

another detail that would be appended or referred to in another

document.

25

MR McMAHON: Thank you, Mr Lister.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr McMahon. Mr Baines.

MR BAINES: Mr Lister, thank you very much for your answers, I have found 30

them very instructive. I have two questions and they are fairly high

level and I am looking to you to assist me in how to put some of this

together.

The first one – we have heard a lot about how the final design of this 35

structure in this proposal has been the result of an iterative and quite

extensive process of design, and the design people, particularly

Ms Wraight and Mr Hardwick-Smith have been closely involved in that

over quite an extensive period of time.

40

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR BAINES: And I think all the landscape and visual and urban design

witnesses that we have heard so far have been concluding, and to use

your phrase, ‘the design is as good as it can be, it is as good as it gets’, 45


it is quite clear that there has been a lot of effort put into getting the

best design for this structure.

MR LISTER: Yes.

5

MR BAINES: My question is this. So what we have heard is about an expert

reading of the final design - - -

MR LISTER: Yes.

10

[12.52 pm]

MR BAINES: - - - and by people who have been involved in varying degrees

with that overall process, and them thinking if this proposal was

implemented and the bridge was constructed, Wellingtonians would 15

then start moving through the area with this new feature, and they

would read only the final design. They wouldn’t read any of the early

stuff, you know, they wouldn’t be saying, well, it started off looking

like this but it is now this. Do you see what I am saying?

20

They respond simply to the final built structure and they don’t have a

comparison with what might have been and might not have been so

sympathetic, - - -

MR LISTER: Ye. 25

MR BAINES: - - - they simply respond to the final built structure, and so my

question to you is if I can use the phrase, Wellingtonians reading, and I

realise it is not the same for everyone, there are a plethora of different

audiences but Wellingtonians reading of that design and the effect, is 30

that to be treated as your experts reading of the effects.

Do you understand what I am getting at?

MR LISTER: It is different, obviously, and every individual has got their own 35

– you know, landscape is a cultural construct, every individual has got

their own flame of reference, there would be a range of views in the

community, but I guess my role as an expert is – I can’t speak for the

community or for other people, but I hope that my – my expectation is

that my view is representative of a balanced view within the 40

community and that is based on a body of knowledge and theory and

stuff from our profession on exposure to a range of other projects,

including submissions that you get on those projects.

So I am well aware of what people think, particularly in opposition to 45

projects, and also just being tuned in to matters that relate to landscape


and urban design, so just being more tuned in than a normal lay person

who it is not their profession.

So in that regard, my expectation is that my view is representative of

part of that spectrum and my hope is that it is a balanced view. 5

MR BAINES: Can I respond to you and say that what I hear you saying is that

yes, we should take your conclusions as representing what you think

Wellingtonians will experience?

10

MR LISTER: Yes, I hope so. I think one other aspect is that, and I read some

cross-examination, I think, earlier on of somebody questioning about

lay people not understanding the city grid, it would only be that

professionals – it would be a concern to the professionals, but I think

one of the roles of an expert or a professional is to be able to articulate 15

those things which people will know intuitively but might not be able

to put words to it.

MR BAINES: Thank you for that. The second question is to do with this.

You were, when Mr Milne was talking to you this morning about the 20

landscape and visual assessment guidelines and you went through the

fact that one set of factors in the assessment, somewhere, it includes

historical associations, they may be an important consideration and I

think it is self-evidence that in this particular case, and in this particular

context, they are important. 25

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR BAINES: We are also going to hear in the not too distant future, I hope,

from a number of heritage experts, and I am wondering how do you – 30

is there an overlap? How do you see your landscape assessments

relating to the heritage assessments?

[12.57 pm]

35

MR LISTER: So there is an overlap. But in my case the subject is landscape.

So it’s the extent to which those historical associations influence the

landscape. So it might sound a bit obtuse but I’m concerned about the

extent to which those historical relationships – the relationship with

history and with historic features adds to the appreciation of a 40

landscape in general.

MR BAINES: Right.

MR LISTER: And that might be quite different to a heritage expert in some 45

circumstances. So an example that’s pertinent is the historic crèche,


the Home of Compassion Crèche, so in heritage circles shifting of that I

understand is an adverse effect because it’s lost its connection with its

original site and so on.

From my point of view the shifting is actually a positive effect because 5

first of all that building has lost its context anyway in my view. It used

to be part of a Catholic precinct which has disappeared. So it’s sitting

by itself a little bit down the slope and shifting it up onto higher ground

opposite the end of Sussex Street slightly elevated above the street shift

it into a view shaft, puts it in a more prominent position at the end of 10

the street and it helps the kind of the end of the bridge if you like. It

anchors that end of the bridge and it has some kind of secondary

benefits in terms of reducing the visibility of the bridge from National

War Memorial Park because it’s an interceding element.

15

So it’s the middle ground and the bridge goes to the background so it

increases that sense of separation. From a landscape point of view the

crèche is an important feature and the shifting of it is a positive aspect

as well. The heritage people might not - - -

20

MR BAINES: I think from my reading of Mr Salmond in fact I think he sees

it as a positive shift because I think he sees it as giving new life

potentially to the crèche but you see you’ve said that landscape is a

cultural - - -

25

MR LISTER: (INDISTINCT 3.16) bigger than I thought.

MR BAINES: - - - landscape is a cultural construct and in a sense heritage

also is a cultural construct isn’t it?

30

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR BAINES: And so I’m just – maybe I’ll ask just one very method related

thing. In terms of making these assessments, landscape ones and

heritage ones, is it normal that because of this scope for overlap that 35

those two sets of experts would talk to each other a lot, make sure

we’re making the same sets of assumptions, making sure we’re starting

from the same set of understandings and so on. Is it normal to have a

lot of working together or not?

40

MR LISTER: Yes. Depending on the context. So I’m sure that’s what’s

happened in this project with the design team and the heritage experts.

From my point of view I read the Historic Places Trust report on the

Basin Reserve and I did internet research on the historic features of the

area and - - - 45


MR BAINES: So in fact even in yours there’s some reliance on heritage

matters to some extent.

MR LISTER: On research yes.

5

MR BAINES: Right, okay. Thank you very much Mr Lister.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ll take the luncheon adjournment now until 2 o’clock.

ADJOURNED [1.01 pm] 10

RESUMED [2.02 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Collins.

15

MR COLLINS: Mr Lister, thanks for your assistance so far. Just a couple of

things I want to raise with you. You mentioned in your summary

statement that since the tunnel was built the Basin area became a much

more important roundabout and so on, and then you refer to the

“blight” that has affected the area because of the long standing roading 20

plans and uncertainty.

I think in your main statement of evidence you clarify that you’re really

referring here to just this part of the area. Is that right or are you

referring to “blight” in the whole precinct? 25

MR LISTER: In the context of this project I’m referring to “blight” along the

northern side of Buckle Street and around through the northeast corners

around Ellice and Dufferin Street.

30

MR COLLINS: Right.

MR LISTER: In a broader context although less relevant to this project that

blight continuing right through a corridor that went out along the line of

the inner city bypass. 35

MR COLLINS: Yes that was one of the reasons – I was on the panel that

granted what’s been built. Partly because it had been in blight for a

very long time. Now I’m talking about the blight in this area. Just

when I read that I thought hang on there’s a brand new apartment block 40

over here and there’s a supermarket proposed over here and things are

actually happening in the precinct, the general area.

MR LISTER: Yes.

45


MR COLLINS: But I think you’re – well what are you referring – just to that

northern area which basically is the existing designation so Bogart’s

Corner and the edge of the existing road way.

MR LISTER: Yes. 5

MR COLLINS: The old Catholic precinct and so on.

MR LISTER: Yes.

10

MR COLLINS: Okay, that’s fine. Some discussion this morning with

Mr Milne about how in landscape assessment the effects are divided up

for – I think you said in order to analyse things you’ve got to somehow

break down effects for the purpose of analysis. And it seems to me that

however you do that there’s no perfect way of doing it. It’s a matter of 15

judgement for the individual doing the assessment. But whichever way

you do it there’s a danger of that influencing the outcome.

So I was discussing yesterday with Ms Popova that the way she’d

chosen to do analysis by corridors, for example looking up Kent and 20

Cambridge Terraces towards the Basin meant that she ended up

effectively averaging the result. So as she explained from further

north, looking down this way the future bridge is a long way away.

Very little effect. As you come closer it’s more and more visible.

When you finally get right up to it there’s quite a big effect. But her 25

overall assessment of the views from that corridor is influenced by a

kind of averaging.

Now the other way you could do that would be to have a category of

people’s perception underneath the proposed bridge. It might be a 30

category. Another one might be people’s perceptions. Landscape sort

of feelings about it from within 20 metres. See what I’m getting at?

So the way you divide it up affects the kind of assessment you would

give. Does that make sense? 35

MR LISTER: Yes. In terms of that exercise that Ms Popova has done that’s

right and that’s why I am wary of scoring systems because exactly that

happens.

40

[2.07 pm]

And it can be misused in a sense of applying a kind of a pseudo-science

where that precision doesn’t exist. So I think in terms of what

Ms Popova has done that is a very necessary discipline and I think 45

there’s no other way around doing visual assessments apart from by


those representative views. As long as you’re careful that you keep an

overall perspective on things and not let the scores lead you by the nose

kind of thing. You’ve actually got to step back and take a perspective

on things.

5

But in terms of the way that I’ve approached my evidence it is to ask

first of all what are the characteristics and qualities that make this area

significant? And then identify the issues in relation to those

characteristics and qualities that are likely to arise from the project and

to use that as the basis for assessment. So assessing effects on the 10

spatial quality and amenity of the Basin Reserve and its surrounding

street for instance there’s one of those. And I’ve divided them up into

the two main areas where there are different levels of effects.

But in reality there will be places along that path that will be the most 15

significant effects. When you’re standing right underneath the bridge,

particularly up in the northeast corner where it’s sweeping around over

the top of you but you’ll experience that as part of a sequence of things

moving around the area in the same way that you do with the rest of the

city. So it’s important to keep it in context of - - - 20

MR COLLINS: Yes. So of course underneath it if you’re in a vehicle the

underneath part is quite momentarily, so you also have to think about

who you’re talking about. So you get people in vehicles.

25

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR COLLINS: Or people cycling or walking. People walking presumably

would be more affected by the amenity of being under the bridge.

They have to cross it at some point than somebody in a vehicle who’s 30

simply passing through it.

MR LISTER: Yes that’s true. And that will be pronounced on Dufferin Street

between Ellice Street and Paterson Street. That stretch.

35

MR COLLINS: Yes.

MR LISTER: Straight in front of the Basin Reserve. I think walking at right

angles under a bridge of that width that’s not a huge issue. I mean I

relate that to my own experience of the Victoria Park flyover which is 40

lower and wider and uglier and the difference that that makes or

doesn’t make to my trip to work.

MR COLLINS: Right. Next question. There was some discussion in your

cross-examination about the comments you made in evidence about 45

grade separation being necessary and I think elsewhere the possibility


that even a bridge is the best option kind of thing. I don’t think I got it

quite clear in my mind how you responded to that. Are you saying that

that’s just mentioned as part of background. I think it’s sort of context

– it’s like other facts you discuss, mention, just for context, it’s not

actually affecting your assessment. The fact that you believe it’s 5

necessary, that’s contested, but you believe it’s necessary that’s fine.

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR COLLINS: Because you’ve been told that. 10

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR COLLINS: What I’m getting at is does that – has that affected your

assessment because then we had the discussion later this morning 15

you’ll recall about if it was being built just for the sake of it - - -

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR COLLINS: - - - and you said there if it was built just for the sake of it – I 20

can’t find a reference right now – but it was a bad idea.

MR LISTER: Yes.

MR COLLINS: And then I thought now are you saying it’s less of a bad idea 25

or it’s not a bad idea if it’s necessary.

MR LISTER: It’s probably a poor choice of phrase. So it hasn’t affected my

assessment.

30

MR COLLINS: It has not. So it hasn’t?

MR LISTER: It has not - - -

MR COLLINS: Has not, good. 35

[2.12 pm]

MR LISTER: It has not affected my assessment but it has affected my, you

know, I did take it into account in terms of my professional view on the 40

project but that is of no – I am not saying that is of any interest to the

Board.

MR BAINES: What do you mean by that?

45

MR LISTER: On any project – I shouldn’t have said that either.


MR COLLINS: I am not trying to catch you, it just occurred to me - - -

MR BAINES: This is, I expect your sort of mind-set before you start?

5

MR LISTER: Yes, on any project I make a decision beforehand whether I will

support it or not and that is a professional decision, so I am not just

going to turn up and say, these are the effects. I am going to make a

choice.

10

MR COLLINS: Yes, but it is more, isn’t it, that you tell your client, this is

what I could say, it is up to them as to whether they want you to come

and say it or not, isn’t it, that is the way I used to do it, certainly?

MR LISTER: Yes, that’s right and that is what happened in this case, yes. 15

MR COLLINS: And often the answer you get is, well, thanks very much, we

will find somebody else, if you give them the wrong answer.

MR LISTER: Yes. 20

MR COLLINS: So you shouldn’t really come, did I understand it, come to the

body like this supporting, it is more a question of, here is your

evidence, regardless of who your client and you have discussed it with

them beforehand and said this is what I could do for you, this is what I 25

could say and they say yes, that would be helpful.

MR LISTER: That’s right, yes. But I do take those things into account in

terms of my professional decision, and particularly in this case, so at

face value, it would be a project that I approached with some caution 30

because flyovers are anathema to doing design thinking because of

what they represent. They represent a car dominated city, a sprawling

car dominated city which is kind of the antipathis of the compact,

mixed use, high intensity city supported by walkability and public

transport, and when I looked at it and worked through the issues, you 35

know, I came to the view that in fact the project was needed for exactly

those desirable reasons.

So in this particular instance, because of the particular characteristics of

this intersection and the history of the site and so on, the project was 40

needed in the professional sense for those goals that Mr Brewer – that

is what Mr Brewer’s evidence focuses on.

MR COLLINS: Yes, thanks for that. Just finally a more practical question.

The next question are these pohutukawa and their relocation and so on. 45

The first landscape expert we had was Mr Richard Reid who actually


came giving us his traffic proposal but I took the opportunity then to

ask him about moving pohutukawas because I thought he might know

about it and he is from Auckland, and he said yes, they can be moved

so that was good to learn about that.

5

Ms Wraight has then discussed it further with us and described there

are particular trees that are identified, which are to be moved to

identified positions, and we talked about obviously you could choose

the particular way you placed them and all that kind of thing. I have

just read at lunchtime Ms Popova’s summary and she raises the 10

question of how long it would take for the trees to grow to the size that

are being shown in the simulations, and he is questioning that. So I

thought while you are here, you are from Auckland, you are a

landscape architect, do you want to give a view about that.

15

Just again, from context, my understanding is, I have heard this

evidence mostly about native plantings, I think, where offices are often

recommended to plant a particular quite big trees, they are quite

expensive, and the landscape architects have said well it doesn’t make

much point because if you plant a bigger tree, it will sort of set it back a 20

bit, it will sulk for a while, you are better off to plant them at you

know, PV 10 or something, and they will grow faster at first and after

three or four years they are the same anyway, but much less expense.

This is a bit different I understand, but can you tell us about your 25

understanding about – well, if you have any experience with

transplanting pohutukawas, how fast will they grow.

[2.17 pm]

30

MR LISTER: That is not an area I am particularly experienced in, as a rule of

thumb I use 300 millimetres a year for growth rates for trees like

pohutukawas so that is 300 up and 300 out, and trees do sulk a bit when

they are transplanted so there is some truth in that, it is case of

balancing, you know, a small tree is not going to catch up to a large 35

nursery tree even taking account for the shock.

But in this case, I think you are talking about transplanting trees which

are already quite large, so they should be able to fulfil that role from

the time that they are planted. And to me it is the detail matter as well, 40

that if the trees that have been identified are not going to do the job in a

particular location, then that is something that needs to be sorted out.

MR COLLINS: Exactly. I did ask Ms Wraight about that because I have in

mind plantations of very fast growing firewood trees and things, and I 45

could get that screened in no time with eucalypts which she wouldn’t


like, she said she hadn’t thought about it, but there must be other

solutions to have vegetation as an interim measure or whatever, to get

faster screening than what Ms Poff says might be 40 or 50 years, or

portable screens on the bridge interim period.

5

MR LISTER: I don’t think it is going to be 40 or 50 years. Other alternatives

could mean sourcing large trees from other places and transplanting

them. I heard a comment that there are a lot being sought for Memorial

Park, I mean, I don’t know what the logistics of that are, but I imagine

there are pohutukawas of large size that can be transplanted if need be. 10

MR COLLINS: Yes, well we inadvertently had a little bit of evidence from

the project manager up there who said they were getting very large

trees from all over the country I think, so it wasn’t a matter of like

going down to the local nursery to get trees of the size they want up 15

there, so that may be a difficulty but if you want to comment on it.

(INDISTINCT 2.43) do you think it would be possible to find some

other sort of interim landscaping to screen sufficiently to meet the

concern or is this a real difficulty?

20

MR LISTER: No, to me it is a detail matter, that there would be various ways

of resolving it.

MR COLLINS: By?

25

MR LISTER: By finding large trees from another source in planting

something else or putting up a temporary screen, but I would prefer that

the final solution was found, you know, at the get go, so that large trees

resourced that would do the job straight away.

30

MR COLLINS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Collins. Mr Lister, thank you very

much for your evidence. I have no questions and I would just like to

say how grateful the Board are for your cogent evidence that you 35

prepared and for the straightforward and succinct way in which you

answered your questions. Thank you.

MR LISTER: Thank you. 40

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.21 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

45


MR BENNION: Sir, I take it from the comments from Mr Collins about the

reading the summary, that we will proceed straight to - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are going to do that with all witnesses now to try

and - - - 5

MR BENNION: I have a couple of opening questions.

CHAIRPERSON: But we read it over the luncheon break.

10

MR BENNION: Yes, sir.

[2.22 pm]

<SARAH LOUISE POFF, sworn [2.23 pm] 15

<EXAMINATION BY MR BENNION [2.23 pm]

MR BENNION: Can you just confirm your name is Sarah Louise Poff?

20

MS POFF: Yes, it is.

MR BENNION: You are a qualified landscape architect and director of

SPK Landscape Architecture Limited, yes?

25

MS POFF: Yes.

MR BENNION: And you have also completed a paper in historic heritage

conservation, the Museum and Heritage Studies Post Graduate

Programme? 30

MS POFF: Yes, that is correct.

MR BENNION: For the Board, you have prepared a statement of evidence of

the 17th

December 2013? 35

MS POFF: Yes, evidence-in-chief.

MR BENNION: Yes, and rebuttal evidence of the 21st January 2014?

40

MS POFF: Yes, that’s correct.

MR BENNION: And a concise summary, yes, 7th

April.

MS POFF: Yes. 45


MR BENNION: You also took part in the expert witnessing, witness

conferencing on landscape and urban design?

MS POFF: Yes.

5

MR BENNION: And signed that statement?

MS POFF: And you took part in the conferencing on heritage and you signed

that statement?

10

MS POFF: Yes.

MR BENNION: Just before I ask you questions, do you have any corrections

to make to your evidence.

15

MS POFF: There were a couple of corrections upfront in my summary and

one clarification. Take that as read.

MR BENNION: So you are happy that the summary covers any corrections

you wish to make? 20

MS POFF: Yes.

MR BENNION: And can you confirm then that that is your evidence for this

Board to the best of your knowledge and belief? 25

MS POFF: Yes, it is.

MR BENNION: All right. I just want to task you a couple of questions about

issues that have come up in questioning. 30

Can I take you, first of all, your evidence-in-chief at 6.11 and 6.12, so

6.11 and 6.12?

MS POFF: Yes. 35

MR BENNION: And those deal with a view that we talk about west from the

Mount Victoria Tunnel.

MS POFF: Yes. 40

MR BENNION: Were you here for questioning of Mr Lister on that view?

MS POFF: Yes, I was, yes.

45


MR BENNION: I just want briefly, what is your assessment of the importance

or otherwise of that view and the effects of the project on it?

MS POFF: One of the ways I looked at the views with the project was that it

was the experience of the view, and the view west from the 5

Mount Victoria Tunnel is the beginning of the experience as you come

through the tunnel and you come through that enclosure of the tunnel

and then the view starts to open up.

And I will just take you through my evidence-in-chief, 6.11. The 10

elevated and framed view over the Basin Reserve as you exit the tunnel

is a significant historical arrangement, accumulative result of a long

period of development the heritage layers in this view include the Basin

Reserve in the foreground, the Museum Stand, the National War

Memorial Carillon, the Dominion Museum Building located in the 15

mid-ground on Mount Cook and Kelburn and the town belt is the

backdrop.

As you move through that landscape in a westward direction, the

journey also reveals other heritage features. The William Wakefield 20

Memorial and Government House, and obviously as you move around

in that westward movement, you used to come up past the Carillon,

now we will go under it. So it was about how people perceive that

view and experience on an everyday occasion, driving through the

landscape. 25

MR BENNION: Your view on the effect of the project on that experience?

MS POFF: My view on the effect of the project is we no longer will

experience the view, we will no longer follow the contour of the land 30

down – follow the topography through down into the Basin and past

those features every day that are in our mind, in our memory and how

we perceive that and whenever we are going anywhere in our car, my

husband always reminds me it is about the journey, and I think that is

something that is really important, it is about the journey and how we 35

experience it and it is not about getting there. And something that will

happen as we exit the tunnel and enter the flyover, the elements that

have been important in that heritage precinct start to be diminished and

we lose the connection of them.

40

MR BENNION: There have been questions around the Basin Reserve and

Northern Gateway Building and heritage and you have dealt with

heritage in your evidence, haven’t you?

MS POFF: I have indeed. I see heritage as a major component of this 45

landscape.


MR BENNION: Just so that we are clear about the Basin heritage, can I take

you to the attachment to Ms Rickard’s evidence, appendix 1, which is

the Historic Places Trust description of the Basin heritage, it is

Wellington City Council, sorry, heritage expert, Ms Rickard, 5

appendix 1.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what are we looking at?

MR BENNION: Ms Rickard’s evidence, sir, Wellington City Council’s 10

heritage expert, Ms Rickard, appendix 1 to her evidence she attaches

the Historic Places Trust description of the Basin, it is the registration

report for the Basin. I just want to be clear about the features we are

discussing.

15

MS POFF: Have you got a page number there?

MR BENNION: Can I take you just to page 2, the second page. You are

familiar with this document?

20

MS POFF: Yes, I am.

MR BENNION: This was the context for your assessment of the heritage?

MS POFF: Of the registered heritage in the area, yes. 25

MR BENNION: Yes. Can I take you to the paragraph entitled, “Extent of

Registration” on page 2 - - -

MS POFF: Yes. 30

MR BENNION: - - - and in particular the items included there.

MS POFF: The associated building, structures, sites thereon - - -

35

MR BENNION: In terms of the items, I am just wanting to – we see there the

Museum Stand, the Vance Stand, the Groundsmen’s Shed, the playing

oval and picket fence - - -

MS POFF: Yes. 40

MR BENNION: - - - we understand what those are and the Dempster Gate,

clubrooms, main fence, what is that referring to?

MS POFF: The main fence is the perimeter fence, it is a registered item. 45


MR BENNION: The toilets?

MS POFF: On the list.

MR BENNION: Now we have got scoreboard play area, that is not the same 5

as the playing oval and the picket fence?

MS POFF: I am unsure what the play area refers to exactly, I understand there

was a playground in the far corner where the nets are now.

10

MR BENNION: And the three light towers?

MS POFF: Light towers.

MR BENNION: And lastly the bank, what is that referring to as you 15

understand it?

MS POFF: The embankment.

MR BENNION: Okay, and is that what you were looking at, that is the 20

heritage you were looking at when you were making your assessment?

MS POFF: The registered heritage, yes.

MR BENNION: I now want to come to an issue which you take up which is 25

screening on the bridge, and there are two aspects here I just want to

briefly ask you about.

The first is – well, let’s go first to appendix 3H in the NZTA’s volume

3, technical reports and supporting documents. There is just a picture 30

there I want to ask you about.

It is volume 3, technical reports and supporting documents. I think

Mr Cooper has got the relevant page for me I hope.

35

MR COLLINS: It is TR 3.

MR BENNION: Part 2. I get confused I guess when I move from onscreen to

the folders. Just coming to page 45 which is a public page, or the next

page I think, and the next page after that. Yes, thank you. Now that’s 40

something I asked Mr Hardwick-Smith about and it shows screening

options on the ground that were explored. Are you familiar with this

document?


[2.32 pm]

MS POFF: I am familiar, yes.

MR BENNION: And have you got a comment on that assessment and options 5

that were looked at and your assessment of that process?

MS POFF: So there’s obviously two options that were looked at there. One

was an option – that option is one option by the look of it – it’s over the

gateway above the Dempster Gateway and looking at screening options 10

at ground level for traffic movement on the bridge. And it is a very

simplistic option and the materials, the resolution of it, the detailing of

it I think is just a very basic approach to how screening could be

achieved.

15

MR BENNION: All right and you had a comment I think on Mr Hardwick-

Smith’s slides attached to his evidence where he explores screening on

the bridge and can I take you just to slide 60 of his slides.

MS POFF: Yes. 20

MR BENNION: And I think you got that slide and the others in front of you.

Is that right?

MS POFF: Yes, that’s also the slide that I refer to in my evidence-in-chief as 25

from the ULDF report. Appendix 3H.

MR BENNION: Now can we just clearly in terms of his approach – he’s

talking about screening on the bridge and doesn’t think it’s really a

suitable option in terms of the assessment you’ve now seen and the 30

drawings that he provides in those slides. You’ve got a comment on

that?

MS POFF: So the original option that I first looked at for screening options

was this and it was around expert caucusing time and there were three 35

options presented, Option 1 on the bridge, 2 at the picket fenceline and

3 at the Dempster Gate line. So there were the three options proposed.

And if you look above – there’s the first, there’s the little perspective

sort of bird eye perspectives, but then there’s the perspective from the

central wicket and above Option 1 there it shows you screening on the 40

bridge and it also shows the proposed trees.

The scale – they’re just little vignettes and I think Option 1 of those

three options showed that from within the Basin Reserve how the effect

could be screened retaining quite a green edge, quite a landscape feel, a 45

sense of openness to the Reserve. Obviously retaining the historical


significance around the Dempster Gate. And it was dealing with the

effect of moving traffic on the bridge.

So that was the first vignette that was shown. But I picked up on when

I made my statement in my evidence and also in the caucusing that 5

screening on the bridge should be option that could be more fully

explored. And then I think since then Mr Hardwick-Smith goes

through further in his rebuttal these slides were attached. And from

slide – so we get into slide 63. Which is the view from Kent Terrace

shows the Northern Gateway Building on the left with the bridge and 10

then on the right obviously shows the bridge with screening on the

bridge.

I think this again is a fairly simplistic approach, battle ship grey, no

handrail, no lighting poles, very simplistic. Show an element, show the 15

volume, level of opacity, whether it could be permanent, temporary,

whether the opacity levels could change. I think it is an option. It

generates an effect on the bridge. I agree with that but I think when we

look under the bridge we maintain that level of openness. We see the

openness through to the Basin Reserve. 20

[2.37 pm]

It’s not closed down by the Northern Gateway Building, the

undercarriage of the bridge, the underbelly as it’s referred to, it’s 25

approximately 7 metres high. The opening of the Northern Gateway

starts to close down again. That comes in at 4 metres high, reducing

that space under the bridge.

And I think the large clouded area in the middle is an existing tree on 30

Kent and Cambridge Terrace. In the middle. That’s what I’ve worked

it out to be from the plan view. It shows an existing tree and where the

viewing position is taken and so in effect there is a large existing tree in

that view. At the moment it screens the bridge and obviously in the

second image it will screen the bridge and the screen as well. 35

MR McMAHON: Mr Bennion, sorry if I could just interrupt. Could you just

repeat those two dimensions Ms Poff. Your understanding of those two

dimensions.

40

MS POFF: My understanding is that the undercarriage the underbelly as they

called it – is 7 metres the clearance at that lowest point in the middle of

the valley, in the middle of the Canal Reserve and as you come down to

the Northern Gateway Building I think in the conditions that I have

looked at it has talked about a 4 metre clearance. And so that – you’re 45


closing, closing down as you come to that – obviously reducing the

openness under the bridge.

MR McMAHON: Thank you. Thank you Mr Bennion.

5

MS POFF: And then obviously we work through the slides 64, 65. Different

views from different locations and depending where you are in the

landscape to the effect of the bridge obviously and the screen, and the

Northern Gateway Building. The closer you are – we choose slide

number 67 because that’s where I’ve got it open. The Northern 10

Gateway Building on the left under the bridge and then to your right

the Northern Gate – sorry, no Northern Gateway Building, the bridge

and the screen which is not visible.

So obviously depending where you are in the landscape to the effect 15

that you.

MR BENNION: All right and then just two further matters. One is that – his

Honour asked a question about bridge design and you have an issue

about bridge design. I just want to be clear what that is. 20

MS POFF: I haven’t focussed greatly on the bridge design. I think we’ve

been presented with a bridge design. Mr McIndoe goes somewhere to

some European examples that he produces in evidence and I think that

the tricky thing in this landscape is that we’re working in a complex 25

urban environment and the bridge moves quite low through that

environment. So therefore we never get the separation. We never get

the clarity. We never get to read the landscape under that bridge. It

cuts through the landscape and moves through the landscape I think –

it’s a bridge. It’s what we’ve been given to work – you know been 30

given to look at or assess.

I think there are other options for bridges – I think and interesting you

know that examples that Mr McIndoe gives one of them is a bridge

over a river so therefore there isn’t a central pier in the middle of Kent 35

and Cambridge which was the old stream, so you turn it to more of a

suspension bridge or a bridge that is actually spanning a landscape

element and the other example he gave was a very high bridge in a

rural landscape, moving across the landscape. The scale of it is

immense and the elevation of it is high. And you get that separation 40

between the landscape and I think north of Auckland there are several

examples of where the bridges are high and the landscape is illegible

underneath.


MR BENNION: And that’s what you’re covering I understand in your

rebuttal at 2.11, 2.12. Just as a reference point for the Board. Is that

right?

[2.42 pm] 5

MS POFF: 2.11. Yes. So he shows those examples and then I comment

obviously on the legibility.

MR BENNION: All right and just lastly. A short comment. Tecomanthe and 10

the green screen. Have you had experience with Tecomanthe in your

landscape work? And do you have any comment on it in terms of the

green screen?

MS POFF: I have experience of it in my landscape work and I have 15

experience of it in my life. So two options. Tecomanthe is a vigorous

grower we’ve heard. It’s a large glossy salt resilient wind resistant

plant. And does well and will be quite – will achieve the height on the

screen. From a lay person’s perspective managing Tecomanthe on an

east west boundary between neighbouring properties, the neighbour 20

used to come over and say to me, we were on their northern side, so the

Tecomanthe was facing north, and she said how come it does so well

on your side? And I’d go over to her house and on the southern aspect

it didn’t do as well. It’s a triphid. On the north it grows very densely,

very full on. Has a lot of leaf litter but it will achieve the height. 25

MR BENNION: All right. Thank you. If you can remain there and answer

any questions.

MS POFF: Thank you. 30

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Anderson?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS ANDERSON [2.44 pm]

35

MS ANDERSON: Good afternoon.

MS POFF: Hello.

MS ANDERSON: If we could just start with your supplementary evidence. 40

And I’m looking at paragraph 5.22.

MS POFF: Summary? Supplementary?

MS ANDERSON: Sorry, the summary. 45


CHAIRPERSON: So what paragraph sorry?

MS ANDERSON: 5.22. Now you’ve said there that a management plan is

needed for the Basin Reserve so potential effects of alterations or

development on the Reserve could be managed moving forward. Is 5

that the gist of that paragraph?

MS POFF: Could be assessed – the start of the place to assess it from.

MS ANDERSON: Are you aware in terms of buildings on the Basin Reserve 10

that any new building or alterations to existing buildings require a

resource consent? So that would obviously follow an assessment of

effects and a statutory process wouldn’t it?

MS POFF: Yes. 15

MS ANDERSON: So that’s not enough of an assessment for you in terms of

new buildings on the Reserve in the future?

MS POFF: No. I think that what I am saying in 5.22 is the Basin Reserve is a 20

historic area and first and foremost it is a reserve and under the

Reserves Act it requires a management plan and it doesn’t have one

and I think that a management plan is important in the way that the

Basin Reserve moves forward as a reserve.

25

MS ANDERSON: So are you suggesting that somehow as part of this process

a requirement for a management plan would be imposed on the

Council?

MS POFF: Imposed? 30

MS ANDERSON: Well who are suggesting does this management plan?

NZTA or the Council?

MS POFF: Well Wellington City Council should have a management plan in 35

place for the Reserve.

MS ANDERSON: And when you talk about management plans at 5.23 you’re

not talking about the heritage management plan there. You’re talking

about this as a Reserve. 40

MS POFF: No, I’m not talking about a heritage management plan. I’m

talking about a management plan for the Reserve.


MS ANDERSON: I take it that you realise through this process that it’s a

designation by NZTA and therefore all conditions imposed on it relate

to NZTA and the Council?

MS POFF: Yes. Not the whole reserve is not a designation. 5

MS ANDERSON: So you’re just saying there needs to be a Reserves

Management Plan for the part of the Reserve subject to a designation?

MS POFF: No. To the whole Reserve prior to any work undertaken within 10

the Reserve. There should have been a management plan in place for

this Reserve a long time ago. Is my point.

MS ANDERSON: If I could turn to the joint witness statement. And I take it

from paragraph 47 there that your starting point is that there should be 15

no Northern Gateway Building?

MS POFF: So that’s urban design statement I presume?

[2.47 pm] 20

MS ANDERSON: Yes.

MS POFF: 47 if the bridge is to be contemplated by the Board, the options

discussed and my name is next to no Northern Gateway Building so as 25

to avoid significant adverse and cumulative effects.

MS ANDERSON: So your starting position is there shouldn’t be a Northern

Gateway Building?

30

MS POFF: In that location, there should not be a Northern Gateway Building.

MS ANDERSON: If you turn to your evidence-in-chief at paragraph 3.6, you

have said there that there is room for a building within the Basin

Reserve if the final traffic solution requires such mitigation. 35

So I take it you are saying that buildings within the Basin Reserve per

se aren’t inappropriate, it is just the Northern Gateway Building itself?

MS POFF: It is the location of the building itself. 40

MS ANDERSON: So when you say if the final traffic solution requires such

mitigation, does that mean if the Board chose to approve the bridge?

MS POFF: Yes. 45


MS ANDERSON: That the Northern Gateway Building would be in the right

location?

MS POFF: No, the Northern Gateway Building is not in the right location.

5

MS ANDERSON: So you say it would be more appropriate on the south-west

corner of the Basin, is that right?

MS POFF: If offset mitigation was agreed to in that way.

10

MS ANDERSON: So you are talking about – because obviously that is going

to do nothing to shield views of the traffic if the bridge was to proceed,

is it?

MS POFF: Not if there is no other form of screening. 15

MS ANDERSON: And I take it from the fact that you support screening on

the bridge itself, that you consider views of traffic on the bridge or

screening of views, traffic on the bridge from the Basin Reserve is

necessary? 20

MS POFF: I have been guided by the cricket witnesses and the report that has

come in of the 40 degree field of view that traffic will distract the

batsmen and, I presume, the bowler on the crease, and then that has

obviously been extended out to with on the playing surface. 25

MS ANDERSON: So in terms of the visual distraction, the cricket players’

issues, you will defer to the cricket evidence on that?

MS POFF: Yes. 30

MS ANDERSON: And in terms of your area of expertise, there is still an

amenity, ambience type issue, isn’t there?

MS POFF: There is definitely an ambience issue, an amenity issue, and a 35

heritage issue.

MS ANDERSON: Turning over to paragraph 5.15 of your evidence-in-chief,

you have said, “There that the qualities associated with the use of the

Basin as a test cricket venue are fundamental to the historic heritage 40

and landscape values of it.”

Is that right?

MS POFF: Yes. 45


MS ANDERSON: Do I take it that if the Basin Reserve was to lose its test

match status, that that would be an unacceptable urban design and

heritage outcome for you?

MS POFF: Well it would be an effect on amenity, it would definitely change 5

the values. Losing the international cricket status I think is key to what

the Basin needs to hold on to, I don’t argue that at all, and I think the

risk that is being taken with the bridge on that is huge.

MS ANDERSON: And you have labelled that as a fundamental value, haven’t 10

you?

MS POFF: Yes.

MS ANDERSON: You have also agreed in the joint witness statement in 15

terms of urban design, that the Basin Reserve is of such historic and

international significance, that it justifies particular consideration of its

functionality.

So do I take it that anything that affects its ability to function as a 20

cricket ground would be undesirable?

MS POFF: Yes.

MS ANDERSON: And if functionality is important, then surely mitigation 25

that provides a functional element would be preferable over mitigation

that doesn’t provide any functional element or use.

Would you accept that?

30

MS POFF: There is probably a discussion around mitigation and if we are

screening in the sense of screening, then that would be mitigation and I

think that screening can be achieved in many ways and as I said

previously, that the offset, the positive effect of turning that screen into

a building could happen elsewhere in the ground as long as screening, 35

in the sense of visual screening is achieved from the effect of moving

vehicles on the players.

[2.52 pm]

40

MS ANDERSON: So you don’t think it is preferable for a mitigation aspect

to have a functional element if that is possible?

MS POFF: Well, it will have a functional element because it will be screening

the effect. 45


MS ANDERSON: A functional element related to the fundamental purpose of

the reserve being cricket?

MS POFF: Well, it will, it will allow the continuation of the game at an

international level. 5

MS ANDERSON: Only in terms of visual distraction though, it won’t have

any particular impact in terms of the amenity and ambience that you

referred to earlier?

10

MS POFF: By introducing the bridge in the mitigation measures proposed in

the project, it will change the ambience, the current ambience of the

ground.

MS ANDERSON: Well the different between the two options – turning first 15

to the screening on the bridge. The only thing – for want of a better

word – that it does is screen views of the traffic, isn’t it?

MS POFF: Yes.

20

MS ANDERSON: It doesn’t screen the bridge itself from the Basin Reserve?

MS POFF: I don’t understand, there is an issue with the bridge, we have heard

from all the design experts and urban design that it is elegant in its

setting. 25

MS ANDERSON: Well the Northern Gateway Building would be different

from a screen on the bridge in that it does provide an improved entry

into the southern end of the ground, doesn’t it?

30

MS POFF: I think that can be worked through in other ways as well. I think

the Dempster Gate is intrinsic to the Basin Reserve in its location.

MS ANDERSON: And the Northern Gateway Building itself though would

provide improved facilities for both players and spectators on the 35

Basin, wouldn’t it?

MS POFF: I can’t comment because I am not a cricket person, I am not a

media person, it is the wrong location.

40

MS ANDERSON: Now I realise you don’t accept the Northern Gateway

Building but in terms of if it was to be there, do you accept that a

benefit of it is that it creates a new view into the Basin Reserve?

MS POFF: A new view for who, sorry? 45


MS ANDERSON: A new view in that you will get to see straight on to the

cricket pitch from Kent and Cambridge Terrace, which you can’t now?

MS POFF: By not having the Northern Gateway Building there and adjusting

the fence to something more permeable as is proposed along the bottom 5

of the Northern Gateway Building which could happen tomorrow by

changing the fence to something that does have permeability, would

conform with CPTED guidelines as well, rather than a solid screen that

we have got at the moment.

10

So I think that that is an option and it can be achieved without a

building and without a bridge.

MS ANDERSON: But a view onto the pitch itself is beneficial in your view?

15

MS POFF: I think it is wonderful when the gates are open. When I have

come down Kent Terrace and the service gates are open and you can

see in, yes, I think it is. But it is only when you are on top of that view

that you see it. It is only when you will be within 50 metres of the

Basin Reserve that you actually get to see that green space as we saw 20

through the drive-through, it is not until you are there that you see the

green space because it is on the ground plain.

MS ANDERSON: If we can just go back to the screen issue which

Mr Bennion was taking you through at the beginning. 25

In the joint witness statement at paragraph 47 we were looking at

before, you have supported screening on the bridge, and is it fair to say

that out of that list of bullet points, it is only you and Ms Weeber that

supported the screening option without further investigation being 30

required?

MS POFF: Without further investigation being required, sorry, I’m not - - -

MS ANDERSON: Well, if you look at the third bullet point down, there are 35

three other urban designers who support the screening on the bridge but

with further investigation in terms of view, which is the bullet point

above, you have supported the screening option unconditionally?

MS POFF: I think that bullet number 3, from my understanding of when I was 40

at the urban design conferencing, was that it was discussed as changing

it from a simplistic, simple, elegant form, to something more detailed

and more elaborate.


[2.57 pm]

MS ANDERSON: My question is do you support the screen without further

investigation or are you saying it needs further investigation?

5

MS POFF: I think it needs further investigation and there are effects

associated with any type of screening.

MS ANDERSON: So that should be noted in terms of the joint witness

statement next to your name. Where you’ve got “SP” there. It should 10

be “with further investigation” should it?

MS POFF: Well no because I didn’t – in the joint witnessing statement it was

referred – that bullet point – when I was there was referred to

something more sculptural, more elegant, more highly detailed and I 15

don’t – I’m quite neutral on that point. I think more investigation needs

to be done on screening options, but I’m not convinced without

obviously further investigation.

MS ANDERSON: And so is that what you mean in terms of your rebuttal 20

evidence which I think in terms of time did that come after

conferencing or before?

MS POFF: All evidence came after conferencing. We conferenced before we

prepared evidence-in-chief and rebuttal. 25

MS ANDERSON: So in your rebuttal evidence at 2.10 you say, “the

screening option needs to be further developed and to make a sound

assessment of this visualisation work should be carried out to assess the

effects”. 30

MS POFF: Sorry, I’m just finding that. 2.10. So the option, yes.

MS ANDERSON: So to make a sound assessment of this option visualisation

work should be carried out to assess the effects. So is that a fair 35

summary of your view on the screening option?

MS POFF: Yes I think that the options need to be assessed and there are many

options.

40

MS ANDERSON: So in your summary evidence at paragraph 6.6 when you

conclude that screening is less invasive than the Northern Gateway

Building my question is how can you form that conclusion if you say

further work needs to be done?

45


MS POFF: If I take you to slide 67 of Mr Hardwick-Smith’s rebuttal, annexure

1.2. Slide 67 on a very simplistic model which shows bulk and

location and form, shows me quite clearly there that screening is less

invasive than the Northern Gateway Building.

5

MS ANDERSON: And that’s based solely on that drawing is it?

MS POFF: On several drawings.

MS ANDERSON: All of these ones from Mr Hardwick-Smith’s rebuttal? 10

MS POFF: I haven’t said all of them. I’ve just given you – you asked for an

example so - - -

MS ANDERSON: No, you don’t have to give them all, I’m just asking are 15

there any other drawings you’ve relied other than the ones attached to

Mr Hardwick-Smith’s rebuttal?

MS POFF: Yes, the project. The visualisation work that’s been done by

Truescape. 20

MS ANDERSON: Are you telling me there’s visual simulations on the screen?

MS POFF: The indicative perspectives done by I presume Athfield Architects,

Wraight Athfield. 25

MS ANDERSON: When you say “visual simulations” are you suggesting

there’s been Truescape images done of the screen on the bridge?

MS POFF: No, sorry, there hasn’t. 30

MS ANDERSON: So the information you’re basing it on is the other two

pages that Mr Bennion took you to in your introduction today in

appendix 3H?

35

MS POFF: No, on John Hardwick-Smith’s slides 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68,

69, 70 and I think 71 is a repeat of an earlier one. It’s a repeat of 62.

So all that work and I think there are effects, but I think that it is less

invasive in my opinion.

40

MS ANDERSON: Have you done a full urban design effects assessment on

that screening option yourself?

MS POFF: No I haven’t.

45


MS ANDERSON: Would you accept that there will be certain views of it that

are more invasive than the Northern Gateway Building?

MS POFF: We would have to have it modelled and assess it.

5

MS ANDERSON: Well maybe as an example were you here the other day for

Ms Popova’s cross-examination?

[3.02 pm]

10

MS POFF: Yes, I was here for some of Ms Popova’s work, yes.

MS ANDERSON: Maybe if you have a look at the visuals under tab 11 and

I’m looking at 11.22. And this is just an example but this is level 3 of

the Grandstand Apartments and I think Ms Popova was taken to this 15

and I’m not sure whether you were here for that, but I take it you would

accept the plan shows the light poles are about 8 metres high and the

screening that Mr Hardwick-Smith’s talking about I take it is about

4 metres high.

20

MS POFF: Yes that’s right.

MS ANDERSON: So in approximate terms you’re going to end up with a

screen about halfway up those light poles?

25

MS POFF: Approximately yes.

MS ANDERSON: In that particular view would you say that’s more invasive

for that particular view than the Northern Gateway Building?

30

MS POFF: I think depending on the way it’s resolved it will have an effect,

but I think it depends on the resolution. It depends whether it’s a

permanent screen, a temporary screen, whether they’re shutters that are

mechanically operated, that there’s a level of permeability, opacity, all

those things. I think there are many options of how it is screened. 35

MS ANDERSON: So when I asked you before whether there will be certain

views where it’s more invasive and you said further modelling would

need to be done - - -

40

MS POFF: Yes.

MS ANDERSON: - - - I think that was your response. So to answer whether

it would be more invasive you need further modelling, but you’ve made

a conclusion it will be less invasive without any of that modelling, is 45

that right?


MS POFF: On Mr Hardwick-Smith’s vignette that he produced in those

slides.

MS ANDERSON: And from the vignettes you can’t tell whether it will be 5

more invasive from certain views?

MS POFF: Well I think it comes down to resolving what the screen is and

how it will work.

10

MS ANDERSON: Do you accept that the screens on the bridge would add the

appearance of significant height to the bridge itself?

MS POFF: Depending where you’re viewing it from, what location you’re

viewing it from. Definitely when you’re in the close-up view you’re 15

not going to read the screen at all because of your viewing – the

viewing angle, when you’re in Kent and Cambridge you won’t pick up

the far side. Further back down Kent and Cambridge say – it wouldn’t

be Cambridge. If you were on foot it would be Cambridge. If you’re

driving it would be Kent. And obviously on foot on Kent. And I think 20

obviously you will pick again depending on the level of screening

whether it’s there for 40 days of the year or whether it’s there for 365

days of the year, whether it’s opaque, the level of transparency, all

those things.

25

You would read it and in those views from that distance you would also

read the lower part of the Northern Gateway Building that sits below

the bridge. As I said previously the bridge’s underbelly is at 7 metres,

the Northern Gateway Building with its opening at 4, so it’s just

transferring it to – it’s either below or above and there would be some 30

visual of that, again the Northern Gateway Building is obviously a

permanent structure that blocks that view with the bridge. And the

screen could be a temporary or permeable structure.

MS ANDERSON: I take it though you accept Mr Hardwick-Smith’s evidence 35

that the screen particularly looking at it from the Basin Reserve side

basically doubles the profile of the bridge?

MS POFF: I take you back to the first vignette I showed you of Option 1

which shows you the screening of the trees, the proposed trees. 40

Obviously there will be existing trees that wouldn’t be removed in that

view.

So if you’re looking at a screen option from the Basin Reserve there are

existing trees in place that wouldn’t need to be removed for the 45

building and then there’s - - -


[3.07 pm]

MS ANDERSON: 63 sorry is looking at from Cambridge Kent side isn’t it.

5

MS POFF: Sorry.

MS ANDERSON: Not from Basin Reserve.

MS POFF: Sorry could you take me back. 10

MS ANDERSON: Sorry, you were taking about views from Basin and

referred to slide 63, but that’s a slide looking at it from Kent Terrace.

MS POFF: I didn’t refer to a slide sorry. I was talking about that was from 15

Kent Terrace. But then I thought you asked me from the Basin

Reserve? The effect from the Basin Reserve will be more prominent.

Is that what you just asked?

MS ANDERSON: Yes. I asked would it almost double the vertical profile 20

from the Basin Reserve side.

MS POFF: Yes, so that’s was what I was answering. So looking at it from the

Basin Reserve side there are trees that exist on the perimeter boundary

at the moment that will not require removal because not putting a 25

building in place. And then there is additional planting that has been

proposed in the scheme at the moment between the bridge and

Northern Gateway Building and that little vignette of Option 1 in

Mr Hardwick-Smith which was slide 60 I think up the top there. That

little - - - 30

MS ANDERSON: Sorry, 60?

MS POFF: Slide 60, Option 1, there’s a little birds eye perspective. So not

even – there’s a little birds eye. If we could zoom – can we zoom in on 35

that a wee bit please? So that we can get the top left-hand image.

Because I think that gives a clear impression – obviously there’s

existing trees and proposed trees there. And there is a level of screening

from the trees. Which we rely heavily upon from the outside view of

the Basin Reserve as mitigation. 40

MS ANDERSON: Well maybe if we could look at 7B.44. So that’s effectively

the Truescape view looking towards the bridge – is that view we’re sort

of talking about, from the Basin Reserve towards the bridge?

45

MS POFF: Yes that’s the view.


MS ANDERSON: And a screening proposal there assuming we ran it for the

same length as say a 65 metre Northern Gateway Building would run

basically from the left-hand edge of the right-hand A3 if that makes

sense. So from the ring binder - - - 5

MS POFF: Yes, I’m with you.

MS ANDERSON: - - - across to about the end of the Grandstand Apartments,

in approximate terms. So you’re saying that these trees behind the 10

Dempster Gates and so forth would block the view of the screen on the

bridge?

MS POFF: I didn’t say they would block it. I said they would help screen it,

provide a level of mitigation. 15

MS ANDERSON: I take it you’d accept that the screen would need to be

visually impermeable from the Basin views in order to be useful for

mitigation of visual distraction for cricket players, or at least while

cricket’s being played anyway. 20

MS POFF: While cricket’s being played, yes.

MS ANDERSON: And would you accept Mr Hardwick-Smith’s evidence that

to equate to a 65 metre Northern Gateway Building it would need to be 25

about 90 metres long on the bridge itself?

MS POFF: I haven’t worked through that. And I think I haven’t – yes I

haven’t worked that. I don’t need to come up with the solution for it.

It’s just yes. 30

MS ANDERSON: But you accept in approximate terms that he’d be correct

in terms of those numbers?

MS POFF: I presume, I presume he is. 35

MS ANDERSON: Going back to your evidence-in-chief. If you want the

paragraph evidence it’s 8.14.

MS POFF: Sorry 8? 40

MS ANDERSON: Point 14. And I take it from that paragraph that you’re

suggesting the public access to the Basin Reserve will be shut down as

part of this proposal and that the current access to the Basin does

provide a level of amenity. Is that what you’re saying there? 45


MS POFF: Sorry, I’ll just read it and then I’ll come. My understanding is that

the venue, the cricket venue is often closed prior to a game and during

a game, so it was understanding how that public access is removed.

[3.12 pm] 5

MS ANDERSON: So you are talking about public access to the Northern

Gateway Building or public access to the Basin Reserve?

MS POFF: Public access to the Reserve. 10

MS ANDERSON: Nothing is proposed to change as part of this proposal,

there will still be gates into the Reserve under the Northern Gateway

Building, won’t there?

15

MS POFF: Yes, there will, well, I hope there will.

MS ANDERSON: And the walking and cycling facilities remain the same

through and around the Reserve?

20

MS POFF: Yes.

MS ANDERSON: The only thing that may change is there may not be access

to upper levels of the Northern Gateway Building at all times. Would

you accept that? 25

MS POFF: My understanding is that it is not a public building at this stage,

that is my understanding.

MS ANDERSON: But you can still get access to Basin Reserve itself, can’t 30

you?

MS POFF: When a cricket game is on, or prior to a cricket game, public

access is not available.

35

MS ANDERSON: But that is no different to what it is now during a cricket

game is it?

MS POFF: No, and that’s a shame, it is a public reserve.

40

MS ANDERSON: A couple of paragraphs on in 8.15, you say there that the

Northern Gateway Building doesn’t marry with other features on the

Reserve and the proportions don’t match the shape and form of other

structures on the Basin Reserve. Is that a fair summary?

45

MS POFF: Yes.


MS ANDERSON: I take it you would accept that the bulk and form of a new

building on the Basin doesn’t have to replicate what is already there to

be able to relate well to the setting?

5

MS POFF: I accept that it does not have to relate to the existing structures.

MS ANDERSON: So they don’t all have to be exactly the same, do they?

MS POFF: Definitely not, I don’t think we want another RA Vance Stand. 10

MS ANDERSON: And what is there already doesn’t have a consistent bulk

form or spatial location, does it?

MS POFF: No, and I see a large part of this project is an effort to mitigate 15

some of those wrongs of the past, and the two key features in this

proposal while we are on that, while we are talking about form, is the

Grandstand Apartments on one corner of Kent and Ellice and the

RA Vance Stand, and the green screen and the Northern Gateway

Building together try to reduce their height and mitigate those elements 20

in the townscape and in that visual corridor.

Kent and Cambridge Terrace, we would hope one day gets to fulfil its

potential as a main boulevard, and under the district plan there are

height limits to the buildings on Kent and Cambridge and fully realised 25

those buildings would come up and they would tie the RA Vance Stand

and the Grandstand Apartments into that townscape view and they

would activate the area.

The green screen at the moment is a green screen that provides an 30

intermediate scale adjustment where there is absence of built form and

there should be built form that activates the historic square of the Basin

Reserve rather than relying on filling the landscape with low mitigating

long structures to tie the two tall points in at the moment.

35

MS ANDERSON: Your comment there at 8.15, is that the proportions of the

Gateway Building do not match the shape and form of other structures.

So I assumed based on that, you think that there should be some

matching of shape and form with existing structures within the Basin?

40

MS POFF: The shape and form of the existing structures, se we will take the

two main structures, the Museum Stand the RA Vance Stand, they sit

on the contour on this side so on the street side they are back side to

Sussex Street, they are a smaller building, and on the park side, they are

a tiered larger building and they relate to the landscape form which 45

they are following.


[3.17 pm]

MS ANDERSON: Well in terms of what’s already here, and we talked about

the RA Vance Stand and it’s a – I don’t know if it’s the right word – 5

“radial” building and then it follows the curve of the cricket ground,

doesn’t it?

MS POFF: It does.

10

MS ANDERSON: And the museum stand is more of a linear structure and

follows the linear aspect of the road on the other side.

MS POFF: So the RA Vance Stand follows the cricket ground and the road

pattern on the outer square. 15

MS ANDERSON: And the museum stand follows - - -

MS POFF: Follows - - -

20

MS ANDERSON: - - - the road pattern, doesn’t it?

MS POFF: - - - pattern and – well it’s central, it’s right on the central axis of

the Basin Reserve.

25

MS ANDERSON: And in terms of the RA Vance Stand, Mr Hardwick-Smith

gave us, I think the height of 25 metres, would you accept that?

MS POFF: I presume that is at its highest point, it’s high.

30

MS ANDERSON: And do you know the length of that building?

MS POFF: Not off the top of my head I don’t.

MS ANDERSON: So it’ll be fair to say there’s no consistency in terms of 35

bulk and form of buildings at the moment when you compare say those

to with the grounds man cottage and the Ron Brierley Pavilion which

are quite small little single storey buildings aren’t they?

MS POFF: They have a different purpose, but the grounds man cottage which 40

was there – is one of the original buildings, is a cottage, and the other

building is an administration building so they have quite different

purposes from a pavilion or a grandstand.


MS ANDERSON: So in terms of your 8.15 you’re saying that the proportions

should match the shape and form of the other stands on the Basin

Reserve?

MS POFF: No, I just say that it is inconsistent and it is probably inconsistent 5

because of where it sits in the landscape. It is a low flat mitigating

structure.

MS ANDERSON: So it’s location rather than size?

10

MS POFF: Well it – because of its location, it tends to be a low structure.

Whereas if it was on the embankment it would respond to the landscape

differently and the built form would respond differently, it would

follow the landscape, you would use the landscape – or rather work

with the landscape. 15

MS ANDERSON: In terms of the last topic, your evidence-in-chief at 8.22,

you talk there about a significant shift between the built form and the

landscape embankment around the Basin Reserve, and the Northern

Gateway will upset that - I wonder whether you could be given Wraight 20

01, which is the project orientation documents.

Figure 6 thanks Glen.

I think Wraight – is that Wraight 01? 25

DISCUSSION

MS ANDERSON: Figure 6 is the one.

30

DISCUSSION

MS ANDERSON: Sorry, you seem to have a very small version of it, but the

one on the screen might be a little bit easy, you don’t need too much

detail I don’t think – but this is the sort of best aerial photo I’ve been 35

able to find of the Basin, and that shows the sort of generally built harp

you’re talking about in the generally grassed or embankment half?

MS POFF: Yep.

40

MS ANDERSON: And the area where the Northern Gateway Building is

proposed to go is currently a large concreted area isn’t it?

MS POFF: I think there is some asphalt there, yes. There is always – also the

Dempster Gate and some pohutakawa trees. 45


MS ANDERSON: And - - -

MS POFF: But that is a gateway that people will walk on the asphalt.

MS ANDERSON: Not wanting to dwell on the difference between all of these 5

buildings and their landscaping, I take it if a 65 metre building went in

there, one of those existing pohutakawa trees around the toilet block

will be removed, that was Mr Brewer’s evidence, would you accept

that?

10

MS POFF: I would have to look at the plan that has the trees for removal.

[3.22 pm]

MS ANDERSON: So when you say it’s going to upset the built and grassed 15

embankment split on the Basin Reserve, Mr Lister says none of the

grassed embankment will be affected by the 65 metre building. Are

you aware of that?

MS POFF: Yes, I agree, the 65 metre will not affect the embankment. 20

MS ANDERSON: So you are talking about it will affect the trees?

MS POFF: No, I’m talking - - -

25

MS ANDERSON: When you say split?

MS POFF: - - - about that it will be shift in the built form and we will see a

concentration of built form coming around to the northern edge, north-

western corner of the Basin Reserve. 30

MS ANDERSON: So you are not saying it will remove some of the green

half?

MS POFF: No. 35

MS ANDERSON: No?

MS POFF: But there’s a shift in the built form and it upsets that sense of

balance between the built form and the embankment on the north-south 40

axis, and the Northern Gateway Building sits right across that axis at

the northern gateway. So we’ll see a shift in the built form, there

would be a concentrated movement to the north.

MS ANDERSON: Thank you. I have no further questions. Yes, thank you, 45

Ms Anderson.


Well, shall we take the afternoon tea break before we ask you to cross-

examine, Mr Cameron? Yes, we’ll adjourn for 15 minutes.

ADJOURNED [3.24 pm] 5

RESUMED [3.43 pm

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Cameron?

10

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON [3.44 pm]

MR CAMERON: Ms Poff, I think when you were answering some additional

questions from my learned friend, Mr Bennion, at the outset of your

evidence you discussed a document which demonstrated the extent to 15

which the Basin Reserve enjoys a particular heritage status, if I can put

it that way. Correct?

MS POFF: A document?

20

MR CAMERON: Yes, there was a document put up on the screen and it

demonstrated the registered status of the Basin Reserve.

MS POFF: Oh, Vivien Rickard’s?

25

MR CAMERON: Yes.

MS POFF: Yes, mm’hm.

MR CAMERON: Is that your - - - 30

MS POFF: Yes, that’s the registered status.

MR CAMERON: It’s the registered status of the Basin Reserve. And the

status includes really all of the structures within the Basin Reserve, 35

doesn’t it?

MS POFF: I suppose it is a majority of structures.

MR CAMERON: And that includes the groundsman’s shed at the far end of 40

the ground – the southern end of the ground next to the J R Reid Gate,

isn’t it?

MS POFF: Yes.

45


MR CAMERON: And it even extends to the 1970s ablution facilities at both

the northern and the southern ends of the ground, doesn’t it?

MS POFF: It’s listed in the Wellington City Council list. I don’t think they’re

heritage features. 5

MR CAMERON: I see?

MS POFF: Yes.

10

MR CAMERON: And from your perspective – and I don’t think it is really

disputed by any witness in this case – the Basin Reserve constitutes a

significant place in terms of its historical significance generally

speaking. Fair?

15

MS POFF: Fair, in it’s setting – yes. In its setting it does.

MR CAMERON: And it’s setting in terms of its significance as a feature you

would also tell us, wouldn’t you, that it is an important element of the

local landscape – of the city landscape? 20

MS POFF: It’s an important element. It’s a significant feature at a national

level.

MR CAMERON: Yes. And its status as such is exemplified by the primary 25

use, which is for the purpose of the playing of cricket. Is that

something, a proposition that you would agree with?

MS POFF: It highlights it. It is an open space as well. I think it is an important

open space. 30

MR CAMERON: Yes. I used the word “exemplified” by it. Are you happy

with that?

MS POFF: That draws attention to it, yes. 35

MR CAMERON: Yes.

MS POFF: Yes, it does.

40

MR CAMERON: Yes, okay. And you also place real emphasis – and I

gathered that from the answer that you gave to my learned friend

earlier, Ms Anderson – that it is an important open space within the city

as well, isn’t it?

45

MS POFF: Yes.


MR CAMERON: So it has an important amenity value – it is an important

amenity in that sense as well?

MS POFF: It has high amenity values. 5

MR CAMERON: And it’s also a place, if I can use that word, which is used

extensively by people who are commuting on foot or cycle to work or

play, north-south - - -

10

[3.48 pm]

MS POFF: They move through it, yes.

MR CAMERON: On a daily basis. 15

MS POFF: Every day.

MR CAMERON: Every day. And so in that sense, in all of those senses, it’s

a place that we can agree is one of significance in urban design terms, 20

in terms of its role.

MS POFF: Spatially.

MR CAMERON: Spatially. 25

MS POFF: Yes, structurally.

MR CAMERON: In terms of its landscape.

30

MS POFF: Landscape.

MR CAMERON: Urban design.

MS POFF: Heritage. 35

MR CAMERON: Heritage.

MS POFF: Yes, perception, landscape perception, landscape amenity and the

values, the characteristics and values associated. 40

MR CAMERON: All of those things are elements which make up or

contribute to our overall understanding of what the Basin Reserve is.

MS POFF: Its sense of place. 45


MR CAMERON: Okay. And all of those things are matters that you would or

you do consider important to – sorry, I’m going to rephrase. All of

those elements that we were discussing are matters which you would

consider to be of sufficient importance as to warrant careful

management so that the Basin Reserve is in no way rendered less 5

attractive by a proposal or an outcome in contemplation such as the

Basin bridge.

MS POFF: That is correct. It would be the Basin Reserve and its setting and

also for Wellington. 10

MR CAMERON: Yes. And you would agree wouldn’t you that and I think

you said to my learned friend Ms Anderson that the bridge in itself is

elegant in its setting.

15

MS POFF: I didn’t say it was elegant. I referred to design experts. And other

experts who had said it is elegant in its setting. I think the bridge will

become iconic in its setting because of where it is – has the potential to.

Whatever you put there will be the Basin bridge.

20

MR CAMERON: Yes. But you would accept that those who have designed

the bridge are designers of considerable reputation.

MS POFF: Yes, most definitely.

25

MR CAMERON: And you would agree with Mr Lister wouldn’t you that in

the design of that bridge every effort has been made to ensure that it is

one that can be established within the setting in a manner which is

appropriate in all the circumstances. In other words if you have to have

a bridge it’s as good as you’re going to get. If I can be as blunt as that. 30

Fair?

MS POFF: I think there are other options for bridges. It is a pier structure. It

is - - -

35

MR CAMERON: Sorry, I just want to be very clear about this. Do you

accept - - -

CHAIRPERSON: You should let her finish her - - -

40

MR CAMERON: I am sorry. Was I interrupting Ms Poff?

MS POFF: No, that’s fine.


MR CAMERON: No, no please. Do you want to add anything to that answer

because it’s an important question and I’m wanting to understand your

view on the bridge.

MS POFF: I think it’s as good as you’re going to get is probably an 5

unfortunate way to put it. I think it is what is proposed and what

people have worked with.

[3.53 pm]

10

I am not sure that the designers have – they’ve had some influence over

it and they've obviously had a lot of workshops over it and reference

groups over how to improve what they have been given to work with. I

take you back to Graham McIndoe who shows different examples and

we can look globally, nationally at different examples. And it is a 15

concrete pier structure in that environment. And I think there are other

options.

MR CAMERON: Right so while you have considerable respect for the

designers of it, nonetheless you think that other options could have 20

been considered. Is that your view?

MS POFF: Yes.

MR CAMERON: Do you consider – do you accept Mr Hardwick-Smith’s 25

evidence to the effect that he has designed a slender and unobtrusive

structure which is intended to provide a level of opacity and light and

elegance within its setting?

MS POFF: No, I don’t accept it as elegant in its setting. I don’t accept that it 30

is light or slender. It is obtrusive in its setting.

MR CAMERON: So from your point of view it’s obtrusive and you don’t

accept that it’s elegant. So how would you describe it?

35

MS POFF: It’s a bridge. It’s a concrete bridge and I like concrete, but it is a

concrete bridge in a very sensitive urban landscape.

MR CAMERON: Right. And when we view this concrete structure in this

sensitive setting or location on the one hand you view it from the 40

Cambridge Kent Terrace perspective don’t you?

MS POFF: Yes.

MR CAMERON: And in that setting while I’m driving south along Kent 45

Terrace I’m going to see a structure that is a bridge in a setting which is


part of a roading network aren’t I? So it’s going to be an element of the

road, the roading infrastructure in that location.

MS POFF: It’s a new element.

5

MR CAMERON: I accept that.

MS POFF: And it’s an elevated structure.

MR CAMERON: Yes, but we’re going to see an elevated roading structure 10

that will be part of the transport infrastructure of the city from that

perspective won’t it?

MS POFF: That’s what you’re going to see. And you’re going to see the

mitigation associated with it, or offset, whichever way you look at it. 15

MR CAMERON: Now as I understand it you are saying that having regard to

the form of this structure when you view it from this very significant

location that we can look out at here, the Basin Reserve, when you

view it from within the Basin Reserve you consider that it is sufficient 20

for any screening from or of distraction to cricket players to be

established by way of a screen on the bridge.

MS POFF: I say it is an option that needs to be further resolved and worked

through if that is how screening was to be achieved on the bridge. It 25

could also be - - -

[3.58 pm]

MR CAMERON: I want to explore this with you. What do you mean by that, 30

that it’s an option that can be explored because I noted you to say

earlier I don’t need to come up with a solution. So what are you telling

us about this screen on the bridge, please? What is your evidence as to

its appropriateness?

35

MS POFF: So the purpose is to screen the adverse effects generated by

moving traffic on the bridge - - -

MR CAMERON: Well - - -

40

MS POFF: - - - that’s what screening is for.

MR CAMERON: Is that entirely correct do you think? Why else would you

in these circumstances consider a mitigation in a form of a structure

such as the Northern Gateway Building do you think? 45


MS POFF: Because people don’t want to look at the flyover or the bridge.

MR CAMERON: Because why?

MS POFF: Because it will change the ambience of the Basin Reserve and the 5

ambience - - -

MR CAMERON: And we both agree don’t we that the ambience of the Basin

Reserve is of considerable importance and in elements – in certain

dimensions of it if I can use that phraseology they are of – or there are 10

certain elements or dimensions of this Basin Reserve which are of

national importance you would say.

MS POFF: Well I think that the ambience of the Basin Reserve is obviously

defined in a quantitative and qualitative way and that the appreciation 15

of the space and the corridors is what gives it the ambience. And those

are the low points in the landscape to the south, being Adelaide Road

and to the north being Kent and Cambridge and it is those corridors

plus the space that create the ambience.

20

MR CAMERON: And its use as a cricket ground do you think? Do you think

that’s an inherent element of its ambience? Whether it’s being played

or not played.

MS POFF: I think its setting is a lot of its ambience and I think when you’re 25

at a cricket game the ambience would be somewhat different to when

you are passing through a peaceful reserve on your way to work.

MR CAMERON: But an element of any landscape assessment is the concept

or includes the concept of memorability doesn’t it? 30

MS POFF: Yes.

MR CAMERON: And a significant element of the memorability of this place

is its primary use as a first-class cricket ground isn’t it? 35

MS POFF: It would be part of your memory if you’ve been to the cricket

game. If you go through it every morning as your zen moment before

you hit Kent and Cambridge it would be of a different – you would

have a different perception and memory of it. You might look at the 40

playing surface and think this is where they play cricket. I’m not

allowed to go on there.

MR CAMERON: I see so that’s the open space dimension that you are

concerned about? 45


MS POFF: No, no, no. It’s a different perception and I think - - -

MR CAMERON: It’s a different perception.

MS POFF: Yes. 5

MR CAMERON: But to come back to the point you would accept wouldn’t

you that given the significance and the nature and the range of the

values that we have agreed - - -

10

MS POFF: Yes.

MR CAMERON: - - - that to advance a proposal of the kind that is proposed

in this case, by namely the bridge, then steps need to be taken in terms

of mitigation that are sufficiently comprehensive so as to avoid 15

adversely affecting the values we have been discussing.

[4.03 pm]

MS POFF: Yes, and it is my understanding that they cannot all be avoiding 20

and I also make the comment that some of them are accumulative, that

they increase.

MR CAMERON: Well, some cannot be avoided, but certainly the effects of

the bridge on all of those factors are mitigated and in terms of the effect 25

on the playability of cricket they are avoided, are they not?

MS POFF: I cannot comment on that, I am not a cricketer, it is not my area of

expertise and I have not seen any assessment or evaluation from the

International Cricket Council to that affect that the alteration and 30

change considered here that is proposed, I have seen no evidence to say

that what is proposed (a) whether the Basin Reserve in its current form

is up to standard ad whether the proposal will change that standard and

when you are considering an alteration as large as the one proposed

within the ground and to the ambience and the exterior setting of the 35

ground then my understanding that ICC will have that proposal put

across there then and they would be able to assess that, I cannot, it is

out of my area of expertise. I think there is a real risk by changing the

ambience, changing the situation, there is a risk there.

40

MR CAMERON: If the cricket fraternity responsible for the protection of that

status informs this Board that a Northern Gateway Building will protect

that status you would accept that, would you not? If Sir John Anderson

who has served on that Board were to say that, you would accept that,

would you not? 45


MS POFF: As I have said in my evidence, I do not agree with the location of

the Northern Gateway Building and I think there are other options to

mitigate the adverse effects of traffic moving on the bridge and

maintained the character, the heritage, the values, the amenity values,

the visual connection. I have said that in my evidence that they can be 5

in my opinion maintained and enhanced by different options. I think

the Northern Gateway Building changes the whole setting of the Basin

Reserve and its setting.

MR CAMERON: Well what are these other options which you say can 10

satisfactorily address those or that suite of considerations please?

MS POFF: Screening on the bridge, whether it is temporary, permanent as we

have said, the level of opacity with the 65 metre building there is a

screen proposed in the void between above the pavilion at the moment 15

at the moment which has a level of opacity. You can see the crane in

the background through the screen that is there where there is gap

which shows there is a case that there is a screen there with a level of

opacity whether it is permanent with the ground.

20

I have heard several of the experts being questioned about additional

screening options within the ground should the vegetation not provide

the necessary screening of the bridge in the short term or the long term.

Is it feasible to think about putting additional screening so these are all

dealing with the effects and they are dealing with the effects of the 25

bridge which as I say, if there was an at-grade solution it would be less

invasive and we would not looking at all these additional effects visited

on the Basin Reserve.

MR CAMERON: That is a different point. We are not talking about at the 30

moment an at-grade solution are we, we are talking about screening for

all of the reasons that we have been discussing with grade separation?

MS POFF: Yes, and there are many options I think to how that could be

resolved and I think very briefly and very quickly they were dealt with 35

upfront as shown and have never been worked through. Truescape

never did visual simulations of them.

[4.08 pm]

40

MR CAMERON: Do you accept that a screen on the bridge would be highly

visually intrusive from within the Basin Reserve?

MS POFF: No, I do not.

45


MR CAMERON: So if we could just have a look please at the relevant picture

which is on slide 60, slide number 70. Now that is a comparison slide

70.

MR BAINES: Is this Ms Wraight? Wraight 01? 5

CHAIRPERSON: Hardwick-Smith.

MS POFF: Hardwick-Smith.

10

MR BAINES: Hardwick-Smith sorry.

MS POFF: Annexure 1.2 rebuttal.

MR CAMERON: Thank you, I am obliged. So we have a look at those 15

representations of what we are discussing, one being the 65 metre

Northern Gateway Building and the other being the screen on the

bridge, is it your evidence to this board that you consider that a screen

of that kind on the bridge would be acceptable as mitigation in these

circumstances? 20

MS POFF: Yes, I do and I think that given the detail and resolved design that

has gone into the Northern Gateway Building and how that has been

detailed in that image and how the screen has been shown simply as a

grey fence element across the top of the bridge, I have great faith as 25

Frank Stoks put it I think to additional elements being attached to the

bridge that with the design professionals we have the resolution would

be high quality.

MR CAMERON: But those design professionals do not consider this to be an 30

acceptable outcome, do they?

MS POFF: It has not been worked through as I said in my evidence that is my

opinion. I do not think it has been worked through to the same degree

as the Northern Gateway Building. 35

MR CAMERON: Well Mr Hardwick-Smith described in his evidence the

process that was undertaken in relation to the development of the

screening options, did he not and how and why a decision was made to

consider a building of the kind that we can see depicted on the left hand 40

side of that slide.

MS POFF: That is correct, yes.

45


MR CAMERON: Right, and just so we are really very clear about this you are

saying and you want this Board to accept as your evidence that having

regard to the work and expertise of those designers which you have

acknowledged and the outcomes which we can see depicted before us

in slide 70 and the values that we have discussed that you prefer a 5

solution based on a screen on the bridge as mitigation in this location?

MS POFF: I say it is an option and I prefer to the Northern Gateway Building

and the effects that the Northern Gateway Building generates and the

effects that screen, I am not saying the screen does not generate effects 10

but I prefer it as an option and I say there are many options of how it is

screened. Screening could happen in the Reserve, this is one option

that is shown on the bridge.

[4.13 pm] 15

MR CAMERON: No, I understand your evidence to be that you prefer the

screen on the bridge?

MS POFF: That was from the expert caucusing, that has come through from 20

the expert caucusing as I explained earlier to Ms Anderson that was

from the option one yet shown in slide 60 which shows the mitigation

of the tree planting between giving a level of screening to the screen.

There was a softening to that screen on the bridge by the proposal to

plant. 25

MR CAMERON: That is evidence from drawing 18 on the right hand side in

slide 70, is it not?

MS POFF: I think, yes, interestingly we should probably have a look at slide 30

60 again on that same view, because the vegetation seems to be a of a

slightly different scale.

MR CAMERON: Sure.

35

MS POFF: If we could zoom into option one, top left hand, the trees seem to

be slightly closer to the top of the screen than they are in slide drawing

18 on slide 70.

MR CAMERON: But would you accept by way of an extension to this 40

discussion that a screen on the bridge would always appear as

mitigation whereas a building such as the Northern Gateway Building

will appear as a permanent structure relevant to an international cricket

ground?

45

MS POFF: The Northern Gateway?


MR CAMERON: That was a non qualitative statement, proposition so I put it

to you in a non qualitative way that a building such as the Northern

Gateway Building will be a permanent structure appropriate to the use

of the space as a cricket ground, I ask you whether you like it or not, 5

just it is permanent?

MS POFF: Yes, it is permanent, it terminates Kent and Cambridge.

MR CAMERON: You use the word “terminate” is that really fair? 10

MS POFF: Very fair.

MR CAMERON: Well shall we have a look at that because there are, if we

have a look at 56 - - - 15

MS POFF: 7B 56.

MR CAMERON: The 65 metre option.

20

MS POFF: 56 would not be a good one.

MR CAMERON: 7B.57 please. Just a very clear appreciation of what we are

talking about, 7B.56 having regard to your point. Perhaps the bridge

without any structure - - - 25

MS POFF: Yes, with the existing fence.

MR CAMERON: With the existing fence?

30

MS POFF: Yes.

MR CAMERON: And 57 is with the 65 metre option Northern Gateway

Building insitu?

35

MS POFF: Yes.

MR CAMERON: Now in his evidence and that of Ms Wraight I think they

both placed considerable importance or significance on the open nature

of the bottom of the building and I think Mr Hardwick-Smith also made 40

very clear that as the person who designed this building, he favours an

open space on the second floor, the second storey of the building from

55 metres to 65 metres. You recall all that?

45


[4.18 pm]

MS POFF: Yes.

MR CAMERON: What was that? What was his reasoning for that? 5

MS POFF: Because the bridge plus the Northern Gateway Building takes

away the void and the openness that is currently experienced as you

move along Kent Terrace and there was a concern I gather and from the

visuals, depending where you are in the landscape that that sense of 10

openness and connection has been closed down and there is concern

that the ground level of that building had the potential to be closed

down as well and as a condition they say on, when cricket is not

playing it will remain open and it will be permeable and it is not.

15

As you approach the Basin Reserve toward the Basin Reserve heading

south, you currently experience the sense of openness, big sky, valley

as you head out there. This will change with the proposal of the bridge

and the Northern Gateway across the end of Kent and Cambridge

Terrace. It is not until you get up to the Basin Reserve within 50 20

metres, even less that with the gates open you will pick up a sense of

green and openness which has been removed. The removal of the trees

from that perimeter so there will be a sense as you get up to that point

that there will be that.

25

As I discussed earlier there is the potential to have that should the

perimeter fence be reviewed at the moment. You could have that sense

of openness at that point now.

MR CAMERON: But that is it not its appearance now is it? 30

MS POFF: No, it’s appearance now is something quite tired and run down

and sad.

MR CAMERON: We will come onto that later in terms of the issue of light, 35

but you would accept would you not, that to say that that building

forms an obstruction which I think was the word that you used about

five minutes or so ago as an overstatement of the position, is it not?

MS POFF: No, Kent and Cambridge is recognised as a key boulevard in the 40

2040 strategy for Wellington City. It was recognised in the structural

planning when he first did the structure plan for Wellington, it was

going to be a canal.

MR CAMERON: We will come back to that. 45


MS POFF: We will come back to that so by placing a flyover and a building

across the southern end of Kent and Cambridge Terrace on what is one

of our main boulevards hopefully with the potential to connect to the

harbour at the other end one day is a key, that location, that Northern

Gate location of the Basin Reserve is a key place and you would not if 5

you were planning a key boulevard, you would not a flyover and a

building that does not address the boulevard in such a strong, it would

be a place where you would put a building of significant civic purpose.

We have a flyover proposed and a cricket pavilion.

10

[4.23 pm]

MR CAMERON: If we were planning the city afresh, as your point, we might

start afresh and look at it differently, is that - - -

15

MS POFF: Not at all, we’re not looking at it afresh, we have a landscape that

has many layers.

MR CAMERON: I agree.

20

MS POFF: Pre-history heritage, all interconnected that has provided a pretty

good structure to now, and that structure hasn’t been fully realised.

MR CAMERON: Can we come back to that in a moment?

25

MS POFF: Mm’hm.

MR CAMERON: Because I am still wanting to explore this fundamental

question with you, and that is – sorry the observation that you made,

which I am responding to, in terms of asking you to comment, and that 30

is that you consider, based on what we can see in 7B.57, that the

Northern Gateway building is an obstruction at the southern end of the

Cambridge and Kent Terraces.

MS POFF: Yes. If I go back to 7B.56 and have a look at that, it is an 35

obstruction. Quite clearly.

MR CAMERON: Can you just tell me please what the difference between 56

and 57 is?

40

MS POFF: The Northern Gateway building takes out the legibility of the

landscape in which you are in, takes out the skyline that is apparent

under the Basin Bridge in 7B.56, it removes that legibility. You could

be anywhere.

45


MR CAMERON: If you look at it from almost an equivalent location but in

terms of the distance from the bridge, but we look at 7B.54, and there

we are viewing it from the Cambridge Terrace median, what do you

say now?

5

MS POFF: What do I say now?

MR CAMERON: Mm. On this issue of obstruction.

MS POFF: Can I have a look at 7B.53? 10

MR CAMERON: 54?

MS POFF: I’m just having a look at 53 so I can compare.

15

MR CAMERON: No, I am wanting you to compare 54 and 56 and 57 please,

in the context of the answer that you’ve just provided. What does 54

achieve?

CHAIRPERSON: If she wants to look at 53 to help her to do that, she should 20

be entitled to.

MR CAMERON: Yes, I agree. Sorry, sir.

MS POFF: Maybe even 52 might be more appropriate, if we go back to the 25

existing view.

MR CAMERON: Yes, all right.

MS POFF: You talk to me about obstruction in the landscape, there’s a lot of 30

elements that have been introduced into that simulation and they look

to be obstructing the view, and in the foreground there’s a large

pohutukawa.

MR CAMERON: Yes. 35

MS POFF: Behind that – and some very large cabbage trees, and behind that

is the bridge, and then behind that is the Northern Gateway building.

Three quite dense layers of obstruction into what was a reading of the

Newtown Valley with the town built on your left hand side, on the 40

eastern side, and then Brooklyn in the bigger side, those major ridges

that Ms Wraight referred to.

MR CAMERON: Do you accept that what these true scape images depict is

not an obstruction as you put it, but rather is a reduction in the extent to 45

which the openness depicted in those images without either the bridge


or the Northern Gateway building are depicted? You accept that that’s

a more accurate statement of the position?

[4.28 pm]

5

MS POFF: That they’re reducted?

MR CAMERON: That it’s a reduction rather than an obstruction. Do you

think that’s a fairer - - -

10

MS POFF: It’s obstructing the view and I don’t know how much more you

could put into there to reduce it much further because it is significantly

reduced from where we were in the valley, in what would have been

the Waitangi Stream in that central median, it is - - -

15

MR CAMERON: Look, I really didn’t want this to generate into a semantic

issue at all, I hear what you’re saying. So what you are saying is that it

is a substantial reduction?

MS POFF: Yes. 20

MR CAMERON: Do you accept that while it may be a substantial reduction

from one perspective, the openness that is created at the bottom level of

the Northern Gateway building is as Ms Popova put it, a compensatory

response for the loss of the elements that you can see in terms of your 25

ability to look into the background, if I can put it that way, into the

distance?

MS POFF: On 7B.54, I can’t see into the Basin.

30

MR CAMERON: Well, I think you can if you look carefully, immediately in

front of that blue vehicle, you can see through, can’t you, and also

behind that - - -

MS POFF: Is that the toilet block there? I think that might be the toilet block, 35

is the toilet block not directly - - -

MR CAMERON: No. Just have a good look at it because I think if you can

see through the pohutukawa tree in the foreground and the cabbage tree

on the right hand side of the median, that behind you get that view 40

through the Basin Reserve.

MS POFF: I don’t think it compensates. My opinion is it does not compensate

for the loss of that big view that tells us where we are in the landscape.

45


MR CAMERON: And when you are moving through a landscape, it’s not –

sorry, your appreciation of a landscape isn’t derived statically, is it?

MS POFF: Definitely not.

5

MR CAMERON: It is derived on the basis of your movement through it?

MS POFF: It’s your experience as you move through it.

MR CAMERON: Yes, and so while you might lose that larger perspective as 10

we have discussed it through the reduction that we have agreed, that is

only at this location, is it not, but in other locations as we move beyond

this point that wider perspective is apparent again, is it not?

MS POFF: Well, it’s a different perspective, isn’t it, you’ve shifted, you’ve 15

changed, you’re experiencing it as you move through and whether

you’re moving through the Basin or whether you’re taking Ellice Street

or what would have been Buckle Street, it shifts whichever journey you

take, it shifts.

20

MR CAMERON: It’s a part of the journey, isn’t it?

MS POFF: It’s a significant part of the journey, yes.

MR CAMERON: But it is - - - 25

MS POFF: Quite a memorable one.

MR CAMERON: It is just one part of the journey. Fair?

30

MS POFF: As shown previously in the drive through it can be quite a large

percentage of your journey around the Basin.

[4.33 pm]

35

MR CAMERON: And on the other hand, we get this view into the Basin

Reserve which is not apparent now through the design of the building.

MS POFF: Because we have a fence currently and we get that view, and even

if the fence was changed you would only get that view when you are 40

going around the Kent, as shown in the drive through, that ground view

into the Basin Reserve does not become apparent until you are - - -


MR CAMERON: Can we agree this, that having regard to the values that you

are articulating, that again, the way in which this mitigation has been

developed addresses your concerns as thoroughly as could be

considered in all the circumstances.

5

MS POFF: The Northern Gateway building?

MR CAMERON: Having regard to the issues that we’ve been discussing

from Kent/Cambridge Terrace in relation to openness.

10

MS POFF: No, the Northern Gateway does not address any of my concerns of

the values, the loss of values.

MR CAMERON: Well, let’s just be careful about this because I don’t want to

be at cross purposes with you. I’m not asking you whether you agree 15

with the Northern Gateway building or not, so let’s just assume for the

purpose of my question that I accept that you don’t, do you accept this,

however, that if there is to be a building of this kind in this location, it

addresses the concerns that you have identified as sensitively and

thoroughly as practicable in all of the circumstances. Do you accept 20

that proposition?

MS POFF: I find that difficult to answer because I don’t accept the Northern

Gateway building and - - -

25

MR CAMERON: I understand that, but I’d like you to really consider that,

Ms Poff, please. I’d like you to answer the question. So take your time

to consider the proposition please.

MS POFF: That should a building be in that location and the way it’s been 30

resolved at ground level.

MR CAMERON: And on the second floor with the openness as proposed,

that it is - - -

35

MS POFF: Can I take a line out of Gavin Lister’s presentation, is it as good as

it can be – it’s as good as it can be.

MR CAMERON: So is that your answer?

40

MS POFF: Well, I don’t - - -

MR CAMERON: I want to understand what you think about that.

MS POFF: I think if you have a building in that location, as I’ve made quite 45

clear, I think a building in that location is inappropriate.


MR CAMERON: Yes.

MS POFF: If you have a building in that location, obviously openness is

going to help. 5

MR CAMERON: Yes.

MS POFF: It depends where you view it in the landscape, further down,

further back on Kent and Cambridge, all those things, and I also refer 10

to the building not being, you know, performing the right from the

outside of the Basin Reserve on Kent and Cambridge Terrace, it is the

back of the cricket pavilion. It does not address Kent and Cambridge

Terrace. There is a flyover there, so, yes.

15

MR CAMERON: But in terms also of the form of that structure, you would

agree, wouldn’t you, that as a structure its form is appropriate to the use

of the Basin Reserve as a cricket ground. In other words, it is clearly a

facility that is designed for the purpose of a sports facility and for those

knowledgeable about cricket and looking through and into the ground, 20

it will be immediately apparent that it is appropriate to a cricket

ground, won’t it?

[4.38 pm]

25

MS POFF: It provides screening for the purposes of cricket. It is, in the visual

sense, it is a screen and it mitigates that in effect.

MR CAMERON: I understand that as an answer, but that wasn’t the question

I asked, with respect. The question I asked you was whether or not as a 30

structure its form is appropriate to the use of the Basin Reserve as a

cricket ground.

MS POFF: As a pavilion?

35

MR CAMERON: Yes.

MS POFF: Well, I presume, yes, it is useful. It could be located within the

ground elsewhere as well and it would be useful as long as it’s, you

know, for the use of cricket, the ongoing use of the ground. 40

MR CAMERON: And in your view, while we’re on that subject, you take the

view that if there were to be another building of this kind constructed

within the Basin Reserve, it should be in the south western corner.

45


MS POFF: Not necessarily of this kind, I don’t think that if there was to be a

building then my opinion is that the south west corner is the appropriate

location for a building. What the buildings purpose is, what is needed at

the Basin Reserve is not my area of expertise.

5

MR CAMERON: All right. And so what would you have in mind in the south

western corner? Why is it that you’ve made that suggestion? I don’t

understand that suggestion, I don’t understand why you’ve advanced

that.

10

MS POFF: To the south western corner?

MR CAMERON: Yes.

MS POFF: Which is where the Briley, is it the Briley? 15

MR CAMERON: Yes.

MS POFF: The administration building.

20

MR CAMERON: The administration building.

MS POFF: Because it follows the built form, the built nature of the Basin

Reserve.

25

MR CAMERON: I see.

MS POFF: It maintains that sense of balance with the embankment and the

vegetated edge of the pohutukawas, the ring of the pohutukawas, it

maintains the openness at the north gate and the south gate, and it 30

builds on the built form that layers back as you look this way, you’ve

got the built form on this embankment that follows the natural contour

of the high ground behind you, and it is framed and supported, does not

break the skyline by putting buildings along this edge, when viewed it

gives you that sense of balance and that layering of built form and 35

landscape to the high ground. So building in the south western corner

maintains that sense of balance.

MR CAMERON: I understand your point. And to balance, you’d have to

balance up other factors though, wouldn’t you, and they include 40

whether or not from the cricket fraternities perspective that location

would be necessarily one that people would want to use to view cricket

from.

45


MS POFF: I’ll refer back to the need of the reserve requiring a management

plan and in that management plan you would have a master plan, and as

part of that exercise you would work with the community involved in

the reserve, the Historic Places Trust.

5

MR CAMERON: And you wouldn’t want to encroach into the facility that

has been developed for nets.

MS POFF: I think there’s a bigger picture required here and I think it is one of

a master plan and a management plan for the reserve so that they can 10

move forward in a cohesive, considered way.

MR CAMERON: Are you aware that the net facility is required for the

retention of ICC status?

15

MS POFF: No, I am not. I also understand that there is a practice facility

below us here.

MR CAMERON: An indoor facility?

20

MS POFF: Yes.

MR CAMERON: Well, we can ask the cricketers all about that, but if that

were the case, I suggest to you that - - -

25

[4.43 pm]

MS POFF: It’s the first time I have heard that the nets are required.

MR CAMERON: All right. But if that were the case, that would give one 30

cause to pause and reflect, wouldn’t it?

MS POFF: As I say, there’s a bigger picture and I think you need to look at

the whole area and it mightn’t be just the area within the reserve at the

moment, there might be potential areas where a facility could develop 35

in the future.

MR CAMERON: Finally, if we’ve got on the – I just want to be careful and

logical about this with you, because on the one hand are you saying we

have to look at this in a way which is going to achieve a balance in 40

built form, which is what you have articulated carefully in relation to

that south western corner - - -

MS POFF: I think there’s a definite sense of balance in the current

arrangement of the Basin Reserve historic area. 45


MR CAMERON: Yes, but to be fair, you would want to balance against that

or need to have regard to an optimal outcome for cricket and those who

wish to use the ground for that purpose. Correct?

MS POFF: Yes. 5

MR CAMERON: So if their preference were to have a facility of the kind that

is proposed in the location proposed to mitigate the effect of the bridge

and that better meets their requirements, then that would be a matter

deserving of considerable weight, wouldn’t it? 10

MS POFF: Yes, and I think you have to weigh that up with the effects from

the exterior of the Basin Reserve, the everyday effects on the exterior.

MR CAMERON: Yes, but - - - 15

MS POFF: Because if it ruins it from the inside, if the bridge ruins it from the

inside of the Basin Reserve, it also ruins it from the outside, and I think

everyday people move through that landscape and even though they’re

moving once, twice, they go there every day and that memory is a 20

memorable – it is very important and I think that we need to consider

the effects, not only from inside the Basin but also outside the Basin

Reserve and on the setting.

MR CAMERON: Yes, well, we have discussed it from both perspectives, 25

haven’t we?

MS POFF: Mm’hm.

MR CAMERON: We’ve discussed it from the Kent/Cambridge side. 30

MS POFF: Mm’hm.

MR CAMERON: And we’ve also discussed it from the inside of the Basin

Reserve. Are we at least able to agree this, that the form or that the 35

facility that is proposed is clearly one that has a purpose directly related

to the function of the Basin Reserve as a first class cricket facility of

international standard?

MS POFF: The form of it does, yes. 40

MR CAMERON: And that in the form proposed it provides an effective

screen from within the Basin Reserve of the bridge?

MS POFF: As I have said when we were talking about in the sense of visual 45

screening, I think there are other options.


MR CAMERON: I understand that.

MS POFF: Yes.

5

MR CAMERON: But it does - - -

MS POFF: It provides a screen.

MR CAMERON: Yes. 10

MS POFF: As one option of many.

MR CAMERON: Yes, so it’s effective in terms of that purpose, that

outcome? 15

MS POFF: Yes, has effects associated with it.

MR CAMERON: I understand that point. And in terms of the effects of it, are

we able to agree that they have been managed as effectively as can be 20

as is possible in the design having regard to outcomes from within the

Basin Reserve and from Cambridge/Kent Terrace.

MS POFF: Sorry, I can’t agree to that.

25

[4.48 pm]

MR CAMERON: Well, I thought you agreed earlier that it’s, to use

Mr Lister’s phraseology, it’s as good as it - - -

30

MS POFF: It screens, you’ve asked me if it screens, I said, yes, it screens. Its

form, does it perform a form for function of cricket, I have said yes, it

does. And now you’re asking me does it, best as it can, does it address

the key values, and I can’t agree to that because it has significant

landscape heritage and visual effects. 35

MR CAMERON: Well, in terms of landscape effects, we have discussed the

openness of the building and the benefits of that, the openness of the

structure.

40

MS POFF: There is some openness.

MR CAMERON: And so the significance of the view shaft, the boulevard, the

Kent/Cambridge connection, is transparently acknowledged within the

design of the building, isn’t it? 45


MS POFF: No.

MR CAMERON: Why not? I don’t understand that answer.

MS POFF: A view shaft? 5

MR CAMERON: Yes, it’s providing for a degree of openness to allow for

and provide for that very shaft, is it not?

MS POFF: No. 10

MR CAMERON: Why not?

MS POFF: Because it blocks the view shaft, as I have discussed, it is not until

you are on top of the Basin Reserve that you will experience a sense of 15

openness underneath it. The sense of openness has been removed as

you come down Kent and Cambridge and the bridge, the combination

of the Northern Gateway building has taken that sense of openness

away.

20

MR CAMERON: Can we use the true scape images to help us on this point?

If you have a look at 7B.12, please?

MS POFF: 7B?

25

MR CAMERON: 12.

MS POFF: 12?

MR CAMERON: Yes, before we go onto another topic, you’ll be pleased to 30

know.

CHAIRPERSON: Which we’ll leave till tomorrow morning.

MR CAMERON: Yes, sir. If you have a look at the perspective from this point 35

in Kent and Cambridge Terrace, which is on the Kent Terrace/Pirie

Street corner, do you still think that these structures - - -

CHAIRPERSON: 73B.12?

40

MR CAMERON: I am sorry, 7B.12. Do you still think or maintain your

position that these structures form a reduction in that wider perspective

that we’ve been discussing?

MS POFF: Yes, I do, and I think you need to go onto site to take the visual 45

simulations - - -


MR CAMERON: Yes.

MS POFF: And I think you need to go onto site where you can view them at

the scale that they are and have a look and, yes, I do, and even looking 5

at 7B.11, standing in the bus lane with the lamp post, which is not a

representative view point I don’t think, one representative view point

would be if you were driving down Kent and Cambridge, and in that

sense when you were driving down Kent and Cambridge as well, I’ve

looked at the view points on site with the simulations, and there is an 10

element, an introduced element that reduces.

MR CAMERON: Yes. But to a minor extent at that location?

MS POFF: The larger sense of open space. 15

MR CAMERON: Yes.

[4.53 pm]

20

MS POFF: Yes. It takes some of the green element away at the Basin Reserve

that you start to read.

MR CAMERON: But to a minor extent is what I am putting to you. It’s a

minor effect at that location, isn’t it? 25

MS POFF: I would say it’s an effect, I’m not going to weight it because I am

not on site and I’m not looking at it. But it takes some of that green, as

you are driving down Kent Terrace towards the Basin Reserve, one of

the key elements is the perimeter ring of pohutukawa, and that starts to 30

remove that view.

MR CAMERON: Well, if we have a look at 7B.14?

MS POFF: Yes. 35

MR CAMERON: And 15?

MS POFF: Yes.

40

MR CAMERON: That rather makes your point in relation to the pohutukawa,

doesn’t it?

MS POFF: Yes.

45


MR CAMERON: But not in relation to the enhanced openness of the base of

the structure?

MS POFF: You don’t read the openness at the base of the Northern Gateway

building at that point. 5

MR CAMERON: So you don’t think, at that point, that that would be as

legible as the true scape image suggests?

MS POFF: Sorry, could you rephrase that? 10

MR CAMERON: You don’t accept that the true scape image fairly depicts the

openness at the base of the structure as is suggested by a simple

viewing of that image, is that what you’re wanting to tell us?

15

MS POFF: I don’t see a green space there, I see wetland planting in the plaza

in front of the Basin Reserve.

MR CAMERON: What about in front of the red car that we can see entering

the corner in 7B.15? What do we see in front of that? 20

MS POFF: We see an opaque screen.

MR CAMERON: And beyond that?

25

MS POFF: A sense of the reserve.

MR CAMERON: Thank you, sir. That, I think, might be a convenient

moment.

30

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Cameron. Ms Poff, unfortunately, we

will have to ask you to come back tomorrow morning.

MS POFF: Yes.

35

CHAIRPERSON: I just remind you, you are on your cross-examination

overnight, so please don’t discuss it with any other members of the

Save the Basin.

MS POFF: Yes. 40

CHAIRPERSON: Otherwise, have a good evening and we’ll see you

tomorrow morning at 9.30 am.

MS POFF: Thank you. 45


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we’ll adjourn until 9.30 am.

MATTER ADJOURNED AT 4.57 PM UNTIL

THURSDAY, 10 APRIL 2014

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF INQUIRY Basin …€¦ · 5 other folders with it as well. Mr...

Documents

Transcript of TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF INQUIRY Basin …€¦ · 5 other folders with it as well. Mr...