From:
Michael Freeman
To:
Francesca Bradley
Cc:
Malcom Govender; Mitchell Davis; Siobhan McMahon
Subject:
Metlink contact to send letter to for Digital Screens
Date:
Wednesday, 3 August 2022 4:01:00 pm
Kia ora Francesca
I did not highlight who to send the letter to! Can you please send the HNZPT letter of support to
Siobhan McMahon, Malcom Govender and Mitchell Davis all copied!
Thank you
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Michael Freeman
Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2022 1:09 pm
To: 'Francesca Bradley' <[email address]>
Cc: Malcom Govender <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis
<[email address]>; Richard Baker <[email address]>; Jaime Passache
<[email address]>
Subject: RE: Update on the Digital Screen Project Wellington Station and Outer Station platforms
Kia ora Francesca
Great to catch up earlier. I have attached all the documents we will be submitting as part of the
Outline Plan Application for Wellington City Council.
I have highlighted in yellow the paragraph in the Wellington City Council -Digital Advertising
Outline Plan Letter where we mention the HIA. I have amended slightly since our call and
inserted a statement re working with HNZPT on the dwell time and approval of 6/7. Let me
know if you are happy with that.
There is also a holding statement in the next paragraph which will be updated once we receive
your letter.
As I said on the call, we are happy to give up 6/7 if that is what is required to get across the
line!!.
Contacts at Kiwi Rail
Royce Macleod [email address]
Samantha Hayr [email address]
Any q’s please shout!
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2022 10:57 am
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Update on the Digital Screen Project Wellington Station and Outer Station platforms
Apologies for the delay – call me anytime on the landline today:
Ngā mihi nui,
Francesca Bradley | Conservation Advisor | Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga | PO Box
2629 Wellington 6140 | DDI: 04 471 4895| [mobile number]|
Tairangahia a tua whakarere; Tātakihia ngā reanga o āmuri ake nei
Honouring the past; Inspiring the future
This communication may be a privileged communication. If you are not the intended recipient, then you are not
authorised to retain, copy or distribute it. Please notify the sender and delete the message in its entirety.
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 1 August 2022 4:05 pm
To: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>
Cc: Vanessa Sorce <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis <[email address]>;
Malcom Govender <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Update on the Digital Screen Project Wellington Station and Outer Station platforms
Importance: High
Hi Francesca
I hope you are well and had a good weekend.
I am going to be away from Wednesday evening for 3 weeks and wanted to have a quick
discussion with you re timelines and process on the digital screen project at Wellington Station
before I left, are you free for a 15 minute call tomorrow after 11.15 am or Wednesday?
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Michael Freeman
Sent: Thursday, 28 July 2022 4:15 pm
To: 'Francesca Bradley' <[email address]>
Cc: Vanessa Sorce <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Update on the Digital Screen Project Wellington Station and Outer Station platforms
Importance: High
Kia ora Francesca
I hope you are well, thanks for coming back to me. Just navigating the final steps in the process
to finalise the Outline Plan submission for the digital screens.
As part of the submission we require a letter of support from HNZPT.
What do you require from GW to draft that letter? I have attached Ian Bowman’s Impact
Assessment, do you also need the draft consent application?
Let me know what we need to do!
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2022 12:32 pm
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Update on the Digital Screen Project Wellington Station and Outer Station platforms
Kia ora Michael,
Apologies for my delay getting back to you and thank you for providing all the technical
information in a previous email (20/06). HNZPT does not require any further information in
preparation for the outline plan of works application.
I did want to raise with you that HNZPT is not inclined to support the additional heritage
information sign outside the Trax’s Bar, as our position on this project has been focussed on
reducing the clutter in the platform area.
Please continue to keep us in the loop as the project progresses.
Ngā mihi nui,
Francesca Bradley | Conservation Advisor | Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga | PO Box
2629 Wellington 6140 | DDI: 04 471 4895| [mobile number]|
Tairangahia a tua whakarere; Tātakihia ngā reanga o āmuri ake nei
Honouring the past; Inspiring the future
This communication may be a privileged communication. If you are not the intended recipient, then you are not
authorised to retain, copy or distribute it. Please notify the sender and delete the message in its entirety.
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 8 July 2022 3:58 pm
To: Samantha Hayr <[email address]>
Cc: Mitchell Davis <[email address]>; Vanessa Sorce <[email address]>;
Barry Fryer <[email address]>; Richard Baker <[email address]>; Malcom
Govender <[email address]>; Reuben Daube <[email address]>;
Francesca Bradley <[email address]>; Ian Bowman <[email address]>; Jaime
Passache <[email address]>
Subject: Update on the Digital Screen Project Wellington Station and Outer Station platforms
Kia ora Samantha
I hope you are well. Following up from the meeting on the platform at Wellington Station a
couple of weeks ago I wanted to update you on where we are and check in that Kiwi Rail are still
supportive of the direction we are moving in.
There items I wanted to update you on are
1. Digital Screens positioning across network and Wellington Station
I have attached visuals of the screens positioning across the network and a GIS
map of each station, this gives a visualisation of the screens in position and GIS
locations. We have removed ones that Kiwi Rail were unsure of in the initial
presentation to Simone and the ones the Transdev locomotive engineers felt
may be a distraction.
2. Outline plans and Outline plan waivers (outer stations)
These are being drawn up by GW in preparation for submission to Kiwi Rail.
3. Heritage Considerations
Ian Bowman, heritage consultant, is drafting the heritage impact assessment for
Wellington Station which will accompany the Outline plan for Wellington Station,
we will be requesting a supporting letter from Heritage NZ. We have had 3 pre
applications meeting to date with Wellington City Council and their Urban and
Heritage planners are generally comfortable with the direction the project is
heading. We will be working with Ian Bowman to provide any further
information he needs for his impact assessment.
4. Heritage information display - The History of the Station
While this is outside of GW’s Metlink’s remit, this is something that has been
discussed in the past and we are keen to support this idea as part of this project. A
suggested location which we would like to explore with Kiwi Rail and Trax, is the wall
with the Trax bar black board on. I would like to understand how we progress this
idea with Kiwi Rail and Trax.
5. Additional ideas that are being discussed is the use of some of the slots on the digital
screens to be used to promote heritage imagery of the station and also GW/Metlink
messaging. GW will have 1 in every 8 slots to use for these purposes.
It would be ideal if we could meet next week to get Kiwi Rails rubber stamp for the locations at
Wellington Station and the direction of the project. Also to discuss any other considerations you
may have. Hopefully with the attachments this gives you a picture of where we are. Let me
know if you have any questions and if you have a free slot to meet next week.
Have a great weekend
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From:
Vanessa Sorce
To:
Michael Freeman; Mitchell Davis
Subject:
RE: Updated Wellington Plan Project outcome statement
Date:
Thursday, 28 July 2022 11:03:17 am
Attachments:
image001.png
Hi Michael
Could you please ask Ian to provide a copy of the AEE without the draft watermark.
Thanks
Vanessa
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 28 July 2022 8:38 AM
To: Mitchell Davis <[email address]>
Cc: Vanessa Sorce <[email address]>
Subject: FW: Updated Wellington Plan Project outcome statement
Good morning Vanessa
I hope you are well. Attached is the report from Ian Bowman . I am going to chase Kiwi Rail
today, for an answer to my last email re their support.
What is the process from here de we ask Francesca at Heritage for comment or do the planners
at WCC do that once they have the Outline plan?
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Ian Bowman <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 July 2022 11:49 am
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Cc: Mitchell Davis <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Updated Wellington Plan Project outcome statement
Thanks Michael. Draft assessment attached for review/comment.
Regards
Ian
IAN BOWMAN BA, BArch, MA Cons Stud (York), FNZIA
Architect and Conservator
www ianbowman.co.nz
P.O. Box 1095 Nelson New Zealand
Mobile 0274 457 813
On 19/07/2022, at 11:44 AM, Michael Freeman <[email address]>
wrote:
The outcome of the Digital Screen on the rail corridor project is to increase non-
fare revenue contributions to the running of the Public Transport network. These
digital screens will complement the current static advertising network and are
forecast to double Greater Wellington’s revenue from advertising. The income
from this project will contribute towards the maintenance and upkeep of the
station platforms.
Renee Coffey
Subject:
Confirmed - Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit next steps
Location:
Wellington Station Platfroms
Start:
Thu 9/06/2022 2:00 pm
End:
Thu 9/06/2022 3:30 pm
Show Time As:
Tentative
Recurrence:
(none)
Organizer:
Michael Freeman
Required AttendeesMichael Freeman; Ian Bowman
Optional Attendees:Francesca Bradley; Matthew Brajkovich; Reuben Daube; Shayna Curle; Mitchell Davis; Mike Gray; Malcom Govender; Simon Teagle
_____________________________________________
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 3 June 2022 2:33 pm
To: Ian Bowman <[email address]>
Cc: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>; Matthew Brajkovich <[email address]>; Reuben Daube <[email address]>; Shayna
Curle <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit next steps
Hi all
Would 2.00 pm on Thursday at the station work for everyone.?
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman He/Him
Kaitohutohu | Business Development Specialist
1
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
M
m
m
M
B
Think green: read on the screen.
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 5:56:36 PM
To: Ian Bowman <[email address]>
Cc: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>; Matthew Brajkovich <[email address]>; Reuben Daube <[email address]>; Shayna
Curle <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit next steps
Hi Ian
Thanks for coming back to me. Can you pencil that in for the 9th, although I am not sure that Thursday works for everyone,so it may need to be a separate trip.
I will try to confirm tomorrow
Michael
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Ian Bowman
Sent: Thursday, 2 June 2022 4:17 pm
To: Michael Freeman
2
Cc: Francesca Bradley; Matthew Brajkovich; Reuben Daube; Shayna Curle; Mitchell Davis
Subject: Re: Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit next steps
Hi Michael,
I am in Wellington next on 9 June. I could make a meeting in the afternoon. Otherwise I would need to make a special trip.
Regards,
Ian
IAN BOWMAN BA, BArch, MA Cons Stud (York), FNZIA
Architect and Conservator
www.ianbowman.co.nz
P.O. Box 1095 Nelson New Zealand
Mobile 0274 457 813
On 2/06/2022, at 3:05 PM, Michael Freeman <[email address]> wrote:
Hi Ian
I hope you are well. Following Francesca brief and following the direction from Matthew in the pre application document, I would like arrange a meeting
with yourself, Francesca, Ruben, Matthew and Shayna to further study options. Ideally if that meeting could be at the station again, I would also like to
introduce our commercial partner in the project, Go Media. Are you available on Wednesday 8th Morning or Friday 10th after 10.30 am to meet at the
station.
In lieu of the next meeting I asked Go Media to respond to commentary from the meeting last week. Like GW, they want to arrive at mutually agreeable
locations.
Numbers The network hinges off the central station and a quality presence there. The idea with a network like this is to create an easily purchased pack of same
sized units with a known audience, especially the same sized units as the AT network. The commercial objective of the network is to optimise the unique
number of people reached, as well as moments people are making purchase decisions in proximity to retailers, combined with frequency of ad‐exposure so
3
that the message is assimilated. While the outer stations build some reach it’s their proximity to retail districts that make them particularly attractive to
advertisers. It is the Wellington station however that is the number one platform for building reach. This is also the platform we need multiple screens to
build frequency of exposure to catch people’s attention as they move from the platforms to the station and vice versa. To this end we believe the number
of assets on the Wellington platforms are really at the minimum level.
Our earlier approach had been to reach the commuters through their path through the main station building however given that we cannot gain access
here the importance of the buffer zones and the platform assets takes on a higher level of importance. We have as such already pared back our desired
roll‐out as we removed the main station and then self‐policed ourselves, together with GWRC, based on heritage considerations and passenger flow.
However, we are always open to finding other locations on the platforms or where we place them, that work for all parties and ultimately want the best
result for all parties.
Size The units are an industry standard size, and the screens themselves are optimised toward the audience viewing cone. The screens are positioned in the unit
at eye‐level, so more people will see the advertiser’s message. The lower area of each unit, below the screen, is an air void from which air is circulated
through venting in the sides and around the units, the internal fans rely on this void to cool and move air, if the void is lessened there is a greater risk of
overheating and lower of the screen effectiveness through potential for thermal shutdowns and premature failure.
We are wanting to purchase the units identified as they are a proven quality product, that has been in market for many years and streamlined so that all
services are concealed. If we were to try and design something new we would be into a prototype scenario.
Platform placement In terms of the effects, we have no issue with placing the units midway between the bays on the platforms with power coming from the top. In many
respects I think that is the best outcome for heritage and passenger movements and sourcing power in that way doesn’t detract either. Height is the issue
we cannot control due to the standardised unit size. We are open to other locations or different ways to stagger them.
Clutter – we have consciously tried to space the screens along the various platforms in a staggered way in consideration of clutter. Maybe there is a better
approach? The units at the buffers are designed to capture all the audience movements whilst placing them away from the main station and the platforms
to give them as much separation from the heritage items as possible. It was also about passenger flow. We identified some alternative locations that were
never put forward as it was agreed they would compromise passenger movements, so a lot of collective thought has been put into the proposed locations.
We also agreed to place the screens away from the validators as afar as possible to avoid clutter from that perspective.
We would like to have the opportunity to continue discussions with the heritage team and WCC, on site, with the aim of finding the best outcome for all
parties which has been the goal from the outset.
If the proposed days do not suit please let me know when you are available.
4
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Ian Bowman <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 27 May 2022 8:52 am
To: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>
Cc: Michael Freeman <[email address]>; Matthew Brajkovich <[email address]>; Reuben Daube
<[email address]>; Shayna Curle <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis <[email address]>; Jaime Passache
<[email address]>; Vanessa Sorce <[email address]>; Damien <[email address]>; Malcom Govender
<[email address]>
Subject: Re: Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit notes
Hi Francesca,
Your notes and photos are very helpful for me. Thanks,
Regards,
Ian
IAN BOWMAN BA, BArch, MA Cons Stud (York), FNZIA
Architect and Conservator
www.ianbowman.co.nz
P.O. Box 1095 Nelson New Zealand
Mobile 0274 457 813
<image001.png>
On 26/05/2022, at 4:50 PM, Francesca Bradley <[email address]> wrote:
5
Hi Michael,
Thanks for organising the site visit yesterday with the mock up sign. General impression was that the sign was a lot taller than expected but
is still compatible at the south end of the platform area. Biggest concern was the height of the sign along the platforms, in terms of the
proximity to the curved railway iron supports and the sign location under the low point of the butterfly canopy roof. I’ve collated the
following images and notes which hopefully capture everything discussed on site yesterday.
Digital sign location
Image:
Comment
End of line terminus
<image002.png>
Proportion of sign’s mass and scale compatible.
Either side of line
<image003.png><image004.png>
Proportion of sign’s mass and scale still
terminus
<image005.png>
compatible. Combination of three signs
surrounding the line terminus may have a larger
visual impact on the railway platforms, but
HNZPT could accept this level of impact.
Location of signs along side of Platform 6 and
possibly Platform 3 may visually impact
wayfinding, as the sign will obstruct the digital
train information signage above – refer to third
image in this section.
Along Trax Bar wall
<image006.png>
No issue with this placement. Discussed
increasing the digital screen size and whether
the digital sign proposed for along side of
Platform 2 terminus would less effective given
its proximity. Once HNZPT can confirm from the
conservation plan that this wall relates to the
1989 works, we could support mounting this
screen to the wall, as oppose to the stand alone
boxes.
Along platforms
<image007.png>
Height of digital sign boxes incompatible with
<image008.png><image009.png>
canopy height along platforms. The visual
impact of this addition next to the curved
railway iron supports would be significant.
Placing the sign box in the centre between two
sets of column supports reduces this visual
impact but doesn’t not resolve it. Discussed
6
sourcing a shorter digital sign option to address
this issue. User flow modelling would also help
inform an appropriate location for the signs
along the platforms.
Ngā mihi nui,
Francesca Bradley | Conservation Advisor | Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga | PO Box 2629 Wellington 6140 | DDI: 04 471 4895|
Mob: 027 445 3599|
Tairangahia a tua whakarere; Tātakihia ngā reanga o āmuri ake nei Honouring the past; Inspiring the future This communication may be a privileged communication. If you are not the intended recipient, then you are not authorised to retain, copy or distribute
it. Please notify the sender and delete the message in its entirety.
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 May 2022 2:23 pm
To: Matthew Brajkovich <[email address]>; Reuben Daube <[email address]>; Shayna Curle
<[email address]>; Mitchell Davis <[email address]>; Jaime Passache <[email address]>; Vanessa Sorce
<[email address]>; Damien <[email address]>; Ian Bowman <[email address]>; Francesca Bradley
<[email address]>; Malcom Govender <[email address]>
Subject: RE: place holder ‐ Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit
Kia ora Matthew
We are all good. Mitchell and Jamie are going to lead from a GW perspective as I am isolating! We have ordered and mock digital screen to
show what they will look like in situ.
Jaime may dial me in on his phone, and my colleague Malcom is also going to be on hand.
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
7
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Matthew Brajkovich <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 May 2022 2:18 pm
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>; Michael Freeman <[email address]>; Reuben Daube
<[email address]>; Shayna Curle <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis <[email address]>; Jaime Passache
<[email address]>; Vanessa Sorce <[email address]>; Damien <[email address]>; Ian Bowman
<[email address]>; Francesca Bradley <[email address]>
Subject: RE: place holder ‐ Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit
Hi Michael,
Just checking in that we’re still on for tomorrow morning’s on‐site meeting?
Ngā mihi,
Matt
Matthew Brajkovich
Senior Consent Planner | City Consenting & Compliance | Wellington City Council
M
|
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.
<image010.jpg>
‐‐‐‐‐Original Appointment‐‐‐‐‐
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2022 4:21 pm
To: Michael Freeman; Reuben Daube; Matthew Brajkovich; Shayna Curle; Mitchell Davis; Jaime Passache; Vanessa Sorce; Damien; Ian
Bowman; Francesca Bradley
8
Subject: place holder ‐ Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit
When: Wednesday, 25 May 2022 9:30 am‐10:30 am (UTC+12:00) Auckland, Wellington.
Where: End platfrom 8 Welington Station
Proposed time depending on Francesca availability.
ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not the named recipient and
receive this correspondence in error, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it and you should delete it from your
system and notify the sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do
not represent those of the organisation.
ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not the named recipient and
receive this correspondence in error, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it and you should delete it from your
system and notify the sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do
not represent those of the organisation.
ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not the named recipient and receive this correspondence in error,
you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any
views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of the organisation.
9
Renee Coffey
Sent:
Monday, 9 May 2022 12:06 pm
To:
Francesca Bradley
Cc:
Mitchell Davis; Jaime Passache; Peter Wells; Vanessa Sorce
Subject:
Digital Advertising a Wellington Station
Kia ora Francesca
I hope you are well. Sine our last meeting at Wellington Station I have been working with the asset team here and have reached out to WCC to further understand from
their perspective the resource consent required for digital advertising at Wellington Station. I have requested a pre application meeting and I suggested that it would be
useful for you to be involved.
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
1
From:
Michael Freeman
To:
Francesca Bradley
Cc:
Peter Wells
Subject:
Digital Screens Update
Date:
Friday, 13 May 2022 2:25:00 pm
Hi Francesca
I hope you are well .Peter and I have just had a call with Ian Bowman and he may call you about
the digital signs at Wellington station.
To update you, Kiwi Rail engineers have confirmed they are happy with the proposed place
cement, so I will get the information across re Placements, refresh rates and size of signs shortly.
Have a lovely weekend
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From:
Michael Freeman
To:
Mike Gray; [email address]; Simon Teagle
Cc:
Mitchell Davis; Cassandra Albert; Malcom Govender
Subject:
FW: Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit notes Confidential
Date:
Monday, 30 May 2022 3:23:00 pm
Attachments:
Well Advertising Mockup.jpg
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.jpg
Mike
Please see heritage notes from last week to discuss this afternoon!
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Jaime Passache <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 27 May 2022 8:50 am
To: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>; Michael Freeman
<[email address]>
Cc: Matthew Brajkovich <[email address]>; Reuben Daube
<[email address]>; Shayna Curle <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis
<[email address]>; Vanessa Sorce <[email address]>; Damien
<[email address]>; Ian Bowman <[email address]>; Malcom Govender
<[email address]>
Subject: RE: Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit notes
Hi all,
During the visit a discussion happened around the option to consider a double screen arrangement
along Trax Bar wall which is captured on Francesca’s summary with one screen.
I am leaving here a mock up with the double arrangement for consideration.
Regards,
Jaime Passache Senior Project Delivery Advisor
Metlink
M 100 Cuba St, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
Metlink Co Branded logo
From: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 26 May 2022 4:50 pm
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Cc: Matthew Brajkovich <[email address]>; Reuben Daube
<[email address]>; Shayna Curle <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis
<[email address]>; Jaime Passache <[email address]>; Vanessa Sorce
<[email address]>; Damien <[email address]>; Ian Bowman
<[email address]>; Malcom Govender <[email address]>
Subject: Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit notes
Hi Michael,
Thanks for organising the site visit yesterday with the mock up sign. General impression was that
the sign was a lot taller than expected but is still compatible at the south end of the platform area.
Biggest concern was the height of the sign along the platforms, in terms of the proximity to the
curved railway iron supports and the sign location under the low point of the butterfly canopy roof.
I’ve collated the following images and notes which hopefully capture everything discussed on site
yesterday.
Digital sign
Image:
Comment
location
End of line
Proportion of sign’s mass
terminus
and scale compatible.
Either side of
Proportion of sign’s mass
line terminus
and scale still compatible.
Combination of three
signs surrounding the line
terminus may have a
larger visual impact on
the railway platforms, but
HNZPT could accept this
level of impact.
Location of signs along
side of Platform 6 and
possibly Platform 3 may
visually impact
wayfinding, as the sign
will obstruct the digital
train information signage
above – refer to third
image in this section.
Tairangahia a tua whakarere; Tātakihia ngā reanga o āmuri ake nei
Honouring the past; Inspiring the future
This communication may be a privileged communication. If you are not the intended recipient, then you are not
authorised to retain, copy or distribute it. Please notify the sender and delete the message in its entirety.
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 May 2022 2:23 pm
To: Matthew Brajkovich <[email address]>; Reuben Daube
<[email address]>; Shayna Curle <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis
<[email address]>; Jaime Passache <[email address]>; Vanessa Sorce
<[email address]>; Damien <[email address]>; Ian Bowman
<[email address]>; Francesca Bradley <[email address]>; Malcom Govender
<[email address]>
Subject: RE: place holder - Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit
Kia ora Matthew
We are all good. Mitchell and Jamie are going to lead from a GW perspective as I am isolating! We
have ordered and mock digital screen to show what they will look like in situ.
Jaime may dial me in on his phone, and my colleague Malcom is also going to be on hand.
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M 100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Matthew Brajkovich <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 May 2022 2:18 pm
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>; Michael Freeman
<[email address]>; Reuben Daube <[email address]>; Shayna Curle
<[email address]>; Mitchell Davis <[email address]>; Jaime Passache
<[email address]>; Vanessa Sorce <[email address]>; Damien
<[email address]>; Ian Bowman <[email address]>; Francesca Bradley
<[email address]>
Subject: RE: place holder - Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit
Hi Michael,
Just checking in that we’re still on for tomorrow morning’s on-site meeting?
Ngā mihi,
Matt
Matthew Brajkovich
Senior Consent Planner | City Consenting & Compliance | Wellington City Council
M
| 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 Appointment-----
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2022 4:21 pm
To: Michael Freeman; Reuben Daube; Matthew Brajkovich; Shayna Curle; Mitchell Davis; Jaime
Passache; Vanessa Sorce; Damien; Ian Bowman; Francesca Bradley
Subject: place holder - Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit
When: Wednesday, 25 May 2022 9:30 am-10:30 am (UTC+12:00) Auckland, Wellington.
Where: End platfrom 8 Welington Station
Proposed time depending on Francesca availability.
ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If
you are not the named recipient and receive this correspondence in error, you must not copy,
distribute or take any action in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify
the sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions expressed are solely those
of the author, and do not represent those of the organisation.
ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If
you are not the named recipient and receive this correspondence in error, you must not copy,
distribute or take any action in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify
the sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions expressed are solely those
of the author, and do not represent those of the organisation.
From:
Michael Freeman
To:
Mitchell Davis; Peter Wells
Subject:
FW: Resource Consent Pre-application Meeting Request
Date:
Thursday, 5 May 2022 8:56:38 pm
FYI
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Wellington City Council
Sent: Thursday, 5 May 2022 8:56 pm
To: Michael Freeman
Subject: Resource Consent Pre-application Meeting Request
The following details have been submitted from the Resource Consent Pre-application Meeting
Request form on the Wellington.govt.nz website:
Contact Details:
First Name: MIchael
Last Name: Freeman
Postal Address: GWRC 100 Cuba Street
Suburb: Te Aro
City: Wellington
Phone (office hours):
Email: [email address]
Site Address:
Street Address: Bunny Street
Suburb: Pipitea
Legal Description (if known): Wellington Railway Station (Platforms)
Applicant / Owner Details:
First Name: Michael
Last Name: Freeman
Postal Address: 100 Cuba Street
Suburb: Te Aro
City: Wellington
Meeting Attendees:
Owner Name: Michael Freeman
Agent Name: Peter Wells
Advisor Name: Mitchell Davis
Advisor Expertise: Rail Assets
Advisor Name: Francesca Bradley
Advisor Expertise: Heritage New Zealand
Advisor Name: Ian Bowman
Advisor Expertise: Heritage Consultant
Invoicing Details:
Person being invoiced: Applicant
First Name: Michael
Last Name: Freeman
Postal Address: 100 Cuba Street
Suburb: Te Aro
City: Wellington
Phone:
Email: [email address]
Proposal:
Description of Proposal: To install digital screens for advertising on the platforms at Wellington
Station. These will form part of a wider advertising network designed to generate revenue to
support the public transport network
All the screens are positioned within the R5 classed zone on the station platform.
Specific Issues for Discussion (e.g. traffic & design guide issues, clarification of planning rules):
Clarification of planning rules.
Advised by Rueben Daube that Urban design planner and Heritage planner to be invited to the
meeting to advise on what will be required.
Type of meeting required: Comprehensive pre-application
Thank you for sending your pre-application meeting registration. We will contact you within 3
working days to arrange a time.
Please click the link below to access your file. Larger files can take longer to upload, so if your file
isn't immediately available please try again in a few minutes. If you are still unable to access your
file after 30 minutes please contact the survey administrator:
http://surveygizmoresponseuploads.s3.amazonaws.com/fileuploads/187251/1550552/209-
9e3d93b6f29ec07bc5e5864044b3e29d_Wellington_Commercial_Signs_Suggested_Placements_
V2.pdf
Please click the link below to access your file. Larger files can take longer to upload, so if your file
isn't immediately available please try again in a few minutes. If you are still unable to access your
file after 30 minutes please contact the survey administrator:
http://surveygizmoresponseuploads.s3.amazonaws.com/fileuploads/187251/1550552/4-
767930c70a9df7c66718a4e757b0b688_Well_Stn._Advertisement_and_Validators._2022.04.21.
pdf
From:
Michael Freeman
To:
Vanessa Sorce
Subject:
RE: Consent Application - Proposed Installation of Temporary Electronic Ticketing Validator Posts at
Wellington Railway Station
Date:
Thursday, 28 July 2022 4:01:00 pm
Attachments:
image001.png
I have asked David L
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Vanessa Sorce <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 28 July 2022 4:01 pm
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Consent Application - Proposed Installation of Temporary Electronic Ticketing
Validator Posts at Wellington Railway Station
I’m not sure what was provided – possibly the HIA report from Ian?
Cheers
Vanessa
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 28 July 2022 3:56 PM
To: Vanessa Sorce <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Consent Application - Proposed Installation of Temporary Electronic Ticketing
Validator Posts at Wellington Railway Station
Hi Vanessa
Reading the email chain do you know if we provide the draft consent application to HNZ?
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman He/Him
Kaitohutohu | Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
Metlink Co Branded logo
P
Think green: read on the screen.
From: Vanessa Sorce <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 3:42:32 PM
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Subject: FW: Consent Application - Proposed Installation of Temporary Electronic Ticketing
Validator Posts at Wellington Railway Station
This is the letter we had from HNZPT for snapper on rail outline plans - would be ideal to get
something similar for the signage!
From: David Lewry <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 7 June 2022 2:28 PM
To: Vanessa Sorce <[email address]>
Subject: FW: Consent Application - Proposed Installation of Temporary Electronic Ticketing
Validator Posts at Wellington Railway Station
Hello Vanessa
Thanks for the chat and for making this sound so straightforward!
Here’s HNZ’s formal letter of support for the installation of validators at Wellington railway
station, in respect of the heritage covenant there. Simone Hadley at KiwiRail was copied in and I
believe has shared it with Michelle there too, but I think it will be well worth including in the
documents to be submitted with the Plan/Waiver application.
I think you have the approved plan for Wellington station from Mitchell, but let me know if not.
Otherwise , if you could just keep me posted and also let me know if there is anything else you
need to progress this, it would be much appreciated.
Cheers
David
From: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2022 5:47 PM
To: Simone Hadley <[email address]>; David Lewry <[email address]>
Cc: Jamie Jacobs <[email address]>; Nicki Lau Young <[email address]>;
Siobhan McMahon <[email address]>; Peter Wells <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Consent Application - Proposed Installation of Temporary Electronic Ticketing
Validator Posts at Wellington Railway Station
Kia ora kōrua Simone and David,
Please find attached Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga’s written consent for the works to
install validators in relation to the Wellington Railway Station Platforms heritage covenant.
Thank you for consulting with us on this project.
Ngā mihi nui,
Francesca Bradley | Conservation Advisor | Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga | PO Box
2629 Wellington 6140 | DDI: 04 471 4895| [mobile number]|
Tairangahia a tua whakarere; Tātakihia ngā reanga o āmuri ake nei
Honouring the past; Inspiring the future
This communication may be a privileged communication. If you are not the intended recipient, then you are not
authorised to retain, copy or distribute it. Please notify the sender and delete the message in its entirety.
From: David Lewry <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 23 May 2022 5:23 pm
To: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>
Cc: Jamie Jacobs <[email address]>; Nicki Lau Young <[email address]>;
Siobhan McMahon <[email address]>
Subject: Consent Application - Proposed Installation of Temporary Electronic Ticketing Validator
Posts at Wellington Railway Station
Hello Francesca,
You will be expecting the attached consent application letter (and appendices), seeking HNZ’s
formal consent to enable the next stage of GWRC’s project to extend the Johnsonville Line
electronic ticketing Pilot to the rest of the Metlink rail network.
All of the relevant information should be here, but please do let me know if there is anything
further you require.
To enable us to move as quickly as possible through the KiwiRail and Wellington City Council
consent processes, I’d be grateful if you could give this your earliest attention.
Thanks very much.
Regards
David
From:
Reuben Daube
To:
Michael Freeman
Cc:
Ian Bowman; Francesca Bradley
Subject:
RE: Meeting next week. Wellington Station
Date:
Tuesday, 28 June 2022 9:26:12 am
Attachments:
~WRD0002.jpg
Hi Michael,
My apologies for the delay at getting back to you – I’m playing catch-up following
From our perspective, we are generally comfortable with the signs along the end of platforms,
reduced height, and colour (black).
I do agree with Ian and Francesca that a narrower border around the screen will help reduce the
visual impact – is this possible at all?
Again, we are generally comfortable where the project is heading, please let me know if you need
anything from me at this stage.
Kind regards,
Reuben Daubé
Heritage Advisor RMA | Wellington City Council |
Kaiārahi Tū Taonga | Te Kaunihera o Pōneke |
M
| 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.
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 20 June, 2022 9:13 PM
To: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>; [email address]
Cc: Reuben Daube <[email address]>; Ian Bowman <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Meeting next week. Wellington Station
Hi Francesca
With attachments !!
Some images from today’s site visit.
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman He/Him
Kaitohutohu | Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
Image removed by sender. Metlink Co Branded logo
Think green: read on the screen.
P
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:59:10 PM
To: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>; [email address]
<[email address]>
Cc: Reuben Daube <[email address]>; Ian Bowman <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Meeting next week. Wellington Station
Hi Francesca
I hope you are well. Following on from your mail and the previous site visit we met again today at
Wellington Station. It was a very productive meeting, despite the elements!.
We had another screen made up, the correct size this time! and had the other signs trimmed to
size. It made quite a difference in how imposing the signs were.
The screen images where actually the correct size, but the whole sing looked more in proportion
to the platform and buffers.(I have attached a photo.
On the table for discussion and confirmation were:
Colour
Logo
Platform services
Side buffer placements
End buffer placements
Sign to display the history of the station
Heritage archive images on the screens
Colour
It was unanimous that the black colour was best
Logo
A logo preferred with the wording Wellington station -1937, with a decision on the final placing to
be either offset or in the middle, digital mock ups to be produced
Platform services for on platform screens
To come from above with black conduit to
Minimise asphalt works on the platforms
Side buffer placements
All at the track end of the buffer
End buffers placements
Platform 2/3 OK
Platform 4/5 OK
Platform 6/7 still in discussion with additional considerations around a permanent archive heritage
image/image as the 8th image.
It was generally agreed that the screens with the 160 mm shaved of the top made quite a
difference to the look of the signs .
A sign to display the history of the station
This is a conversation that was started a couple of years ago. The suggested location which would
need agreement from kiwi rail and Trax's bar is to have the display sign on the trax's bar wall
replacing the current sign, content would be from Heritage NZ and the conservation plan, and the
display could be designed by the GW team with input guidance and sign off from Heritage NZ. This
would be sponsored by the project.
Heritage Archive images on the screens
Go Media are going to work up a plan of how that would work in conjunction with GW's screen
allowance. I have since confirmed with Metlink's SLT that they are happy for me to explore this
and the heritage display sign for the history of the station.
The next steps for GW are
Work with Ian to provide all the technical information he requires to draft the impact
assessment.
Further Engagement with Kiwi Rail
Draft the outline plans
What further information do you, require to for the application of the outline plan?
Happy to set up a call in the next few days if you would like to discuss. Ian was going to come back
to me with a timeline and a list of everything he needs by a Wednesday/Thursday.
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman He/Him
Kaitohutohu | Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
Error! Filename not specified.
P
Think green: read on the screen.
From: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 4:41:40 PM
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>; [email address]
<[email address]>
Cc: Reuben Daube <[email address]>; Ian Bowman <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Meeting next week. Wellington Station
Hi Michael,
Thanks for organising the site visit last week. I don’t see another site visit being of benefit to
HNPZT so I hope my following comments will suffice in helping progress this project forward.
Digital sign design:
Reduced height acceptable
Narrower border around the screen will help reduce the mass of these additions as
suggested by Ian Bowman.
Comfortable with proposed black colour of the digital signs
Proposed locations:
Comfortable with the proposed locations along each platform (at the reduced height),
centred between each set of railway iron support columns.
HNZPT is comfortable with the proposed location centred at the end of each train line
buffer. Our only remaining concern relates to the visual impact three of these signs will
have stationed round the train line buffer ends. Moving the side signs back to the location
of the ‘Stadium’ sign reduces this impact, but we will require further information on the
effectiveness of each of the three signs around the buffer ends. I also note it was discussed
on site that the side sign positioned at the end of platform 2 may not be needed.
Ngā mihi nui,
Francesca Bradley | Conservation Advisor | Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga | PO Box 2629
Wellington 6140 | DDI: 04 471 4895| [mobile number]|
Tairangahia a tua whakarere; Tātakihia ngā reanga o āmuri ake nei
Honouring the past; Inspiring the future
This communication may be a privileged communication. If you are not the intended recipient, then you are not
authorised to retain, copy or distribute it. Please notify the sender and delete the message in its entirety.
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 10 June 2022 1:13 pm
To: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>
Cc: Reuben Daube <[email address]>
Subject: Meeting next week. Wellington Station
Hi Francesca
Thanks for your time yesterday, very much appreciated. I think it was a very productive meeting
with agreement on most locations. We are inviting Ian back next week to assess a burnt umber
mock up. So that he can then write his impact assessment. My personal view, for what it is worth
is that these will actually look more intrusive, but we will find out next week!
I am also going to get stickers to put onto the current mock ups that have the actual screen size for
comparison.
I was going to suggest either Tuesday 14 between 12 pm and 4pm or Wednesday 15 between 2
pm and 3pm, it should not take more than 30 minutes, are you available? And if not can you
suggest another time please.
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If
you are not the named recipient and receive this correspondence in error, you must not copy,
distribute or take any action in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify
the sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions expressed are solely those
of the author, and do not represent those of the organisation.
ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. If
you are not the named recipient and receive this correspondence in error, you must not copy,
distribute or take any action in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify
the sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions expressed are solely those
of the author, and do not represent those of the organisation.
From:
Matthew Brajkovich
To:
Reuben Daube; Michael Freeman
Cc:
Francesca Bradley; Shayna Curle; Mitchell Davis; Ian Bowman
Subject:
RE: Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit next steps
Date:
Friday, 3 June 2022 2:35:51 pm
Attachments:
image001.png
Works for me.
Ngā mihi,
Matt
From: Reuben Daube <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 3 June 2022 2:34 pm
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Cc: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>; Matthew Brajkovich
<[email address]>; Shayna Curle <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis
<[email address]>; Ian Bowman <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit next steps
Works for me.
Cheers,
Reuben
Reuben Daubé
Heritage Advisor RMA | Wellington City Council |
Kaiārahi Tū Taonga | Te Kaunihera o Pōneke |
M
| 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.
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 3 June, 2022 2:33 PM
To: Ian Bowman <[email address]>
Cc: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>; Matthew Brajkovich
<[email address]>; Reuben Daube <[email address]>; Shayna
Curle <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit next steps
Hi all
Would 2.00 pm on Thursday at the station work for everyone.?
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman He/Him
Kaitohutohu | Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From:
Simon Teagle
To:
Michael Freeman
Cc:
Mike Gray; Mitchell Davis
Subject:
RE: Minute Platform Communication network 9/6/22
Date:
Friday, 10 June 2022 1:14:33 pm
Attachments:
ATT00001.png
Hi Michael,
Yes noted and I’ve had the conversation with Frank. He, Mike and I are clear that such comms
will be sent to you to disseminate, from now on.
Apologies in this instance.
Let us know how your follow up with Ian goes.
If at all possible, a site tour next Wednesday is best for us. We’re unable to attend Thursday
though.
Cheers
Simon
Simon Teagle
General Manager / Tumu Whakarae
Mobile:
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 10 June 2022 1:09 PM
To: Simon Teagle <[email address]>
Cc: Mike Gray <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Minute Platform Communication network 9/6/22
Simon
Following our call I wanted to make it clear, that while I am happy with the contents of the
minutes as a reflection of the meeting , this should have been reviewed by GW and come from
GW as the owner of the relationship with Heritage and Ian Bowman and the critical importance
of that relationship for GW/Metlink and the running the PT train network out of the heritage
train station.
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From:
Sent: Friday, 10 June 2022 9:32 am
To: [email address]; [email address]; Michael Freeman
<[email address]>; [email address]; Mitchell Davis
<[email address]>
Cc: 'Mike Gray' <[email address]>; 'Simon Teagle' <[email address]>;
[email address]; [email address]
Subject: Minute Platform Communication network 9/6/22
Hi All
In attendance yesterday, Francesca Bradley HNZ, Ian Bowman, Michael
Freeman GWRC; Matthew Brajkovich WCC, Mitchell Davis GWRC, Simon Teagle
Go Media, Frank Costello Go Media
Others from WCC were unable to attend. MF spoke to Transdev personnel who
were in general in agreement subject to the assurance that none would face
the drivers
The meeting was to discuss further toward consensus on placement and form of
the Communications network at the Central station Platform.
Commentary summary
MF opened with an intro and summary of the last meeting
FC and ST explained and discussed the purpose of the meeting, FC went
on to discuss the path to which drew up the current location selections,
and the criteria used: Customer Experience/Interaction with Heritage
elements
Services provision
Commercial viability
FC/ST/MF discussed the form of the unit and the single design concept for
the single and double faced units and its relevance to the market
FC discussed that a different view needed to be taken in all assessments
on site, that users of the station in the most part move through the station
and platform and do not dwell as such their experience is from a moving
perspective, that lens should be applied to onsite assessment rather than a
dwell and static assessment.
IB raised a number of queries chief amongst which was the minimum
viable number of panels, FC responded that we are close to this level now
and have already culled a large number of options and went on the
elaborate on reasons for cull. Fc discussed that the repetition of the units
ensure that commuters were able to be exposed to all adverts on the
rotation as they pass through the station, lesser numbers would not
achieve this outcome and greatly lessen the efficacy of the network
ST discussed the Reach and frequency around the units, FC added that
the Central station was the icon location for the wider network and that
without it the whole network is sunk, and that a major loss of faces at the
Central station would do likewise
Demonstrations of the placement of the demo units was conducted on
the platform, it was noted that the two demo panels had been produced
at the incorrect height, markups had been made on these unit to better
identify the heights, there was more acceptance from IB, and FB based on
this
It was generally agreed on the location on platforms 7/8 albeit that the
units were better centred between the columns
Discussion was conducted on the colour of the sides and the integration of
the icon image of the station and potentially some text. FC noted that
while it may match the station signage it would run the risk of being
confused as a part of station signage rather than an addition. FC also
noted that while the burnt Umber sides would match the steel work of the
station itself , it would make the unit bulkier adding to the mass of the built
environment, it was also noted by FC that the black would appear more
recessive in reality.
Platform 5/6 it was agreed to relocate the southern Unite 2 bay North and
as such do not require the removal of seating, the northern unit would also
be located 2 bays North of its current proposed location, all agreed this
was an acceptable outcome
Platform ¾ general agreement
Its was then agreed by all that the platforms were suitable albeit at the
correct height, centred between the columns and with another review on
bets colour selection. It was agreed that the frequency and repetition of
the steel arches compensated for an transient views effected by the units
placement, similarly the frequency and repetition of platform identification
signage would not be effected by the placement as any obstruction was
only momentary
Demonstrations on the buffer sides were undertaken on a number of
sidings, generally all felt that relocation North for all sidings was better, and
that removal and replacement of the stadium directional signage would
move to the south.
Discussion was conducted on the rationale behind the buffers and
whether a single unit could be used. FC noted that the sidings and end
caps were a reinforcement for both incoming and outbound commuters
as such their placements, and that symmetry was gained by pairing these,
they looked odd if only one was sited on each buffer.
FC also raise that the platform units were a unit more aimed at incoming
commuters as they leave the train, and that the buffer siding reinforce
that, the end caps the primary panel seen by outbound commuters and in
reality, the icons of the station from the Digital Communications network
perspective.
Some discussion was conducted on clutter, and the end cap signage,
discussion was undertaken toward consolidation into a larger icon-based
sign. FC discussed that the endcap unit was centralised for symmetry
purposes, to cover the least attractive concrete form and to avoid
obstruction of the views of the wrought iron scroll work on the buffer tops.
All were in agreement of the placement on the end cap of line 2/3, 4/5,
no unit is proposed for 8/9 having been culled earlier in the process
Discussion was conducted on the user experience of the station and its site
related signage. FC noted that the majority of the users knew implicitly
their platforms and lines etc, that user’s primary guidance and decision
making if unfamiliar was undertaken in the main station with the larger
digital and timetable signage, and that the platform signage was
reinforcement signage, also that the repetition informational signage such
as line numbers and transient movement of the people through ensured
that at all times the experience was not interrupted. It was also discussed
that rules-based signage would primarily be less likely to be read by users
and more a referral point for security to point to for people infringing, the
majority of users know implicitly the acceptable behaviours e.g., smoking
drinking, skateboards, sleeping onsite etc, that infringers also would know
this but would knowingly have chosen the breach, security would be using
any such signs just to allow enforcement. The Digital communications
network would as such not in itself create new breaches through their
From:
M chael Freeman
To:
Jaime Passache
Subject:
RE: p ace holder - Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit
Date:
Tuesday 24 May 2022 3:25:00 pm
Attachments:
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image003.png
image004 j g
Hi Jamie
We should be good with the Corflute (I hope)
Dzine signs are delivering in the morning
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street Te Aro Wel ington 6011 | PO Box 11646 Manners St Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Jaime Passache <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday 24 May 2022 3:23 pm
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Subject: RE: place holder - Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit
Printing an extra advert for the second may be an option? It does not have the 1200mm wide though.
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday 24 May 2022 3:10 pm
To: Jaime Passache <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis <[email address]>
Subject: Re: place holder - Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit
Hi Jaime
No worries hopefully one or the other or both!!
The corflute will have adverts on!!
Dial me in if required
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman He/Him
Kaitohutohu | Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
Metlink Co Branded logo
P
Think green: read on the screen.
From: Jaime Passache <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday May 24 2022 2:37:47 PM
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>; Mitchell Davis <[email address]>
Subject: RE: place holder - Digital Signs Wellington Station Site Visit
Michael…. My bad I forgot to update you on the whiteboard on wheels we do have at the Well Stn. I checked it on Friday and then I guess my mind shifted to something else.
It is on wheels it moves easily it is roughly 2300 H x 900 W
And so for tomorrow we could have two options or this one in case the core flute fails…
From:
Michael Freeman
To:
Francesca Bradley
Subject:
RE: Railway Station work Commercial Signs Intro
Date:
Friday, 1 April 2022 5:19:00 pm
Hi Francesca
Perfect, I will send you an invite.
Have a great weekend, see you Monday.
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 1 April 2022 4:31 pm
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Railway Station work Commercial Signs Intro
Kia ora Michael,
Thanks for making contact – 3pm Monday works perfectly.
I look forward to meeting you then.
Ngā mihi nui,
Francesca Bradley | Conservation Advisor | Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga | PO Box
2629 Wellington 6140 | DDI: 04 471 4895| [mobile number]|
Tairangahia a tua whakarere; Tātakihia ngā reanga o āmuri ake nei
Honouring the past; Inspiring the future
This communication may be a privileged communication. If you are not the intended recipient, then you are not
authorised to retain, copy or distribute it. Please notify the sender and delete the message in its entirety.
From: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 31 March 2022 4:24 pm
To: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>
Cc: Dean Raymond <[email address]>; Jamie Jacobs <[email address]>;
Fiona Abbott <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Railway Station work Commercial Signs Intro
Hi Francesca
Following on from the e-intro, I would like to touch base early next week, does Monday after 3
pm or Tuesday after midday work?. If not, please send across alternatives that work for you. As
Fiona mentioned, it would be great to get the ball rolling and I would like to share what we want
to achieve and to understand what you will need from me. I look forward to meeting and
working on this project together.
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Jamie Jacobs <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 31 March 2022 3:52 pm
To: Fiona Abbott <[email address]>
Cc: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>; Dean Raymond
<[email address]>; Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Railway Station work
Hi Fiona,
Yes, that sounds quite sensible.
Ngā mihi
Jamie
From: Fiona Abbott <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 3:31 PM
To: Jamie Jacobs <[email address]>
Cc: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>; Dean Raymond
<[email address]>; Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Railway Station work
Hi Jamie
Thanks for that. Michael Freeman (copied) is our key contact so perhaps if Michael touches base
with Francesca then we can get the ball rolling on our discussions….
Cheers
Fiona
From: Jamie Jacobs <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 31 March 2022 3:13 pm
To: Fiona Abbott <[email address]>
Cc: Francesca Bradley <[email address]>; Dean Raymond
<[email address]>
Subject: Railway Station work
Kia ora Fiona,
Sorry to miss your call – I was out on a site visit. Yes, we definitely would like to be involved with
advice and decisions around the digital signage, and as you mentioned in your message the
earlier the better.
Moving forward the primary contact about projects at the Wellington Railway Station will
Francesca Bradley (copied on this email). Dean Raymond and I will continue to be involved on an
as-needed basis, and provide Francesca with support on providing useful and timely advice. And,
of course, Dean and I are the contacts for any higher level issues that would need to be
discussed.
Ngā mihi
Jamie
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
Jamie Jacobs
l Director
Kaiwhakahaere Matua l Central Region
Te Takiwā o Te Pūtahi a Māui l Heritage New
Zealand Pouhere Taonga
l PO Box 2629 Wellington
l Ph: +64 (4) 494 8320
l DDI 494 8321
l
[email address]
l Visit www.heritage.org.nz and learn about New Zealand’s heritage places.
Tairangahia a tua whakarere; Tātakihia ngā reanga o āmuri ake nei – Honouring the past;
Inspiring the future
This communication may be a privileged communication. If you are not the intended recipient, then you are not
authorised to retain, copy or distribute it. Please notify the sender and delete the message in its entirety.
______________________________________________________________________________
I am writing to Kiwi Rail today with an update of where we are to keep them in the loop, I will copy
you all in .
In regard to the next steps, I would like to get to a position in the next couple of weeks where we
can submit the outline plan for Wellington Station and the Outline plan waivers for the rest of the
network.
Any question or further feedback let me know.
Have a great weekend,
Ngā mihi Michael
Michael Freeman (he/him)
Kaitohutohu| Business Development Specialist
Metlink
M
100 Cuba Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
Follow us online: Facebook |
Twitter
To find out how to plan your journey, go to
metlink.org.nz
From: Reuben Daube <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 28 June 2022 9:26 am
To: Michael Freeman <[email address]>
Cc: Ian Bowman <[email address]>; Francesca Bradley <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Meeting next week. Wellington Station
Hi Michael,
.
My apologies for the delay at getting back to you – I’m playing catch-up following
From our perspective, we are generally comfortable with the signs along the end of platforms,
reduced height, and colour (black).
I do agree with Ian and Francesca that a narrower border around the screen will help reduce the
visual impact – is this possible at all?
Again, we are generally comfortable where the project is heading, please let me know if you need
anything from me at this stage.
Kind regards,
Reuben Daubé
Heritage Advisor RMA | Wellington City Council |
Kaiārahi Tū Taonga | Te Kaunihera o Pōneke |
M
| 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
Heritage Impact Assessment–
digital signage
Wellington Railway Station Platforms
July 2022
IAN BOWMAN
Architect and conservator
Contents
1
Introduction .................................................................................... 3
1.1 Commission ....................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Limitations ......................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Site visits ............................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Framework for this HIA ..................................................................................... 3
2
Statutory recognition and heritage values .......................................... 5
2.1 Heritage listings .................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Heritage values of the platforms .......................................................................... 6
2.3 Heritage values of the railway station .................................................................. 9
3
Proposal description, objectives, alternatives .................................... 10
3.1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................ 10
3.2 Proposal ........................................................................................................... 10
3.5 Alternatives considered ..................................................................................... 10
4
Assessment criteria ........................................................................ 11
4.1 Section 176A Outline Plan , Resource Management Act 1991 ......................... 11
4.2 Wellington City District Plan (WCDP) ............................................................ 11
4.3 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) .......................................... 11
5
Assessment of impacts ................................................................... 13
5.1 WCDP criteria ................................................................................................. 13
15
5.2 HNZPT Heritage Guidance Sheet 16
Assessing Impacts on the Surroundings associated
with Historic Heritage, 2007 ......................................................................................... 16
5.3 Evaluation of impact ........................................................................................ 17
6
Conclusions and mitigation ............................................................ 18
6.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 18
6.2 Mitigation measures ......................................................................................... 18
6.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 18
Appendix 1 .......................................................................................... 19
Assessment of values and effects ................................................................................. 19
Grading of heritage values ......................................................................................... 19
Magnitude of effect ................................................................................................... 19
Significance of effect ................................................................................................. 20
Appendix 2 .......................................................................................... 22
Wellington City District Plan Appendix P Conditions ............................................... 22
Appendix 3 .......................................................................................... 23
Heritage values of the railway station ......................................................................... 23
Appendix 4 .......................................................................................... 26
2
Heritage Impact Assessment • Digital Signage, Wellington Railway Station
1
Introduction
1.1
Commission
This heritage impacts assessment (HIA) of the installation of six validators was
commissioned by Michael Freeman, Project Manager, Metlink on 15 June 2022.
1.2
Limitations
The assessment is based on the following documentation:
•
Greater Wellington “Wellington Railway Station – Digital Advertising
Screens”, not dated but received on 11-7-2022 (appendix 4)_;
•
Go Media, Digitisation of Wellington Train Platforms, Central June 2022, 5
pages
1.3
Site visits
Site visits to consider the location of the screens occurred on 9 and 20 June 2022.
1.4
Framework for this HIA
The objective of an HIA is to evaluate the potential impacts a proposed development
may have on the heritage values of a listed building. The following national and
international best practice guides have been considered for preparing this heritage
impact assessment.
•
ICOMOS,
Guidance on Heritage Impacts Assessments for Cultural World Heritage
Properties, ICOMOS, January 2011 (ICOMOS Guide)
•
Buhring C., and Bowman I.,
Guide to assessing historic heritage effects for state
highway projects, NZTA, March 2015 (NZTA Guide)
•
City of Toronto,
Heritage Impact Assessment Terms Of Reference, 2010 (Toronto
HIA)
•
The Highways Agency, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government
LLywodraethg Cynulliad Cymru,
Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, HA
285/07, Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3 “Cultural
Heritage”. See appendix 1.
•
Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage
Protection,
Guideline Heritage Preparing a heritage impact statement, October
2015 (Queensland Guide).
Based on these guides, the following framework is used for this AEE.
•
statutory recognition and heritage values;
•
proposal description and reasons for the development;
•
alternatives explored;
•
regulatory assessment criteria;
•
best practice assessment criteria;
•
an assessment of the impacts using best practice criteria; and
3
•
mitigation options with means of implementation.
4
Heritage Impact Assessment • Digital Signage, Wellington Railway Station
2.3
Heritage values of the railway station
The heritage values of the railway station are included in appendix 3.
9
3 Proposal description, objectives,
alternatives
3.1
Project Objectives5
The outcome of the Digital Screen on the rail corridor project is to increase non-fare
revenue contributions to the running of the Public Transport network. These digital
screens will complement the current static advertising network and are forecast to double
Greater Wellington’s revenue from advertising. The income from this project will
contribute towards the maintenance and upkeep of the station platforms.
3.2
Proposal
The proposal is to install nine single screen and eight double screen digital
signs according to the locations shown in appendix 4. The size of signs are as
shown in the cover photo. They will be black with a Wellington Railway
Station logo on the lower right of each screen face. Cables to the screens will
be from above for those screens located under the platform roofs and from
underground when located by the buffers using a trench to be constructed
when further validators are to be installed.
3.5
Alternatives considered
The size of signs are “industry standard”6 . Black and umber were options
considered for the frame while numbers were reduced from 18 to 17. The
locations of the screens on the buffer sides were modified during consultation.
5 Email from Michael Freeman 19 July 2022
6 Letter from Michael Freeman, 7 June 2022
10
Heritage Impact Assessment • Digital Signage, Wellington Railway Station
4 Assessment criteria
4.1 Section 176A Outline Plan , Resource Management Act
1991
(3)
An outline plan must show—
(a)
the height, shape, and bulk of the public work, project, or work; and
(b)
the location on the site of the public work, project, or work; and
(c)
the likely finished contour of the site; and
(d)
the vehicular access, circulation, and the provision for parking; and
(e)
the landscaping proposed; and
(f)
any other matters to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects on the
environment.
In order to consider (3) (f), the following assessment criteria are used.
4.2
Wellington City District Plan (WCDP)
Given that the application is for an Outline Plan, there are no specific WCDP
assessment criteria. However several of the assessment criteria for Discretionary
Activities (Restricted) provide a useful guide. These comprise:
21A.2.1.3
The extent to which the work significantly detracts from the values for
which the building or object was listed.
21A.2.1.5
• respects the scale of the original building or object. The Council
seeks to ensure new work is not visually dominant, particularly where
rooftop additions are proposed.
• avoids the loss of historic fabric and the destruction of significant
materials and craftsmanship.
• respects the historic or other values for which the building was listed.
4.3 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT)
An appropriate guide for assessing the installation of validators is HNZPT Heritage
Guidance Sheet 16
Assessing Impacts on the Surroundings associated with Historic Heritage,
2007.
The relevant criteria from the guide comprise:
a
The proposed activity should not visually dominate or distract from the
qualities of the heritage place.
b
The proposed activity should provide for adequate visual catchments,
corridors or sightlines to the heritage item.
c
Any new building should not affect the character and setting of the historic
building.
d
the height, location and proportions of any new building should be
compatible with the existing historic environment, with heights and
11
proportions reflective of the predominant height and proportions of adjacent
buildings.
e
The size, orientation, scale, massing, density, modulation, and shape of the
new building or addition should be compatible with the existing historic
building(s). These elements should relate to surrounding buildings.
f
Any new building or addition should adopt materials and colours that relate
to and use as reference points, the materials, colour and details of adjacent
buildings and the surrounding areas.
g
The architectural style should be compatible with the historic design and
should not imitate, replicate or mimic surrounding historical styles.
12
Heritage Impact Assessment • Digital Signage, Wellington Railway Station
6 Conclusions and mitigation
6.1
Conclusions
The significance of impacts to the platforms of the proposed digital signs on the
platforms between canopy posts and against the sides of the buffers are assessed as
being
slight while those digital signs facing the concourse are considered to have a
moderate/slight negative impact.
6.2
Mitigation measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the
digital signs located against the buffers include:
•
remove the digital sign facing the concourse between platform 6 and 7 as this
has the most significant negative impact;
•
increase the dwell time of the digital signs facing the concourse and reduce
their level of brightness.
6.3
Recommendations
The following are recommended actions consistent with good conservation practice:
•
that all areas impacted by the proposal are recorded to HNZPT
Archaeological Guidelines Series 1
Investigation and Recording of buildings and
standing structures, November 2018, level II;
•
that a Temporary Protection Plan for areas affected by the proposal be
provided. This should be prepared based on the following documents:
Christchurch City Council,
Heritage Information, Guideline 14: Temporary Protection of
Heritage Items, Christchurch City Council, n.d.;
Frens, Dale H.,
Temporary Protection Number 2, Specifying Temporary Protection of Historic
Interiors during Construction and Repair, US National Park Service Cultural Resources,
1993.
Ian Bowman
19 July 2022
18
Heritage Impact Assessment • Digital Signage, Wellington Railway Station
Possible effects could include changes to use, access, views, topography, structures,
vegetation, sound environment, approaches and context. The effect on the heritage
resource has been ranked without regard to its level of significance.
Significance of effect
The matrix below illustrates that combining the magnitude of impact/effect (before
mitigation) and the heritage significance of the heritage resource will determine the
extent of impacts of the project. Mitigation measures however influence the
evaluation of effect. Where the matrix suggests more than one likely outcome, for
instance moderate/slight, professional judgement has been used in conjunction with
the descriptors in the following table to arrive at an appropriate result.
The scale of possible effects is:
•
Very large (beneficial or adverse)
•
Large (beneficial or adverse)
•
Moderate (beneficial or adverse)
•
Slight (beneficial or adverse)
•
Neutral
20
Heritage Impact Assessment • Digital Signage, Wellington Railway Station
The Magnitude of Impact shows the potential effect of the project on the heritage
item or setting without mitigation.
In general if the effects on all heritage resources were adverse the overall impact
would be the highest impact. Conversely if the effects were all beneficial, the
average level of benefit would be selected, rather than the greatest, as assessments
should be conservative.
21
Appendix 2
Wellington City District Plan Appendix P Conditions
The following condition shall apply to the designation of the Wellington
Railway Station (designation R4) in the Wellington District Plan:
(i) Nothing in this designation authorises the demolition or partial demolition
of the following parts of the Wellington Railway Station:
•
the 3 streets facades including the Thorndon Quay addition • the main
concourse
•
the roofline without air-conditioning units
•
the plaques at the office entrance
which are heritage features. Any such proposal shall require Tranz Rail to
either obtain any necessary resource consent or to seek the alteration of this
designation by the removal of this condition. For the avoidance of doubt, this
condition does not cover repairs or maintenance, or additions or alterations,
or any other activity requiring an outline plan under section 176A.
(ii) Prior to the preparation of any proposal to undertake any additions or
alterations to the identified heritage features of the Wellington Railway
Station building, Tranz Rail shall meet with the NZ Historic Places Trust to
discuss the proposal.
(iii) Tranz Rail shall provide any subsequent plan(s) of any additions or
alterations, as specified above, for comment by the NZ Historic Places Trust
within 15 working days. In the event that there are any points raised by the
NZ Historic Places Trust, Tranz Rail shall arrange to meet with the Trust to
discuss the points raised.
(iv) Tranz Rail shall provide a copy of any application for outline plan
approved in respect of the identified heritage features of the Wellington
Railway Station building to the NZ Historic Places Trust at the same time it
is lodged with the Council. The Trust will then forward its comments on the
proposal to the Council within 5 working days.
22
Heritage Impact Assessment • Digital Signage, Wellington Railway Station
Appendix 3
Heritage values of the railway station
The summaries of heritage values is taken from the WCC on-line heritage
inventory8.
Aesthetic value
Cultural value
The Wellington Railway Station has significant architectural values. The
design is bold and influenced by the world’s great railway stations, possessing a
generous forecourt and sweeping driveways leading to the impressive
colonnade. The internal spaces, particularly the booking hall, are a
continuation of this tradition. It is a fine example of one the city’s leading
architectural firms Gray Young, Morton, and Young. It has been recognised
as one of the best 20th century buildings in New Zealand for its architectural
qualities.
The Railway station is associated with a number of historically important
events including the focal-point of the funeral cortege for Prime Minister
Michael Joseph Savage, as a casualty clearing station in the aftermath of the
Wahine disaster, and as part of the home-front defence system during World
War Two.
This building has immense townscape value; it defines the Waterloo Quay,
Featherston, and Bunny Street area. It is a landmark building that is used by,
and seen by, thousands of commuters daily.
Group
With the Old Government Buildings, Waterloo Hotel and Shed 21, it forms a
small precinct of heritage buildings in the Waterloo Quay/Bunny
Street/Featherston Street area.
Townscape
This building has immense townscape value; it defines the Waterloo Quay,
Featherston, and Bunny Street area. It is a landmark building that is used by,
and seen by, thousands of commuters daily.
Historic value
Association
The Railway station is associated with a number of historically important
events including the focal-point of the funeral cortege for Prime Minister
Michael Joseph Savage, as a casualty clearing station in the aftermath of
the Wahine disaster, and as part of the home-front defence system during
World War Two.
This building has a range of historic associations that give it significant value.
It is a fine example of one the city’s leading architectural firms Gray Young,
8 https://www.wellingtoncityheritage.org.nz/buildings/1-150/44-wellington-railway-station?q=
23
Morton, and Young. It was designed as the main Railway Station and Offices
for the Railways Department and was the culmination of 65 years of railway
development in Wellington.
Scientific value
Technological
This building has technical value for the innovation of its construction. It was
designed using the latest technology utilising steel framing and reinforced
concrete and bricks to withstand earthquakes. At the time it was constructed
it was one of the largest buildings in New Zealand and its size, scale, and
construction on reclaimed land provided a significant building challenge that
was overcome by the architects and engineers.
Social value
Identity Sense Of Place Continuity
This building is a focus of community identity as it is a major landmark
building for the city of Wellington. The retention of this building has helped
to promote a sense of continuity in Wellington with its history. As a major
development for the Railways Department in the 1930s, it also contributes to
a sense of continuity for the presence of the railways in Wellington.
Public Esteem
This building is held in high community esteem. It has significant heritage
values for the people of Wellington.
Sentiment Connection
This building is a focus of community sentiment and connection – it is a
public space that is still in use.
Symbolic Commemorative Traditional Spiritual
This building has traditional values for the community of commuters who use
it daily. It has been in continuous use as a station since its construction.
Level of Cultural Heritage Significance
Authentic
This building has authenticity and integrity as it retains significant original
materials. Modifications and additions have been carried out in mostly
harmonious ways.
Rare
This building is of outstanding heritage significance for its architectural,
historical, townscape, technical, public education and esteem, values.
Representative
This building is an excellent example of the work of Gray Young, Morton,
and Young designed in the Neo-Classical Revival style with Beaux Arts
influenced interiors. It is also influenced by Modernism and Art Deco,
making this building a good representative of New Zealand interpretations of
these architectural forms.
24
Heritage Impact Assessment • Digital Signage, Wellington Railway Station
Importance
This is a nationally important building for its architectural, historical,
townscape, technical, public education and esteem, values.
25
DECISION – Land Use Consent:
Officers, acting under delegated authority from the Wellington City Council (the Council) and
pursuant to section 104C of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act),
grant resource
consent to the proposal to install 16 digital screens for advertising and customer
communication on the Wellington Railway Station platforms at
2 Bunny Street, Pipitea
(being Lot 1 DP 548049 and Lot 3 DP 548049), subject to the conditions below.
Conditions of Consent:
General:
(a) The proposal must be in accordance with the information provided with the application
Service Request No. 522428
and the plan titled ‘Wellington Railway Station - Digital
Advertising Screens’.
Digital Screen Operation:
(b) Images must have a minimum dwell time of 8 seconds.
(c) Illumination of the screens must:
i. be controlled and automatically adjusted to ensure it does not exceed typical
ambient light levels; and
ii. not exceed 2,500 cd/m2.
Monitoring and Review:
(d) Prior to starting work the consent holder must advise the Council's Compliance
Monitoring Officer of the date when work will begin. This advice must include the
address of the property and the Service Request number and be provided at least 48
hours before work starts, either by telephone on 04 801 4017 or email to
[email address].
(e) The conditions of this resource consent must be met to the satisfaction of the Council’s
Compliance Monitoring Officer. The Compliance Monitoring Officer will visit the site to
monitor the conditions, with more than one site visit where necessary. The consent
holder must pay to the Council the actual and reasonable costs associated with the
monitoring of conditions (or review of consent conditions), or supervision of the
resource consent as set in accordance with section 36 of the Act. These costs* may
include site visits, correspondence and other activities, the actual costs of materials or
services, including the costs of consultants or other reports or investigations which may
have to be obtained. More information on the monitoring process is available at the
following link:
https://wellington.govt.nz/property-rates-and-building/building-and-resource-
consents/resource-consents/applying-for-a-resource-consent/monitoring-resource-consent-
conditions
* Please refer to the current schedule of Resource Management Fees for guidance on
the current administration charge and hourly rate chargeable for Council officers.
Advice Notes:
1.
The land use consent must be given effect to within 5 years of the granting of this consent,
or within such extended period of time as granted by the Council pursuant to section 125
of the Act.
SR No. 522428
2 of 12
2 Bunny Street, Pipitea
2.
Section 36 of the Act allows the Council to charge for all fair and reasonable costs
associated with the assessment of your application. We will confirm in due course
whether the time spent on the assessment of this application is covered by the initial fee
paid. If the time exceeds the hours covered by the initial fee you will be sent an invoice
for additional fees. If the application was assessed in less time you will be sent a refund.
For more information on your fees contact [email address].
3.
Where appropriate, the Council may agree to reduce the required monitoring charges
where the consent holder will carry out appropriate monitoring and reporting back to
the Council.
4.
This resource consent is not a consent to build. A building consent may be required
under the Building Act 2004 prior to commencement of construction.
5.
This resource consent does not authorise any works that also require consent from the
Greater Wellington Regional Council. If necessary, separate resource consent(s) will
need to be obtained prior to commencing work.
6.
As far as practicable all construction activity related to the development must take place
within the confines of the site. No buildings, vehicles, materials or debris associated with
construction may be kept on Council land, including the road, without prior approval
from the Council. Please note that landowner approval is required under a separate
approval process and that this will need to be sought and approved prior to any works
commencing.
For more information on the traffic management process and what further separate land
owner approvals may be required in relation to the logistics of working within the legal
road either contact the Transport Asset Performance team or visit this link:
https://wellington.govt.nz/services/parking-and-roads/road-works/work-on-the-
roads/permissions-and-approvals
7.
As consent involves the construction of a new building / additions and alterations in the
Central Area the consent holder may be required to provide details about how the
construction will integrate with other major construction projects. For more information
contact the Network Activity Manager by email: [email address]
8.
The consent holder must ensure that construction, earthworks and any demolition
activities are managed and controlled so that the noise received at any residential or
commercial site does not exceed the limits set out in Table 2 and Table 3 of
‘NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction’ noise when measured and assessed in
accordance with that standard. Where a specific construction activity cannot comply
with the limits set out in ‘NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction’ the consent holder
must provide the Council’s Compliance Monitoring Officer an assessment of physical
and managerial noise control methods that must be adopted. The assessment must be
in line with section 16 of the Act (Best Practical Option (BPO)).
The BPO is defined as the best method for preventing or minimising the adverse noise
or vibration effects on the environment having regard to (1) the sensitivity of the
receiving environment to adverse noise or vibration effects, (2) the financial implications
and (3) the current state of technical knowledge and the likelihood that the option can
be successfully applied.
9.
The subject property is a known place of historic habitation. An archaeological site is
defined as physical evidence of pre-1900 human activity. This can include above ground
structures as well as below ground features. Below ground features can include burnt
and fire cracked stones, charcoal, rubbish heaps including shell, bone and/or glass and
SR No. 522428
3 of 12
2 Bunny Street, Pipitea
crockery, ditches, banks, pits, old building foundations, artefacts of Māori and European
origin or human burials.
If any activity associated with this proposal modifies, damages or destroys any
archaeological site, an archaeological authority (consent) from Heritage New Zealand
Pouhere Tāonga (HNZPT) must be obtained for the work to proceed lawfully. Under the
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Tāonga Act 2014 it is illegal to modify or destroy an
archaeological site without obtaining an authority. The applicant is advised to contact
HNZPT for further information prior to works commencing.
10. Rights of objection to the conditions specified above may be exercised by the consent
holder pursuant to section 357A of the Act. Any objection shall be made in writing,
setting out the reasons for the objection within 15 working days of this notification or
within such extended period as the Council may in its discretion allow.
Reasons for Decision:
1.
Pursuant to section 95A and 95B of the Act, there are no mandatory requirements to
notify the application, the effects of the proposal on the environment will be no more
than minor and there are no affected persons. There are no special circumstances.
2.
Pursuant to section 104 of the Act, the effects of the proposal on the environment will be
acceptable.
3.
The proposal is in accordance with the relevant objectives and policies of the Operative
District Plan and Proposed District Plan, and Part 2 of the Act.
SR No. 522428
4 of 12
2 Bunny Street, Pipitea
DECISION REPORT
PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN
On 18 July 2022 the Council notified the Wellington City Proposed District Plan (PDP).
The PDP gives effect to the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other
Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (the Amendment Act), enacted in December 2021, as well as
the NPS-UD policies 3 and 4 (intensification and qualifying matters). The following provisions
in the PDP have immediate legal effect:
- Historic Heritage
- Significant Natural Areas
- Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) – being intensification provisions within
the Medium Density Residential Zone (MRZ) and High Density Residential Zone (HRZ)
that give effect to the Amendment Act.
Decision making processes for the PDP will follow both the Resource Management Act 1991
(RMA) Intensification Streamlined Planning Process (ISPP) and the Part One, Schedule One
process. This means that the notification of the PDP will be split into two separate processes:
- The ISPP process uses an independent hearings panel, has no merit appeals to the
Environment Court and must be completed in around one year.
- The First Schedule process follows the normal Plan Change process and can be subject to
appeals to the Environment Court.
Provisions relevant to the Resource Management (Enabling Housing supply and other
matters) Amendment Act 2021 and NPS-UD will be determined through the ISPP. The
remaining provisions will be determined through the Schedule 1 process.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site comprises the Wellington Railway Station, located toward the northern end of
the Wellington city centre. Of note, the Wellington Railway Station is a listed heritage building
in both the Operative District Plan and Proposed District Plan, as well as the Heritage List
administered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Tāonga (HNZPT).
PROPOSAL
Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) proposes to install 16 digital screens for
advertising and customer communication on the Wellington Railway Station platforms. Eight
screens will be single-sided and eight will be double-sided. The single-sided screens are
proposed to be placed adjacent to the buffers at the southern end of the platforms. The double-
sided screens are proposed to be placed further along the platforms, with up to two screens per
platform. The screen structures have a total height of 2.33m and screen dimensions of
approximately 1.65m by 0.93m.
Further details of the proposal are provided in the AEE and application plans. I adopt the
applicant’s proposal description should be read in conjunction with this report.
SR No. 522428
5 of 12
2 Bunny Street, Pipitea
ACTIVITY STATUS
Operative District Plan:
Resource consent is required under the following rule:
Rule 21D.3.1 – Signs on heritage buildings and objects
Resource consent is required for the installation of signs on a listed heritage building/
object (Wellington Railway Station), which are not a Permitted Activity. This is because the
proposal exceeds the number and size of signs permitted under Rule 21D.1.1.
There are no conditions, standards or terms under this rule.
The proposal is assessed as a
Restricted Discretionary Activity.
Discretion is restricted to:
- Sign design, location and placement
- Area, height and number of signs
- Illumination
- Fixing and methods of fixing
Notification status: Under Rule 21D.3.1 there is no preclusion to public or limited
notification.
The proposal is assessed as a
Restricted Discretionary Activity under the Operative
District Plan.
Proposed District Plan:
Resource consent is required under the following rule:
Rule SIGN-R6.2 – Signs on heritage buildings and structures
Resource consent is required for the installation of signs on a listed heritage building/
structure (Wellington Railway Station), which are not a Permitted Activity. This is because
the proposal exceeds the number and size of signs permitted under Standard SIGN-S12
and Rule SIGN-R6.1.
The proposal is assessed as a
Restricted Discretionary Activity.
Discretion is restricted to:
- The matters in SIGN-P3
- The Signs Design Guide and the Heritage Design Guide
Notification status: Under Rule SIGN-R6.2 there is no preclusion to public or limited
notification.
The proposal is assessed as a
Restricted Discretionary Activity under the Proposed
District Plan.
SR No. 522428
6 of 12
2 Bunny Street, Pipitea
WRITTEN APPROVALS
No written approvals were provided with the application.
SECTION 95 ASSESSMENT AND DECISION
Public Notification – Section 95A:
Mandatory Public Notification:
Mandatory public notification is not required as the applicant has not requested public
notification [s95A(3)(a)], there are no outstanding section 92 matters [s95A(3)(b)], and the
application has not been made jointly with an application to exchange recreation reserve land
under section 15AA of the Reserves Act [s95A(3)(c)].
Preclusion to Public Notification:
There is no preclusion to public notification as the relevant rules in the ODP and PDP do not
preclude notification of the application [s95A(5)(a)] and the application is not for one of the
activities listed at section 95A(5)(b)(i) or 95A(5)(b)(iii) of the Act.
Public Notification – Rule/Adverse Effects:
Public notification is not required as the application does not include an activity that is subject
to any rule in the ODP or PDP that requires public notification and it has been determined in
accordance with section 95D adverse effects on the environment will not be more than minor
[s95A(8)(a) and (b)]. The reasons why the effects on the environment have been deemed to
not be more than minor are detailed in the Assessment of Adverse Effects and conclusions set
out in this report.
Special Circumstances:
None of the circumstances of the application are exceptional or unusual. Therefore, there are
no special circumstances that warrant public notification under section 95A(9).
Limited Notification – Section 95B:
Customary Rights and Marine Title Groups, and Statutory Acknowledgements:
There are no protected customary rights groups or customary marine title groups that will be
affected by the proposal and the proposal is not on, adjacent to, or likely to affect land subject
to a statutory acknowledgement [s95B(2)(a) and (b) and s95B(3)].
Preclusions to Limited Notification:
There is no preclusion to limited notification as there is no rule in the ODP or PDP that
precludes limited notification of the application [s95B(6)(a)] and the application is not for a
district land use consent with Controlled activity status [s95B(6)(b)].
Limited Notification – Affected Persons:
Limited notification is not required as the effects on any person will be less than minor
[s95B(8)]. The reasons why the effects have been deemed to be less than minor are detailed in
the Assessment of Adverse Effects and conclusions set out in this report.
SR No. 522428
7 of 12
2 Bunny Street, Pipitea
Special Circumstances:
I have considered whether there are special (ie exceptional or unusual) circumstances that
exist relating to the application that warrant limited notification to any persons who have not
been excluded as affected persons by the assessment above [s95B(10)]. There are no special
circumstances that warrant limited notification of any additional party under section 95B(10).
Public and Limited Notification Decision:
For the reasons set out above, the application does not require either public or limited
notification.
ASSESSMENT OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
Potential Adverse Effects
Having regard to the proposal, the Operative and Proposed District Plan rules, and the lens of
the relevant matters of discretion; the actual and potential effects of this proposal are
considered to be heritage and design, including visual amenity/impact effects.
In assessing these effects, I have sought advice from the Council’s Senior Heritage Advisor
Reuben Daubé and Urban Design Advisor Shayna Curle. Mr Daube’s assessment dated 31
October 2022 and Ms Curle’s assessment dated 2 November 2022 should be read in
conjunction with this report.
In terms of design, Ms Curle raises no issues with the proposal. Specifically, she notes that the
signs are a standard design commonly found throughout Wellington and agrees with the
proposed locations of the signs on the platforms with them being appropriate and logical.
In terms of heritage, Mr Daubé has reviewed the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by the
applicant’s heritage consultant Ian Bowman. Mr Bowman concludes:
The significance of impacts to the platforms of the proposed digital signs on the
platforms between canopy posts and against the sides of the buffers are assessed as
being slight while those digital signs facing the concourse are considered to have a
moderate/slight negative impact.
Mr Daubé accepts Mr Bowman’s expert heritage advice and makes the following conclusion:
The screens on the platforms will have a noticeable effect on the heritage values an[d]
add unnecessary visual clutter at the Wellington Railway Station. However, […] the
effect of the digital advertising screens is considered to be acceptable in this situation.
Therefore, based on my assessment, the proposal is supported on heritage grounds.
Having considered the assessment provided by Mr Daubé, I consider the adverse effects on
heritage values equate to being no more than minor in this instance.
Overall, and for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the adverse effects of the proposal
will be no more than minor. The effects on any specific persons will be less than minor and
therefore no persons are adversely affected in this respect.
SECTION 104 ASSESSMENT – SUBSTANTIVE DECISION
Section 104(1)(a) – Effects Assessment:
SR No. 522428
8 of 12
2 Bunny Street, Pipitea
Adverse Effects:
An assessment of the effects on the environment has been made above. The matters discussed
and the conclusions reached are also applicable with regard to the adverse effects assessment
under section 104(1)(a) of the Act and no further assessment is required. Based on this
assessment, I conclude that the adverse effects of the proposal have been adequately mitigated
and minimised and are acceptable.
Positive Effects:
The meaning of ‘effect’, as set out in section 3 of the Act, includes positive effects. Positive
effects are an important consideration in the overall balancing exercise involved in assessing
resource consent applications.
The positive effects of the proposal include providing an additional source of revenue to GWRC
which will contribute toward investment into the Wellington Region’s public transport
network.
Conclusion:
Overall, I consider that the effects of the proposal on the environment will be acceptable.
Section 104(1)(ab) – Measures to ensure positive effects to offset or compensate
for any adverse effects on the environment:
The applicant has not proposed or agreed to any measures to ensure positive effects on the
environment to offset or compensate for any adverse effects on the environment that will or
may result from allowing the activity. In this case I consider that no measures are necessary as
the effects on the environment will be acceptable.
Section 104(1)(b) – Relevant Planning Provisions:
I have had regard to provisions of the following planning documents as specified at section
104(1)(b)(i)-(vi) of the Act:
- National Environmental Standards
- Other regulations
- National Policy Statement
- The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
- The Wellington Regional Policy Statement
- The Operative District Plan
- The Proposed District Plan
Higher Order Planning Documents:
There are no National Environmental Standards, other regulations or National Policy
Statements that are directly relevant to the consideration of this proposal. Similarly, the New
Zealand Coastal Policy Statement is not relevant.
Regional Policy Statement:
The policies of the Wellington Regional Policy Statement (RPS) have been taken into
consideration. In particular I have had specific regard to the following policies:
-
Policy 39: Recognising the benefits of renewable energy and regionally significant
infrastructure.
-
Policy 46: Managing effects on historic heritage values.
SR No. 522428
9 of 12
2 Bunny Street, Pipitea
-
Policy 54: Achieving the region’s urban design principles.
The proposal is considered to accord with the general strategic direction of the RPS and is not
contrary to any of the relevant objectives or policies, noting that these are generally reflected
in the objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan and Proposed District Plan.
Operative District Plan:
I have had regard to the objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan. The following
objectives and policies and assessment criteria are considered relevant to the proposal:
- Objective 20.2.1 and Policy 20.2.1.9
- Assessment criteria 21D.3.1.5 to 21D.3.1.11
Overall, for the reasons discussed in this Decision Report, I consider that the proposal is
acceptable in terms of the assessment criteria and is consistent with the objectives and policies
as set out above. In particular, the signs are not considered to detract from the heritage values
of the railway station to an inappropriate and unacceptable extent.
Proposed District Plan:
I have had regard to the objectives and policies of the Proposed District Plan. The following
objectives and policies are considered relevant to the proposal:
- Objective SIGN-O1 and Policies SIGN-P1 and SIGN-P3
- Objectives HH-O2 and HH-O3
Overall, for the reasons discussed in this Decision Report, I consider that the proposal is
consistent with the objectives and policies as set out above. In particular, the signs are not
considered to detract from the heritage values of the railway station to an inappropriate and
unacceptable extent, and their installation supports sustainable long-term use of the station
and wider public transport network.
I note that there is no significant policy shift between the relevant provisions of the ODP and
PDP considerations and find that the proposal is acceptable under both Plans.
Section 104(1)(c) – Other Matters:
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Tāonga:
The building is included in the New Zealand Heritage List (Register No: 1452) and is subject
to a heritage covenant on the Record of Title. The applicant has consulted with Dean Raymond
at HNZPT in preparation of the resource consent application. The comments raised by HNZPT
generally reflect those of Mr Daubé and Mr Bowman, and HNZPT concludes that “we are
satisfied the heritage values of the Wellington Railway Station Platforms can continue to be
protected under the heritage covenant.” Ultimately, it is the consent holder’s responsibility to
ensure that any HNZPT requirements are satisfied.
There are no other matters that the Council needs to consider when assessing the application.
PART 2 – PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF THE ACT
Part 2 of the Act sets out the purpose and principles of the legislation, which as stated in section
5, is “
to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources”. Section 5
goes on to state that sustainable management should enable
“people and communities to
provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while
SR No. 522428
10 of 12
2 Bunny Street, Pipitea
1.
Pursuant to section 95A and 95B of the Act, there are no mandatory requirements to
notify the application, the effects of the proposal on the environment will be no more
than minor and there are no affected persons. There are no special circumstances.
2.
Pursuant to section 104 of the Act, the effects of the proposal on the environment will be
acceptable.
3.
The proposal is in accordance with the relevant objectives and policies of the Operative
District Plan and Proposed District Plan, and Part 2 of the Act.
Report prepared by Matthew Brajkovich
Matthew Brajkovich
Cedric Tevaga
Delegated Officer
Delegated Officer
8 November 2022
8 November 2022
SR No. 522428
12 of 12
2 Bunny Street, Pipitea
