Wellington City Council Decision Making / Consultation Processes
Chris McCashin made this Official Information request to Wellington City Council
This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Chris McCashin to read recent responses and update the status.
From: Chris McCashin
Dear Wellington City Council,
Having been in Wellington coming up ten years now it has been somewhat depressing to watch the city go from where it was to where it is now. Whether it be ruining formerly the best street in Wellington (Island Bay parade), crime, significant rates rises, highest commercial rates, anti business policy, crumbling infrastructure, seemingly only wanting to represent cyclists, incompetent decision making on major projects, shocking fiscal management with this appearing to get worse, making access to public health harder?!, no accountability, to be fair it is really everything. Now the majority of this is a given, because central and local government are perhaps the most incompetent people I have ever dealt with. But then it turns out, that isn't the only problem with one of the Wellington City councilors actually saying the quiet part out loud. One of our elected officials, who turns out has decided she doesn't actually work to represent Wellingtonians decided to confirm that along with incompetence, councilors don't actually listen to consultation. On a recent interview and I quote with the following question from the interviewer Iona Pannett was asked the following.
"If there is an overwhelming number of people who do not want this you will not do this" with the response being
"That's not how we make decisions" - you can not make this stuff up!
So based on the above and given Wellington City Council doesn't listen to the ratepayer can you please provide the following
"Decision making process, outcome of consultation, cost / benefit analysis, financials, reports and recommendations" associated with the following projects
Library Project - from memory majority of submissions were against strengthening, ultimately I want to see why WCC decided to strengthen as opposed to other options
The Esplanade Slow Zone
Cobham Drive Pedestrian Lights
Newtown Cycleway - specifically outside the Wellington hospital - who on earth thought the design of this was a good thing?! At least if cyclists are skittled they will be able to walk to hospital but the driver won't be able to park anywhere!
Wellington Convention Centre - I would like to see the information when it was thought Peter Jackson was going to be a tenant, versus the information after when he decided he didn't want to be a part of the project.
Pedestrianizing Lambton Quay
Can you also please provide the following in relation to the councilors interview with Heather Du Plessis Allan associated with taking the speed limit down to 30km.
Ms Pannett mentioned that first of all we haven't decided to do this but are going to get some further work done. Please provide
Scope of the additional work
Cost of the additional work
Consultants engaged and / or likely to be engaged
Costs paid to the consultants to date & terms of reference associated with 30km speed zone
Ms Pannett was quoted as saying it was $8m dollars - please provide an itemised breakdown of this $8m dollars and what it relates to and the associated report
Ms Pannett mentioned it was not $44m dollars as it would be an enormous amount of money to spend and she understood the cost to be $8m. So two requests here
- Please provide the itemized costs associated with the $44m dollars and the associated report
- Ms Pannett then mentioned and I quote "No that is not what I understood at all, that's not what we were told the cost is $8m" - so I am assuming Ms Pannett has not read any of these reports as she doesn't appear to understand them - who is Ms Pannett relying on to tell her what the cost is? Would she be best to read the reports before going on radio?
- Please provide the reporting associated with the $327m that Heather Du Plessis Allan relies on
- Please provide the cost / benefit ratio where Ms Pannett states the "benefits massively outweigh the risks". Please provide this cost benefit analysis, terms of service associated with the report, consultants who completed the report and cost to do the cost benefit analysis
If you can go ahead and provide me the above information that would be much appreciated.
Yours faithfully,
Chris
From: BUS: Assurance
Wellington City Council
Tēnā koe Chris
Thank you for your email dated 18/09/2022 requesting information about the
Wellington City Council Decision Making / Consultation Processes for
various Wellington City projects.
Our team will manage your request under the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987 which requires us to provide a decision
as soon as possible, but no later than 14/10/2022, being 20 working days
of receipt.
The reference number for your request is IRC-3891.
Please contact us if you have any further questions.
Kind regards
The Assurance Team
Email: [1][email address]
Wellington City Council | W [2]Wellington.govt.nz | [3]Facebook|
[4]Twitter
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and
intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that
confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the
sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
[5]http://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/Images...
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris McCashin <[FOI #20605 email]>
Sent: Sunday, 18 September 2022 9:10 pm
To: BUS: Assurance <[email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Wellington City Council Decision
Making / Consultation Processes
Dear Wellington City Council,
Having been in Wellington coming up ten years now it has been somewhat
depressing to watch the city go from where it was to where it is now.
Whether it be ruining formerly the best street in Wellington (Island Bay
parade), crime, significant rates rises, highest commercial rates, anti
business policy, crumbling infrastructure, seemingly only wanting to
represent cyclists, incompetent decision making on major projects,
shocking fiscal management with this appearing to get worse, making access
to public health harder?!, no accountability, to be fair it is really
everything. Now the majority of this is a given, because central and
local government are perhaps the most incompetent people I have ever dealt
with. But then it turns out, that isn't the only problem with one of the
Wellington City councilors actually saying the quiet part out loud. One
of our elected officials, who turns out has decided she doesn't actually
work to represent Wellingtonians decided to confirm that along wi th
incompetence, councilors don't actually listen to consultation. On a
recent interview and I quote with the following question from the
interviewer Iona Pannett was asked the following.
"If there is an overwhelming number of people who do not want this you
will not do this" with the response being
"That's not how we make decisions" - you can not make this stuff up!
So based on the above and given Wellington City Council doesn't listen to
the ratepayer can you please provide the following
"Decision making process, outcome of consultation, cost / benefit
analysis, financials, reports and recommendations" associated with the
following projects
Library Project - from memory majority of submissions were against
strengthening, ultimately I want to see why WCC decided to strengthen as
opposed to other options
The Esplanade Slow Zone
Cobham Drive Pedestrian Lights
Newtown Cycleway - specifically outside the Wellington hospital - who on
earth thought the design of this was a good thing?! At least if cyclists
are skittled they will be able to walk to hospital but the driver won't be
able to park anywhere!
Wellington Convention Centre - I would like to see the information when it
was thought Peter Jackson was going to be a tenant, versus the information
after when he decided he didn't want to be a part of the project.
Pedestrianizing Lambton Quay
Can you also please provide the following in relation to the councilors
interview with Heather Du Plessis Allan associated with taking the speed
limit down to 30km.
Ms Pannett mentioned that first of all we haven't decided to do this but
are going to get some further work done. Please provide
Scope of the additional work
Cost of the additional work
Consultants engaged and / or likely to be engaged Costs paid to the
consultants to date & terms of reference associated with 30km speed zone
Ms Pannett was quoted as saying it was $8m dollars - please provide an
itemised breakdown of this $8m dollars and what it relates to and the
associated report Ms Pannett mentioned it was not $44m dollars as it would
be an enormous amount of money to spend and she understood the cost to be
$8m. So two requests here
- Please provide the itemized costs associated with the $44m dollars and
the associated report
- Ms Pannett then mentioned and I quote "No that is not what I understood
at all, that's not what we were told the cost is $8m" - so I am assuming
Ms Pannett has not read any of these reports as she doesn't appear to
understand them - who is Ms Pannett relying on to tell her what the cost
is? Would she be best to read the reports before going on radio?
- Please provide the reporting associated with the $327m that Heather Du
Plessis Allan relies on
- Please provide the cost / benefit ratio where Ms Pannett states the
"benefits massively outweigh the risks". Please provide this cost benefit
analysis, terms of service associated with the report, consultants who
completed the report and cost to do the cost benefit analysis
If you can go ahead and provide me the above information that would be
much appreciated.
Yours faithfully,
Chris
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[6][FOI #20605 email]
Is [7][Wellington City Council request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests
to Wellington City Council? If so, please contact us using this form:
[8]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[9]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
6. mailto:[FOI #20605 email]
7. mailto:[Wellington City Council request email]
8. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
9. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
hide quoted sections
From: Ian Hunter
Wellington City Council
Good afternoon Chris,
Thank you for your request made under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (the Act), received on 19 September 2022.
I had hoped to be able to provide you with the information requested by today's date though unfortunately, given the scope of your request, this is taking a little longer to fully address.
The Act requires that we advise you of our decision on your request no later than 20 working days after the day we received your request. Unfortunately, it will not be possible to meet that time limit and we are therefore writing to notify you of an extension of the time to make our decision, to 28 October 2022.
This extension is necessary because consultations necessary to make a decision on your request are such that a proper response cannot reasonably be made within the original time limit.
Right of review
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision. Further information is available on the Ombudsman website, www.ombudsman.parliament.nz.
Thank you again for your request, if you have any question please feel free to contact me.
Kind regards,
Ian
Ian Hunter
Senior Advisor | Official Information Team | Wellington City Council
P 04 803 8315 | M 021 227 8315
E [email address] | W Wellington.govt.nz
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
----Original Message-----
From: Chris McCashin <[FOI #20605 email]>
Sent: Sunday, 18 September 2022 9:10 pm
To: BUS: Assurance <[email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Wellington City Council Decision Making / Consultation Processes
Dear Wellington City Council,
Having been in Wellington coming up ten years now it has been somewhat depressing to watch the city go from where it was to where it is now. Whether it be ruining formerly the best street in Wellington (Island Bay parade), crime, significant rates rises, highest commercial rates, anti business policy, crumbling infrastructure, seemingly only wanting to represent cyclists, incompetent decision making on major projects, shocking fiscal management with this appearing to get worse, making access to public health harder?!, no accountability, to be fair it is really everything. Now the majority of this is a given, because central and local government are perhaps the most incompetent people I have ever dealt with. But then it turns out, that isn't the only problem with one of the Wellington City councilors actually saying the quiet part out loud. One of our elected officials, who turns out has decided she doesn't actually work to represent Wellingtonians decided to confirm that along wi th incompetence, councilors don't actually listen to consultation. On a recent interview and I quote with the following question from the interviewer Iona Pannett was asked the following.
"If there is an overwhelming number of people who do not want this you will not do this" with the response being
"That's not how we make decisions" - you can not make this stuff up!
So based on the above and given Wellington City Council doesn't listen to the ratepayer can you please provide the following
"Decision making process, outcome of consultation, cost / benefit analysis, financials, reports and recommendations" associated with the following projects
Library Project - from memory majority of submissions were against strengthening, ultimately I want to see why WCC decided to strengthen as opposed to other options
The Esplanade Slow Zone
Cobham Drive Pedestrian Lights
Newtown Cycleway - specifically outside the Wellington hospital - who on earth thought the design of this was a good thing?! At least if cyclists are skittled they will be able to walk to hospital but the driver won't be able to park anywhere!
Wellington Convention Centre - I would like to see the information when it was thought Peter Jackson was going to be a tenant, versus the information after when he decided he didn't want to be a part of the project.
Pedestrianizing Lambton Quay
Can you also please provide the following in relation to the councilors interview with Heather Du Plessis Allan associated with taking the speed limit down to 30km.
Ms Pannett mentioned that first of all we haven't decided to do this but are going to get some further work done. Please provide
Scope of the additional work
Cost of the additional work
Consultants engaged and / or likely to be engaged Costs paid to the consultants to date & terms of reference associated with 30km speed zone Ms Pannett was quoted as saying it was $8m dollars - please provide an itemised breakdown of this $8m dollars and what it relates to and the associated report Ms Pannett mentioned it was not $44m dollars as it would be an enormous amount of money to spend and she understood the cost to be $8m. So two requests here
- Please provide the itemized costs associated with the $44m dollars and the associated report
- Ms Pannett then mentioned and I quote "No that is not what I understood at all, that's not what we were told the cost is $8m" - so I am assuming Ms Pannett has not read any of these reports as she doesn't appear to understand them - who is Ms Pannett relying on to tell her what the cost is? Would she be best to read the reports before going on radio?
- Please provide the reporting associated with the $327m that Heather Du Plessis Allan relies on
- Please provide the cost / benefit ratio where Ms Pannett states the "benefits massively outweigh the risks". Please provide this cost benefit analysis, terms of service associated with the report, consultants who completed the report and cost to do the cost benefit analysis
If you can go ahead and provide me the above information that would be much appreciated.
Yours faithfully,
Chris
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #20605 email]
Is [Wellington City Council request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to Wellington City Council? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
hide quoted sections
From: Ian Hunter
Wellington City Council
Dear Mr. McCashin,
Further to my email dated 14 October 2020 in which I advised the Council
had extended the timeframe for providing a decision on your request to 28
October 2022, I am now able to provide a formal response.
In your initial email received on 19 September 2022 you requested
"Decision making process, outcome of consultation, cost / benefit
analysis, financials, reports and recommendations" associated with a
number of WCC projects.
I will address these projects in the order of your email.
1) Library Project - from memory majority of submissions were against
strengthening, ultimately I want to see why WCC decided to strengthen as
opposed to other options.
This information is publicly available on the Council’s website and can be
accessed via the following link: [1]Projects - Te Matapihi | Central
Library - Wellington City Council
2) The Esplanade Slow Zone.
This information is publicly available on the Council’s website and can be
accessed via the following link: [2]Projects - The Esplanade Slow Zone -
Wellington City Council
3) Cobham Drive Pedestrian Lights.
I can advise that the Cobham Drive Pedestrian Lights is a Waka Kotahi
asset which will be managed, monitored, and maintained by Wellington City
Council until July 2023.
The information you are seeking is available via the following links:
[3]https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-...
(Page 153 onwards).
[4]https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2022-a...
[5]https://lgwm.nz/all-projects/cobham-driv...
[6]https://lgwm.nz/all-projects/cobham-driv...
4) Newtown Cycleway.
This information is publicly available on the Council’s website and can be
accessed via the following links:
Report: Page 7 [7]Agenda of Pûroro Âmua - Planning and Environment
Committee - Thursday, 23 September 2021 (wellington.govt.nz)
Decision: Page 8: [8]Minutes of Pûroro Âmua - Planning and Environment
Committee - Thursday, 23 September 2021 (wellington.govt.nz)
Report: Page 17:
[9]https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-...
Decision: Page 7 : [10]Minutes of Pûroro Âmua | Planning and Environment
Committee - Thursday, 10 March 2022 (wellington.govt.nz)
[11]www.transportprojects.org.nz/newtown
5) Wellington Convention Centre.
This information is publicly available on the Council’s website and can be
accessed via the following links:
[12]https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/...
[13]https://wellington.govt.nz/have-your-say...
6) Pedestrianizing Lambton Quay.
This information is publicly available on the Council’s website and can be
accessed via the following links:
[14]https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/...
[15]https://lgwm.nz/
[16]https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-...
[17]https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-...
7) Can you also please provide the following in relation to the councilors
(sic) (Councillor Pannett) interview with Heather Du Plessis Allan
associated with taking the speed limit down to 30km.
Whilst I am unsure of the date, content and context of this interview, if
I have understood your question correctly then the $8 Million dollars
referred to may relate to the following statement contained in the paper
to the Planning and Environment Committee of 15 September 2022: “…the
long-term plan has provided approximately $8 million capex for speed
management which is sufficient funding to comply with the Rule requirement
to lower speed limits around at least 40% of schools by 30 June 2024”.
[18]https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-...
The figure of $44 Million dollars appears to relate to the following:
“The best performing option (option 6) had a 30 km/h speed limit for local
streets and 40 km/h for arterial roads. This produced substantial crash
reduction benefits ($529 million, discounted over 40 years), albeit with a
high implementation cost ($44.8 million) and relatively high vehicle
travel time increases (disbenefits)”.
[19]https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-...
(Page 76)
With respect to the figure of $327 Million dollars referred to in your
question, I am unable to advise which report Ms. Du Plessis Allan may have
been relying on.
I am also unable to advise which report Councillor Pannett may have been
referring to in respect of "benefits massively outweigh the risks". It is
noted however that the report submitted to the Planning and Environment
Committee on 9 June 2022 contains information in respect costs and
benefits.
Should you have any further questions please contact me.
Kind regards,
Ian
Ian Hunter
Senior Advisor | Official Information Team | Wellington City Council
P 04 803 8315 | M 021 227 8315
E [20][email address] | W [21]Wellington.govt.nz
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and
intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that
confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the
sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
[22][IMG]
References
Visible links
1. https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/...
2. https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/...
3. https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-...
4. https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2022-a...
5. https://lgwm.nz/all-projects/cobham-driv...
6. https://lgwm.nz/all-projects/cobham-driv...
7. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
8. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
9. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
10. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
11. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
12. https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/...
13. https://wellington.govt.nz/have-your-say...
14. https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/...
15. https://lgwm.nz/
16. https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-...
17. https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-...
18. https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-...
19. https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-...
20. mailto:[email address]
21. http://wellington.govt.nz/
22. https://wellington.govt.nz/?utm_source=e...
From: Chris McCashin
Dear Ian Hunter,
Follow up on this - I see changes have / are being done outside the hospital
Please provide all
- memos formal and informal
- safety reports
- correspondence on any accidents that occurred in the cycleways previous form
- emails between any and all parties
- decision making documents / reports
Ultimately any and all information with why the cycleway has been changed - safety etc
Yours sincerely,
Chris McCashin
From: Ian Hunter
Wellington City Council
Hello,
I'm away from the office and unable to access my emails until 12 December
2022.
In my absence, could you please contact the Assurance Team via the
following: [email address]
Alternatively, I will respond to any non-urgent messages on my return.
Kind regards,
Ian
Official Information Team.
From: BUS: Assurance
Wellington City Council
Tēnā koe
Thank you for your email dated 10 December 2022 requesting information.
Our team will manage your request under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 which requires us to provide a decision as soon as possible, but no later than 31 January 2023, being 20 working days from receipt.
Please note that this working day calculation takes into account the Christmas close down period of 20 December – 10 January, as a result the timeframe for responding to LGOIMA’s is slightly longer than usual.
The reference number for your request is IRC-4237
Please contact us if you have any further questions.
Kind regards
The Assurance Team
Email: [email address]
Wellington City Council | W Wellington.govt.nz | |
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris McCashin <[FOI #20605 email]>
Sent: Saturday, 10 December 2022 9:39 pm
To: Ian Hunter <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Wellington City Council Projects (Ref: IRC-3891)
Dear Ian Hunter,
Follow up on this - I see changes have / are being done outside the hospital
Please provide all
- memos formal and informal
- safety reports
- correspondence on any accidents that occurred in the cycleways previous form
- emails between any and all parties
- decision making documents / reports
Ultimately any and all information with why the cycleway has been changed - safety etc
Yours sincerely,
Chris McCashin
-----Original Message-----
Dear Mr. McCashin,
Further to my email dated 14 October 2020 in which I advised the Council had extended the timeframe for providing a decision on your request to 28 October 2022, I am now able to provide a formal response.
In your initial email received on 19 September 2022 you requested "Decision making process, outcome of consultation, cost / benefit analysis, financials, reports and recommendations" associated with a number of WCC projects.
I will address these projects in the order of your email.
1) Library Project - from memory majority of submissions were against strengthening, ultimately I want to see why WCC decided to strengthen as opposed to other options.
This information is publicly available on the Council’s website and can be accessed via the following link: [1]Projects - Te Matapihi | Central Library - Wellington City Council
2) The Esplanade Slow Zone.
This information is publicly available on the Council’s website and can be accessed via the following link: [2]Projects - The Esplanade Slow Zone - Wellington City Council
3) Cobham Drive Pedestrian Lights.
I can advise that the Cobham Drive Pedestrian Lights is a Waka Kotahi asset which will be managed, monitored, and maintained by Wellington City Council until July 2023.
The information you are seeking is available via the following links:
[3]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
(Page 153 onwards).
[4]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
[5]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
[6]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4) Newtown Cycleway.
This information is publicly available on the Council’s website and can be accessed via the following links:
Report: Page 7 [7]Agenda of Pûroro Âmua - Planning and Environment Committee - Thursday, 23 September 2021 (wellington.govt.nz)
Decision: Page 8: [8]Minutes of Pûroro Âmua - Planning and Environment Committee - Thursday, 23 September 2021 (wellington.govt.nz)
Report: Page 17:
[9]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Decision: Page 7 : [10]Minutes of Pûroro Âmua | Planning and Environment Committee - Thursday, 10 March 2022 (wellington.govt.nz)
[11]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5) Wellington Convention Centre.
This information is publicly available on the Council’s website and can be accessed via the following links:
[12]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
[13]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
6) Pedestrianizing Lambton Quay.
This information is publicly available on the Council’s website and can be accessed via the following links:
[14]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
[15]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
[16]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
[17]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
7) Can you also please provide the following in relation to the councilors
(sic) (Councillor Pannett) interview with Heather Du Plessis Allan associated with taking the speed limit down to 30km.
Whilst I am unsure of the date, content and context of this interview, if I have understood your question correctly then the $8 Million dollars referred to may relate to the following statement contained in the paper to the Planning and Environment Committee of 15 September 2022: “…the long-term plan has provided approximately $8 million capex for speed management which is sufficient funding to comply with the Rule requirement to lower speed limits around at least 40% of schools by 30 June 2024”.
[18]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
The figure of $44 Million dollars appears to relate to the following: “The best performing option (option 6) had a 30 km/h speed limit for local streets and 40 km/h for arterial roads. This produced substantial crash reduction benefits ($529 million, discounted over 40 years), albeit with a high implementation cost ($44.8 million) and relatively high vehicle travel time increases (disbenefits)”.
[19]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
(Page 76)
With respect to the figure of $327 Million dollars referred to in your question, I am unable to advise which report Ms. Du Plessis Allan may have been relying on.
I am also unable to advise which report Councillor Pannett may have been referring to in respect of "benefits massively outweigh the risks". It is noted however that the report submitted to the Planning and Environment Committee on 9 June 2022 contains information in respect costs and benefits.
Should you have any further questions please contact me.
Kind regards,
Ian
Ian Hunter
Senior Advisor | Official Information Team | Wellington City Council P 04 803 8315 | M 021 227 8315 E [20][email address] | W [21]Wellington.govt.nz The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
[22][IMG]
References
Visible links
1. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
6. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
7. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
8. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
9. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
10. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
11. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
12. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
13. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
14. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
15. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
16. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
17. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
18. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
19. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
20. mailto:[email address]
21. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
22. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #20605 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
hide quoted sections
From: Ian Hunter
Wellington City Council
Dear Mr. McCashin,
Thank you for your email to the Council received on 13 December 2022 in
which you requested information relating to a change to the Newtown to
City Cycleway design outside the hospital.
As you raised a number of questions I will address these in the order of
your email.
1) Memo’s formal and informal.
I can advise the Council does not hold any ‘memo’s’ per se though papers
relating to the proposed cycleway, and the rationale for the change to the
Riddiford St section, were formally presented to the Planning and
Environment Committee who approved the project.
Please note this Committee was disestablished in 2022.
Copies of the submissions to the Committee can be found on the Council’s
website via the following links: [1]Meetings - Wellington City Council,
[2]Planning and Environment Committee (disestablished October 2022) - 8
September 2022, 9.30AM - Meetings - Wellington City Council and
[3]Planning and Environment Committee (disestablished October 2022) - 15
September 2022, 9.30AM - Meetings - Wellington City Council
2) Safety Reports.
Copies of the safety reports can be accessed on the Council’s website via
the following link: [4]Supporting documents | Newtown to city - WCC
Transport Projects
3) Correspondence on any accidents that occurred in the cycleways previous
form.
The below information captures incidents on Riddiford Street occurring
between March 2022, when the transitional cycleway first started to be
installed (not completed), to December 2022. These incidents have been
recorded in the Police Crash Database.
As such incidents are investigated by the Police, the Council does not
hold correspondence in respect of the incidents though receives statistics
via the Police Crash Database.
o Non-injury - Vehicle incident at Adelaide Road/John Street
intersection due to epilepsy episode
o Serious vehicle crash - Driver fell asleep at wheel and crashed into
traffic light pole at intersection
o 2x Minor vehicle accidents – Vehicle at traffic lights rear ended
o Minor pedestrian injury - Vehicle failed to stop at red light and hit
pedestrian at crossing
o Minor cyclist injury - Vehicle failed to look over shoulder or in
mirror when turning into the Cancer Society carpark
o Serious cyclist injury - Vehicle failed to give way when exiting the
emergency hospital car park, hitting cyclist
4) Emails between any and all parties.
Given the scale of the project and the number of parties that have been
involved, locating and collating all email correspondence would require
substantial officer time.
As such, if you are able to refine your request in respect of
correspondence then the Council may be better placed to assist you.
If you are unable to refine this part of your request then the Council
could consider a charge for locating and collating the information under
the terms of the Ministry of Justice Charging Guidelines: [5]Charging
guidelines for OIA requests | New Zealand Ministry of Justice
If you wish to proceed with this part of your request as it stands then we
will estimate the likely cost of collating and providing the information.
Please advise if you are able to refine your request.
If you are unable to refine this part of your request or do not wish to
proceed with the collation as per the Ministry of Justice Guidelines then
the Council will refuse this part of your request under section 17(f) of
the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 as the
information requested cannot be made available without substantial
collation or research.
If you disagree with this decision you can apply in writing to the
Ombudsman to have the decision investigated and reviewed under section 27
(3) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
5) Decision making documents/reports.
If I have understood this part of your request correctly then the decision
to progress with the cycleway was made by Councillors at the Planning and
Environment Committee meeting held on 15 September 2022 and based on
officer recommendations.
With respect to internal approval for the construction of the cycleway,
this was provided on 23 November 2022. The documentation is attached as
Appendix 1.
Please note: Under section 7 (2)(a) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987, some information has been redacted as
it contains personal information about private individuals.
If you disagree with the decision to redact the documents, you can apply
in writing to the Ombudsman to have the decision investigated and reviewed
under section 27 (3) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987.
For more information in respect of this project, you may wish to refer to
the project page on the Council’s website via the following link:
[6]Newtown to city | Projects - WCC Transport Projects
Please Note: we may proactively release our response to your request with
your personal information removed.
Should you have any further questions please contact me.
Kind regards,
Ian
Ian Hunter
Senior Advisor | Official Information Team | Wellington City Council
P 04 803 8315 | M 021 227 8315
E [7][email address] | W [8]Wellington.govt.nz
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and
intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that
confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the
sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
[9][IMG]
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris McCashin <[FOI #20605 email]>
Sent: Saturday, 10 December 2022 9:39 pm
To: Ian Hunter <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Wellington City Council Projects (Ref: IRC-3891)
Dear Ian Hunter,
Follow up on this - I see changes have / are being done outside the
hospital
Please provide all
- memos formal and informal
- safety reports
- correspondence on any accidents that occurred in the cycleways previous
form
- emails between any and all parties
- decision making documents / reports
Ultimately any and all information with why the cycleway has been changed
- safety etc
Yours sincerely,
Chris McCashin
References
Visible links
1. https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/...
2. https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/...
3. https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/...
4. https://www.transportprojects.org.nz/cur...
5. https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/offici...
6. https://www.transportprojects.org.nz/cur...
7. mailto:[email address]
8. http://wellington.govt.nz/
9. https://wellington.govt.nz/?utm_source=e...
hide quoted sections
From: Chris McCashin
Dear Ian Hunter,
This information is fine - don’t worry about it
However can you provide the police reported accidents in the same area in the 24 month period before that atrocious cycleway went in.
Yours sincerely,
Chris McCashin
From: BUS: Assurance
Wellington City Council
Tēnā koe Chris
Thank you for your email dated 3 February 2023 requesting the police reported accidents in the same area in the 24 month period before that cycleway went in.
Our team will manage your request under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 which requires us to provide a decision as soon as possible, but no later than 6 March 2023, being 20 working days of receipt.
The new reference number for your request is IRC-4412
Please contact us if you have any further questions.
Kind regards
The Assurance Team
Email: [email address]
Wellington City Council | W Wellington.govt.nz | |
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
From: Ian Hunter
Wellington City Council
Good morning Mr. McCashin,
Thank you for your email received on 3 February 2023 in respect of the Police reported accidents in the Newtown to City Cycleway area in the 24 months prior to the installation of the cycleway.
The information provided to the Council for Riddiford Street between John Street and Mein Street between 2020-2022 is as follows:
19 crashes (comprising)
Cycle crashes - 1 non injury, 1 moderate injury and 1 serious
Pedestrian - 1 moderate injury
Vehicles - 12 non- injury, 5 moderate injury, 2 serious.
Should you have any further questions please contact me.
Kind regards,
Ian
Ian Hunter
Senior Advisor | Official Information Team | Wellington City Council
P 04 803 8315 | M 021 227 8315
E [email address] | W Wellington.govt.nz
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris McCashin <[FOI #20605 email]>
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2023 8:38 am
To: Ian Hunter <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Newtown to City Cycleway (Ref: IRC-4237)
Dear Ian Hunter,
This information is fine - don't worry about it
However can you provide the police reported accidents in the same area in the 24 month period before that atrocious cycleway went in.
Yours sincerely,
Chris McCashin
-----Original Message-----
Dear Mr. McCashin,
Thank you for your email to the Council received on 13 December 2022 in which you requested information relating to a change to the Newtown to City Cycleway design outside the hospital.
As you raised a number of questions I will address these in the order of your email.
1) Memo's formal and informal.
I can advise the Council does not hold any 'memo's' per se though papers relating to the proposed cycleway, and the rationale for the change to the Riddiford St section, were formally presented to the Planning and Environment Committee who approved the project.
Please note this Committee was disestablished in 2022.
Copies of the submissions to the Committee can be found on the Council's website via the following links: [1]Meetings - Wellington City Council, [2]Planning and Environment Committee (disestablished October 2022) - 8 September 2022, 9.30AM - Meetings - Wellington City Council and [3]Planning and Environment Committee (disestablished October 2022) - 15 September 2022, 9.30AM - Meetings - Wellington City Council
2) Safety Reports.
Copies of the safety reports can be accessed on the Council's website via the following link: [4]Supporting documents | Newtown to city - WCC Transport Projects
3) Correspondence on any accidents that occurred in the cycleways previous form.
The below information captures incidents on Riddiford Street occurring between March 2022, when the transitional cycleway first started to be installed (not completed), to December 2022. These incidents have been recorded in the Police Crash Database.
As such incidents are investigated by the Police, the Council does not hold correspondence in respect of the incidents though receives statistics via the Police Crash Database.
o Non-injury - Vehicle incident at Adelaide Road/John Street intersection due to epilepsy episode o Serious vehicle crash - Driver fell asleep at wheel and crashed into traffic light pole at intersection o 2x Minor vehicle accidents - Vehicle at traffic lights rear ended o Minor pedestrian injury - Vehicle failed to stop at red light and hit pedestrian at crossing o Minor cyclist injury - Vehicle failed to look over shoulder or in mirror when turning into the Cancer Society carpark o Serious cyclist injury - Vehicle failed to give way when exiting the emergency hospital car park, hitting cyclist
4) Emails between any and all parties.
Given the scale of the project and the number of parties that have been involved, locating and collating all email correspondence would require substantial officer time.
As such, if you are able to refine your request in respect of correspondence then the Council may be better placed to assist you.
If you are unable to refine this part of your request then the Council could consider a charge for locating and collating the information under the terms of the Ministry of Justice Charging Guidelines: [5]Charging guidelines for OIA requests | New Zealand Ministry of Justice
If you wish to proceed with this part of your request as it stands then we will estimate the likely cost of collating and providing the information.
Please advise if you are able to refine your request.
If you are unable to refine this part of your request or do not wish to proceed with the collation as per the Ministry of Justice Guidelines then the Council will refuse this part of your request under section 17(f) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 as the information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or research.
If you disagree with this decision you can apply in writing to the Ombudsman to have the decision investigated and reviewed under section 27
(3) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
5) Decision making documents/reports.
If I have understood this part of your request correctly then the decision to progress with the cycleway was made by Councillors at the Planning and Environment Committee meeting held on 15 September 2022 and based on officer recommendations.
With respect to internal approval for the construction of the cycleway, this was provided on 23 November 2022. The documentation is attached as Appendix 1.
Please note: Under section 7 (2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, some information has been redacted as it contains personal information about private individuals.
If you disagree with the decision to redact the documents, you can apply in writing to the Ombudsman to have the decision investigated and reviewed under section 27 (3) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
For more information in respect of this project, you may wish to refer to the project page on the Council's website via the following link:
[6]Newtown to city | Projects - WCC Transport Projects
Please Note: we may proactively release our response to your request with your personal information removed.
Should you have any further questions please contact me.
Kind regards,
Ian
Ian Hunter
Senior Advisor | Official Information Team | Wellington City Council P 04 803 8315 | M 021 227 8315 E [7][email address] | W [8]Wellington.govt.nz The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
[9][IMG]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #20605 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
hide quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
