Lets Get Wellington Moving - Programme Director Comments
Chris McCashin made this Official Information request to Wellington City Council
This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Chris McCashin to read recent responses and update the status.
From: Chris McCashin
Dear Wellington City Council,
On Tuesday 11th July a representative from Lets Get Wellington Moving was on Nick Mills show. Comments from this representative appeared to confirm the final nail in the coffin for business in the CBD, especially street level. These projects will see massive vacancy at street level, vagrants, increase in crime and billions of dollars in debt that Wellingtonians are supposed to pick up yet the majority of Wellingtonians oppose?! And all in that time, employees, consultants at LGWM will continue to be funded by the very people they are intent at putting out of business! A few comments and requests
The representative stated the following -
"on the flipside we also hear from other businesses that they are very excited about the work that we are doing, that they see it as a very positive change and that they want us to get on with it"
Please provide any and all written correspondence from businesses excited about the work that LGWM are proposing and see it as a positive change. This can be emails, thank-you cards, file notes, social media postings, flowers, submissions saying how much they want this work. Please "do not provide" gerry mandered surveys, I require all of the correspondence and the names of the businesses so I can follow up and verify. I specifically want examples from business not the UN and their sustainable development goals.
The representative also stated -
"They are not a business person, so you are probably asking the wrong person. But what I can say is that there will be disruption over the next 2-3 years but that disruption won't be outside the whole business for three-years outside of one particular business that will happen in stages"
Please provide all the businesses that were involved in the planning, design and implementation to shut down these streets. If no businesses were involved then why not.
The representative also stated that -
"The work / analysis that we have done is that retail business will be better off to the tune of $11m dollars per year". I assume this is like the 30km driving zones?!
Please provide the cost benefit analysis, companies that were involved, terms of service (instruction letters), any conflicts of interest, analysis, recommendations, memos, any and all information that was used to gerry mander the outcome you require.
At what point does Wellington City Council look at STOPPING spending?! $1B in debt and still these projects are being forced on locals that the majority of people don't want.
Why don't you shut of Courtenay Place to traffic temporarily for 12 months and watch the street die rather than doing this permanently and seeing the whole city die.
Yours faithfully,
Chris
From: BUS: Assurance
Wellington City Council
IRC 5173 FYI Website LGWM Programme Director Comments transfer letter.pdf
535K
Download
View as HTML
Kia ora Chris
Thank you for your request.
Please see attached transfer letter to NZTA, who are managing information requests for Let's Get Wellington Moving.
Kind Regards
Asha Harry
Senior Advisor | Official Information Team | Wellington City Council
W Wellington.govt.nz | |
The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
show quoted sections
From: Official Correspondence
Kia ora Chris
This email acknowledges your below request for information made under the
Official Information Act 1982.
Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate section of Waka Kotahi
NZ Transport Agency for response. They will contact you if they require
clarification of your request, more time to respond, or if your request
has been transferred to another organisation to respond to. Unless more
time is required, Waka Kotahi will send a response to you within 20
working days of receiving your request – in this instance on or before 9
August 2023.
Lastly, the information you have requested may contain the names and
contact details of our staff. Please let us know whether you require these
names and contact details. We may need to consult our staff before
deciding whether we can release this information, and this may take a bit
more time. If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you do not
require staff names and contact details.
If you would like to discuss your request with Waka Kotahi, please contact
us by email at [1][email address].
Ngā mihi
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
[2]twitter | [3]youtube | [4]facebook
[5][IMG]
show quoted sections
From: Chris McCashin
Dear Official Correspondence,
I require the programme director from Lets Get Wellington Moving to respond
She specifically said “we” have heard. So I require all the responses that were directed to Let’s Get Wellington Moving.
This response isn’t good enough. If Let’s Get Wellington Moving isn’t part of this correspondence then what are they doing?
If NZTA are running this why don’t we get rid of Let’s Get Wellington Moving.
This is some sort of joke isn’t it?
Yours sincerely,
Chris McCashin
From: Official Correspondence
Kia ora Chris
Thank you for your reply.
In accordance with clause 9.3 of the Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM)
[1]Relationship and Funding Agreement, all requests for information made
under the Official Information Act 1982 are processed by Waka Kotahi NZ
Transport Agency on behalf of the funding partners (Waka Kotahi,
Wellington City Council and Greater Wellington Regional Council).
Please let us know if you have further questions.
Ngā mihi
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
[2]twitter | [3]youtube | [4]facebook
[5][IMG]
show quoted sections
From: Official Correspondence
Kia ora Chris
Thank you for your request of 11 July 2023 under the Official Information
Act 1982 (the Act), which was transferred to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency for response.
Your request has been numbered for ease of reference.
1. Please provide any and all written correspondence from businesses
excited about the work that LGWM are proposing and see it as a
positive change. This can be emails, thank-you cards, file notes,
social media postings, flowers, submissions saying how much they want
this work. Please "do not provide" gerry mandered surveys, I require
all of the correspondence and the names of the businesses so I can
follow up and verify. I specifically want examples from business not
the UN and their sustainable development goals.
This part of your request, as currently framed, is very broad in nature
and we consider that it cannot be met without substantial collation and
research. Unless this question is refined to a manageable level, it is
likely to be refused under section 18(f) of the Act.
To provide context, multiple rounds of engagement/consultation have been
undertaken by Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM) for the Golden Mile
project, as set out below:
o Late 2019 - Public engagement on project vision
o Mid 2020 – Public consultation on options: Streamline, Prioritise, and
Transform
o February/March 2022 – Early engagement with business owners/ managers,
and residents about how they use the space
o July/August 2022 – Stakeholder and public engagement on the 30%
detailed design
o April/May 2023 – Stakeholder and public consultation on proposed
traffic resolutions.
In turn, a significant amount of communications would be captured within
the scope of your request. Collating all written communications LGWM
received across the five-year timeframe about the project, and manually
assessing those would require a substantial amount of time and resources,
and would place an unreasonable administrative burden on Waka Kotahi. To
add to the complexity, in assessing each individual piece of written
communications, officials would be required to determine the following
factors:
o Whether a feedback is fully or largely “supportive” in nature. There
are a lot of mixed feedback that we have received from the public and
businesses, e.g they support certain aspects of the project but oppose
the others.
o Whether the sender identify themselves as a business or as an
individual
o Whether those who uses business email addresses are the owners or
employees.
o Communications would have been received through various channels. For
example, emails can be sent to either [1][email address],
[2][email address], to individual LGWM staff inboxes (such as the Project
Manager or Programme Director), or to Councillors. This would require
us to check in with every person who is in involved in LGWM.
There are a number of publicly available reports outlining submissions and
feedback received from businesses, which may be helpful to you:
o March 2020 Engagement Report:
[3]https://lgwm-prod-public.s3.ap-southeast...
o June-August 2020 Engagement summary report:
[4]https://lgwm-prod-public.s3.ap-southeast...
o 2022 mid-year engagement:
[5]https://lgwm-prod-public.s3.ap-southeast...
o April-May 2023 Engagement Report:
[6]https://lgwm-prod-public.s3.ap-southeast...
If you do not find what you are looking for in these reports, please
refine and narrow down your question to a manageable level and we will be
happy to consider it.
2. Please provide all the businesses that were involved in the planning,
design and implementation to shut down these streets. If no
businesses were involved then why not.
Could you please clarify what you mean by ‘were involved in the planning,
design and implementation to shut down these streets’. Are you seeking
names of all businesses that provided their feedback and submissions
during the engagement/consultation rounds or is it about something else?
3. Please provide the cost benefit analysis, companies that were
involved, terms of service (instruction letters), any conflicts of
interest, analysis, recommendations, memos, any and all information
that was used to gerry mander the outcome you require.
The information and analysis concerning the statement about ‘ $11 million
dollars per year’ can be found in the publicly available report here:
[7]https://lgwm-prod-public.s3.ap-southeast...
For the remainder of this question, please clarify whether you are seeking
the terms of reference with the external company that provided us with the
above report? Also, please specify what you mean by ‘analysis,
recommendations, memos, any and all information that was used to gerry
mander the outcome you require’ as we are unable to identify the
information/documents you are seeking.
We look forward to being able to assist once the scope of your request is
defined. It would be great to hear back from you by Tuesday, 25 July
2023. Please note, any clarification or amendment of a request is
considered to be a new request for the purpose of calculating the maximum
statutory timeframe for response as allowed under section 15(1AA) of the
OIA.
Ngā mihi
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
[8]twitter | [9]youtube | [10]facebook
[11][IMG]
show quoted sections
From: Chris McCashin
Dear Official Correspondence,
Just a point - I am not sure how LGWM engage with people
But here is the general theme of "consultation"
Frame questions to get an "overall" majority for the public being supportive of these projects
When collating the "written feedback / submissions" the most common theme is people by 2, 3 and 4 to 1 oppose these projects?!
And you still find a way to do them anyway - read your own reports. You are lying to push these through and if you asked Wellingtonians 3 out 4 people - likely more would oppose these projects. The system is a total joke.
Yours sincerely,
Chris McCashin
From: Chris McCashin
Dear Official Correspondence,
Just if you can't do the numbers I have run the numbers for you based on The Golden Mile Engagement Project.
Lambton Quay Project
Submitters Supporting the changes to road on Lambton Quay - 45.05%
Written Feedback - 141 submissions opposed - 78 submissions supported - this is almost 2:1 in opposition - However the support only related to mode-shifting facilities and public transport investment so it could be argued that not any submitters supported the project
Willis Street
Submitters Supporting the changes to the road on Willis Street - 39.29%
Written Feedback - 97 submissions opposed - 44 submissions supported - this is in excess of a 2:1 ratio who oppose the project - However the support only related to mode-shifting facilities and public transport investment so it could be argued that not any submitters supported the project
Manners Street
Submitters Supporting the changes to the road on Manners Street - 39.9%
Written Feedback - 90 submissions opposed - 21 submissions supported - this is in excess of a 4:1 ratio who oppose the project
Courtenay Place
Submitters Supporting the changes to the road on Courtenay Place - 36.6%
Written Feedback - 79 submissions opposed - 48 submissions in supported - this is almost a 2:1 ratio against - However the support only related to mode-shifting facilities and public transport investment so it could be argued that not any submitters supported the project
The list goes on - how is that there can be initial support then consultation always opposes and you never listen.
Are you able to provide all of the reports and recommendations approving these projects when in each and every case "Written Submissions" massively opposed the projects?
Yours sincerely,
Chris McCashin
From: Official Correspondence
Kia ora Chris
Thank you for your reply of 26 July.
Whilst we appreciate you sharing your thoughts on the result of the recent
public consultation on the Golden Mile project, you appear to have
misinterpreted the results for each of the Traffic Resolutions (TRs) to
arrive at your percentages/ratios. For each of the TRs, written
submissions were provided IN ADDITION to the submitters’ indicated level
of support.
As an example, TR22-23-GM1 Lambton Quay reports that:
a. a total of 868 submitters indicated their level of support for the
project:
· 55.88% were supportive or somewhat supportive (485 submitters)
· 41.24% were unsupportive or somewhat unsupportive (358
submitters)
b. 556 of the submitters provided written feedback IN ADDITION to their
indicated level of support.
· 141 of the 556 written responses (25.3%) were interpreted as
expressing general opposition to change.
· Only the top five themes from the written responses are reported
on this page. The exhaustive breakdown of themes in the written feedback
is shown on page 17. This reports there were 951 identified themes in the
556 written responses, so some responses included more than one theme.
You appear to have made a similar misinterpretation with the results for
the other TRs.
It is therefore not possible to “provide all of the reports and
recommendations approving these projects when in each and every case
"Written Submissions" massively opposed the projects” as you requested,
because your assertion that written submissions massively opposed the
projects is not correct.
Public and stakeholder feedback continues to be an important part of the
design process for the Golden Mile project. Feedback from engagement with
businesses and the public in early and mid 2022 informed and developed our
designs for the Golden Mile, including loading zone and bus stop
locations, side street layout, and ideas for shared spaces. Similarly, the
feedback received from the recent consultation in April-May 2023 on five
proposed TRs were carefully considered by Let’s Get Wellington Moving and
will be used to finalise the detailed design.
All submissions made during the recent consultation were provided to
Wellington City Councillors for their consideration. On 29 June 2023 at a
WCC meeting, a majority of WCC councillors voted to:
o Approve the Golden Mile design and proposed traffic resolutions
o Approve the local government share (approx. 49%) of the funding for
the implementation of the Golden Mile project
You can find the WCC meeting paper that outlines the proposed traffic
resolutions that were subsequently approved here (see pages 59-307):
[1]https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-....
You can also find the meeting minutes here (see pages 26-35):
[2]https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-...
and watch the recording of the meeting here:
[3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLfRRhLZ...
Please advise if you do not feel this response fulfils your request. In
which case, we would appreciate if you can respond to our initial request
for refinement as outlined in our email of 21 July 2023. If we do not
have a refined request from you by 9 August 2023, we will have to consider
refusing it under section 18(f) of the Act as your request cannot be met
without substantial collation or research.
Ngā mihi
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
[4]twitter | [5]youtube | [6]facebook
[7][IMG]
show quoted sections
From: Official Correspondence
Kia ora Chris
Please find attached the response to your request of 11 July 2023 for
information under the Official Information Act 1982.
Ngā mihi
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
[1]twitter | [2]youtube | [3]facebook
[4][IMG]
From: Official Correspondence
Sent: Friday, 4 August 2023 3:33 PM
To: [5][FOI #23467 email]
Subject: RE: OIA-13089 REQUEST FOR REFINEMENT
Kia ora Chris
Thank you for your reply of 26 July.
Whilst we appreciate you sharing your thoughts on the result of the recent
public consultation on the Golden Mile project, you appear to have
misinterpreted the results for each of the Traffic Resolutions (TRs) to
arrive at your percentages/ratios. For each of the TRs, written
submissions were provided IN ADDITION to the submitters’ indicated level
of support.
As an example, TR22-23-GM1 Lambton Quay reports that:
a. a total of 868 submitters indicated their level of support for the
project:
· 55.88% were supportive or somewhat supportive (485 submitters)
· 41.24% were unsupportive or somewhat unsupportive (358
submitters)
b. 556 of the submitters provided written feedback IN ADDITION to their
indicated level of support.
· 141 of the 556 written responses (25.3%) were interpreted as
expressing general opposition to change.
· Only the top five themes from the written responses are reported
on this page. The exhaustive breakdown of themes in the written feedback
is shown on page 17. This reports there were 951 identified themes in the
556 written responses, so some responses included more than one theme.
You appear to have made a similar misinterpretation with the results for
the other TRs.
It is therefore not possible to “provide all of the reports and
recommendations approving these projects when in each and every case
"Written Submissions" massively opposed the projects” as you requested,
because your assertion that written submissions massively opposed the
projects is not correct.
Public and stakeholder feedback continues to be an important part of the
design process for the Golden Mile project. Feedback from engagement with
businesses and the public in early and mid 2022 informed and developed our
designs for the Golden Mile, including loading zone and bus stop
locations, side street layout, and ideas for shared spaces. Similarly, the
feedback received from the recent consultation in April-May 2023 on five
proposed TRs were carefully considered by Let’s Get Wellington Moving and
will be used to finalise the detailed design.
All submissions made during the recent consultation were provided to
Wellington City Councillors for their consideration. On 29 June 2023 at a
WCC meeting, a majority of WCC councillors voted to:
o Approve the Golden Mile design and proposed traffic resolutions
o Approve the local government share (approx. 49%) of the funding for
the implementation of the Golden Mile project
You can find the WCC meeting paper that outlines the proposed traffic
resolutions that were subsequently approved here (see pages 59-307):
[6]https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-....
You can also find the meeting minutes here (see pages 26-35):
[7]https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-...
and watch the recording of the meeting here:
[8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLfRRhLZ...
Please advise if you do not feel this response fulfils your request. In
which case, we would appreciate if you can respond to our initial request
for refinement as outlined in our email of 21 July 2023. If we do not
have a refined request from you by 9 August 2023, we will have to consider
refusing it under section 18(f) of the Act as your request cannot be met
without substantial collation or research.
Ngā mihi
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
[9]twitter | [10]youtube | [11]facebook
[12][IMG]
show quoted sections
From: Chris McCashin
Dear Official Correspondence,
At this point I suggest for every building that loses a tenant because of LGWM projects the previous rental they used to get is paid by the LGWM employees (average salary $148K and higher) who were responsible for destroying the business, the value of the property and then the value of the site going forward.
How is it that a company like Resene is forced to looking to move from a 10 year location.
LGWM should be disestablished immediately and every single project fixed to what it used to be before the damage you are doing to the city cannot be fixed.
Yours sincerely,
Chris McCashin
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request