TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF INQUIRY Basin Bridge ... · transcript of proceedings board of...

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BOARD OF INQUIRY

Basin Bridge Proposal

HEARING at

BASIN RESERVE, MT COOK, WELLINGTON

on 13 May 2014

BOARD OF INQUIRY:

Retired Environment and District Court Judge Gordon Whiting (Chairperson)

James Baines (Board Member)

David Collins (Board Member)

David McMahon (Board Member)

Page 6593

Basin Reserve, Wellington 13.05.14

APPEARANCES

<ALISON WAIWAE DANGERFIELD, affirmed [9.35 am] .................. 6594

<EXAMINATION BY MS KRUMDIECK [9.36 am] ..................... 6594

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS YARDLEY [9.47 am] ............ 6598 5

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WEDDE [10.06 am] ............... 6604

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BENNION [10.06 am] ........... 6605

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILNE [11.46 am] ................ 6630

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS KRUMDIECK [2.51 pm]............... 6674

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON [4.44 pm] ........... 6697 10

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [4.48 pm] ....................................... 6699

<MICHAEL KELLY, sworn [4.51 pm] .................................................... 6700

<EXAMINATION BY MR BENNION [4.51 pm] ........................... 6700

15

Page 6594


[9.35 am]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good morning everybody. Yes, welcome along

Ms Dangerfield.

5

MS DANGERFIELD: Good morning.

MS KRUMDIECK: Good morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. Yes, Ms Krumdieck 10

<ALISON WAIWAE HAMILTON DANGERFIELD, affirmed [9.35 am]

<EXAMINATION BY MS KRUMDIECK [9.36 am]

15

MS KRUMDIECK: Thank you. Can you confirm that your full name is

Alison Waiwae Hamilton Dangerfield?

MS DANGERFIELD: I do.

20

MS KRUMDIECK: And you are employed as the heritage advisor for

architecture for the New Zealand Historic Places Trust?

MS DANGERFIELD: That is correct.

25

MS KRUMDIECK: Do you confirm that you prepared a brief of evidence for

this hearing dated 16 December 2013?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I did.

30

MS KRUMDIECK: And do you confirm that you have the qualifications and

expertise as stated in that brief of evidence?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I have.

35

MS KRUMDIECK: Do you have any corrections to make?

MS DANGERFIELD: No corrects to make, thank you.

MS KRUMDIECK: And with no corrections can you confirm that the 40

evidence you have given is true and correct to the best of your

knowledge?

MS DANGERFIELD: To the best of my knowledge, thank you, yes.

45

Page 6595


MS KRUMDIECK: Thank you. Can I now ask that you please read the

concise witness summary which you have prepared and also answer

any questions as required.

MS DANGERFIELD: Do I read it, would you like me to read it? 5

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please because we only just got it this morning.

MS DANGERFIELD: Indeed. I am Alison Dangerfield, heritage advisor

architecture at New Zealand Historic Places Trust. I am familiar with 10

the Basin Bridge project and have taken part in NZTA consultation

since 2009. The following is a concise summary of my views

expressed in my evidence dated 16 December 2013 in contribution to

NZHPT’s submissions and the expert conferencing joint witness

statement for heritage. 15

Heritage values present. Within or near the subject site there are places

with historic heritage significance. The Basin Reserve historic area is

defined in the NZHPT Historic Area Registration which has

outstanding local, national and international significance and is an area 20

of interrelated heritage structures, features and open space for its

primary purpose as a cricket ground.

The Home of Compassion Crèche has outstanding heritage

significance. In the wider setting Bogart’s Corner has an underlying 25

layer of heritage significance which defines the outer edge of the roads

at the Basin Reserve. Government House at a further distance and its

grounds have outstanding heritage value. Mount Victoria inner

residential area houses collectively have heritage character value and

the Canal Reserve. 30

The effects of the proposal. I have assessed the proposals according to

the principles of the Historic Places Act, the ICOMOS New Zealand

Charter and best practice principles for heritage. The proposed Basin

Bridge has an impact on the Basin Reserve historic area heritage values 35

that is adverse to a degree that is major. The reasons are dominance of

its bulk and location near the historic ground, visual intrusion of

vehicles on the bridge to cricket playing and changes in views to and

from the historic area.

40

My opinion is that the design of the bridge has an adverse impact on

the surroundings which is less compared to potential designs which

could have a more pronounced visual impact. The historic purpose and

use of the ground is for playing and watching cricket along with many

other activities. In its existence there has been a history of ongoing 45

Page 6596


change to the features within the Basin Reserve boundaries as need has

arisen and change has been prompted.

[9.40 am]

5

In my view proposals for new structures or changes to the grounds

consistent with its role as a cricket ground and consistent with its

heritage values can be contemplated and may be appropriate.

Mitigation measures to reduce adverse effects include the construction 10

of the Northern Gateway Building to screen moving traffic, a master

plan or Reserve Management Plan for the reserve would assist to

ensure that this and other changes are well planned and consistent with

heritage values.

15

The Mount Victoria inner residential area has heritage values as a

character area and will be affected by the Basin Bridge through the

removal of a character house and the new road’s presence at the south-

west corner of the area. The building at Bogart’s Corner, which is part

of the bridge, reflects the historic shape of the road building junction. 20

In my opinion the proposals will have no adverse effects expected on

Government House or its grounds or entrances, the Canal Reserve or

the Home of Compassion Crèche Building which is relocated under the

Memorial Park project. 25

It is my opinion that any adverse effects of the Basin Bridge on the

heritage beyond the Basin Reserve historic area and its setting are not

major.

30

Mitigation measures and conditions. The Northern Gateway Building.

In my opinion the design for the Northern Gateway structure at the

north end of the Basin Reserve grounds is an acceptable mitigation to

address adverse effects of the bridge on the Basin Reserve historic area.

A Reserve Management Plan that addresses the heritage values of the 35

ground, its functionality and integration would assist in the design

process.

The Northern Gateway Building as a mitigation measure can help

reinforce the historic amenity for cricket playing which is crucial to the 40

integrity of its heritage. I consider that a length of up to 65 metres for

the Northern Gateway Building is an appropriate and acceptable means

to offset the effects of the bridge.

Since the drawings of the Northern Gateway Building are indicative at 45

this stage its final design has the potential to both resolve any heritage

Page 6597


effects it could itself create and to enhance the heritage values of the

Basin Reserve historic area. Key effects of the Northern Gateway

Building on heritage will depend on its final design. However, there is

a logic in locating any new building near to the RA Vance Stand to

concentrate facilities and to continue the built form. 5

A high level screen attached to the bridge instead of a building is an

option for consideration. However, I support a building designed for a

range of purposes which support the heritage values. I believe it would

be preferable to a screen with a single aim of avoiding visual 10

disturbance by vehicles.

Management Plans. I support the provision for a Heritage Management

Plan in DC34 and 35 to set out a strategy for the protection of heritage

values during the project’s construction and guide the design of new 15

building and relocation of the CS Dempster Gates. It is appropriate

that the Heritage Management Plan considers the final design of the

Northern Gateway Building and the associated relocation of and work

to the CS Dempster Gate.

20

A Basin Reserve Management Plan or master plan would be beneficial

for the Basin Reserve historic area to help integrate existing heritage

features and new development in a way that is consistent with heritage

values. It would consider all elements of the area including buildings,

structures, grounds, setting, features and open space. 25

Relocation of the CS Dempster Gates. Relocation of the CS Dempster

Gates to a position next to the JR Reid Gate is a mitigation measure

with a positive heritage outcome for the CS Dempster Gates. The

historic gates have been inadequate in recent times. Even so the 30

heritage goal is that disturbance of the gates should be minimised. The

Northern Gateway Building constructed above and over the gates

would be unsympathetic to the heritage values of the CS Dempster

Gates, the gates would be overwhelmed in their present position.

35

Any adverse effects of relocation would be far outweighed by usefully

re-commissioning the gates for their original purpose together. Side by

side the two sets of gates could reinforce the heritage of the Basin

Reserve by increasing the use of gates for entry functions.

40

[9.45 am]

Building surveys. I support the condition that requires building surveys

of selected heritage structures as listed in the conditions before and

after construction and repairs of any damage resulting from the project 45

construction works.

Page 6598


Home of Compassion Crèche. The proposed conditions provide for

landscaping up to the Crèche in its new location under the War

Memorial project. I believe the proposed landscaping up to the Crèche

from Cambridge Terrace within the project site will enhance the 5

heritage values and potential for use of the Crèche by allowing it to be

appreciated within the modern layout of a terraced park. New

neighbouring buildings may potentially be constructed north of the site.

Any sense of building isolation of the Crèche will be relatively short

term. 10

The Crèche itself will benefit from conservation on its relocation work

at its new site. The conservation and repairs to the Crèche will be

highly positive work that will outweigh effects of relocation and help

secure long term preservation. I have no concerns about the Crèche’s 15

long term use as, in my experience, a strengthened and conserved

heritage building is immensely attractive to potential users.

Conclusion. It is my view that, while the Basin Bridge structure alone

would have adverse effects on heritage, the design of the bridge and the 20

mitigation proposals for the Basin Reserve historic area, Home of

Compassion Crèche site and other heritage features along with other

conditions substantially reduces those effects on heritage values.

CHAIRPERSON: Any supplementary questions? 25

MS KRUMDIECK: No, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Yardley?

30

MS YARDLEY: Thank you, sir, I might just lift my microphone if that’s

okay?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

35

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS YARDLEY [9.47 am]

MS YARDLEY: Ms Dangerfield, can I just take you to paragraph 12 of your

evidence-in-chief. And in that paragraph you state, “A Northern

Gateway Building of up to 65 metres is an appropriate means to 40

mitigate the effects of the bridge on the utility of the reserve for cricket

playing”. And you go on to say, “This is relevant to heritage and that

the sustainability of the grounds for cricket is important to its long term

heritage outcome”. What level of significance, in your view, does the

continued use of the Basin Reserve as an international and national 45

cricket ground have in relation to its heritage value?

Page 6599


MS DANGERFIELD: It is very important. The heritage values of the Basin

Reserve are very keyed into its role as a cricket venue over a long

period of time. It is the longest serving cricket ground in New Zealand.

It is significant internationally. The ability to keep playing cricket at 5

that level is very important to the heritage values of the grounds.

MS YARDLEY: Thank you. And in determining what is necessary to preserve

the reserve for cricket playing purposes, I take it you would defer to the

expert evidence of the Basin Reserve Trust in that regard? 10

MS DANGERFIELD: I am not familiar with all of the Basin Reserve Trust

evidence entirely but I defer to their knowledge of the place and the

history of the place, and how important it is to them, and their

knowledge also of the requirements of the grounds as an international 15

venue.

MS YARDLEY: You also say that, “Since the drawings of the Northern

Gateway Building are indicative at this stage the final design has the

potential to both resolve any heritage effects it could create and 20

enhance the heritage values of the Basin Reserve historic area”. Can

you explain what you mean by that statement?

MS DANGERFIELD: In the introduction of any new building to a historic

area or near a historic building or as part of a historic building, in 25

assessing what the effects of that change is going to be you look at a

number of different factors about that new building. You look at the

design of it, how it sits in this case in the Basin Reserve, where it is

located.

30

[9.50 am]

The first thing I think probably you look at for any building new

introduction is what its use is. It doesn’t immediately say, “Yes, that’s

a good building” but it gives a head start. Its location and scale become 35

important in assessing whether it is going to be appropriate, how big is

it and how it fits into the particular location.

And then the design of it, the way it faces in this case, the way people

can use the building and interact with what is happening on the green. 40

All of that built into the design is something that I would be looking for

in assessing the new Gateway Building.

MS YARDLEY: And when you say the way people interact with the green,

what do you mean by that? 45

Page 6600


MS DANGERFIELD: A new Gateway Building is effectively a spectator and

player pavilion, somewhere where people go to watch a game of cricket

or look at the green before a game of cricket or be there as part of a

cricket game and the interaction between people around the Basin

Reserve is important to those people inside the building. So the ability 5

to see the green, for instance the windows, where they are placed,

which way they face, who they include in their field of visions is all

important to how the building is designed.

MS YARDLEY: So you are aware that the lower level of the Northern 10

Gateway Building is currently designed to be visually permeable or

open?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I am.

15

MS YARDLEY: How, if at all, does that mitigate any adverse effects in your

view?

MS DANGERFIELD: At the moment there is a limited view into the Basin

Reserve as you approach it. With the design currently there is more of 20

a view and so that people moving up, either walking or going in cars,

can see more of the green, more of the green than they have been able

to do in the past as they use the roads. That is a positive effect I believe

because it gives people a connection to the green. It is something that

they haven’t had significantly in the past in that approach. The doors, 25

the gates are not always open, sometimes one or two of them might be

open to let people through. Sometimes the gateway alongside is open,

sometimes it’s not but the new lower level openness will give a

completely different view at ground level of the green inside and that

will be interesting and enjoyable I think for people to see. 30

MS YARDLEY: Thank you. And I will just turn to paragraph 16 of your

evidence now, where you say you support a condition requiring

building surveys of selected heritage structures. And I would just like

to ask your position as to whether the Museum Pavilion should be 35

included in the list of buildings requiring a before and after survey?

MS DANGERFIELD: I - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what paragraph? 40

MS YARDLEY: Sorry, paragraph 16, sir, of the evidence-in-chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

45

MS YARDLEY: Would you like me to repeat the question?

Page 6601


MS DANGERFIELD: No, that is fine. It wasn’t one that we specifically

asked for but I am pleased that it is included.

[9.55 am] 5

MS YARDLEY: Well, you are aware that it is not actually included at the

moment?

MS DANGERFIELD: No, I am aware. I am pleased that it is being discussed 10

to be included.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, is it included or not?

MS YARDLEY: Sir, it is not included at the moment. 15

MR McMAHON: DC21?

MS YARDLEY: Yes. And why, in your view, would you include it in the list

of buildings? 20

MS DANGERFIELD: It’s a registered historic place. It has significant

heritage values for its role in cricket. It is worthy as a heritage

building, worthy of retention as a heritage building, and any changes in

its situation that might result in the constructions would be useful to 25

see. In the first instance I saw that it was a little further distant from

the major works of the bridge which led me to, in the first instance, not

suggest it be included but I am pleased that it may be.

MS YARDLEY: Now, just turning to a different topic, screening, and I will 30

take you to the joint expert witness statement if you have a copy.

MR McMAHON: Ms Yardley, just before you do, could I just ask a question

of clarification of the witness?

35

MS YARDLEY: Yes, sure.

MR McMAHON: Ms Dangerfield, and I should know this, I apologise, the

Museum Stand is that listed in the district plan?

40

MS DANGERFIELD: I believe so.

MR McMAHON: Yes, thank you.

MS YARDLEY: Yes, it is Mr McMahon. Sorry, if I can just take you to the 45

joint expert witness statement, you have got it?

Page 6602


MS DANGERFIELD: Yes.

MS YARDLEY: Excellent. So at paragraph 13C it states, “Screening is an

option for consideration but a building is preferable to a screen” and 5

you agree with that statement and your reasons for not supporting

screening are listed there?

MS DANGERFIELD: That the reasons for not supporting include these ones,

that’s correct and I do agree with that, yes. 10

MS YARDLEY: And do you have any further comments to add in relation to

screening as an alternative to the Northern Gateway Building?

MS DANGERFIELD: I do. These were the matters raised in conference and I 15

think the overriding reason why I believe a building is preferable to a

screen is that the effects of the Basin Bridge are to do with dominance

of the structure and the appearance of that and the views around it. If a

screen were to be placed on the bridge it would enlarge the bridge by

the amount of that screen and potentially increase those effects of 20

dominance. I see a building screening as providing options for other

use that could be potentially helpful to the Basin Reserve as a historic

place.

MS YARDLEY: So, in terms of heritage outcomes, which option is preferable 25

in your view?

MS DANGERFIELD: In my view, in terms of heritage outcome, a building is

preferable to a screen alone.

30

MS YARDLEY: Thank you. Just one final question, can you please explain

to the Board what effects, if any, registration with Heritage

New Zealand has in relation to the carrying out of activities under the

Resource Management Act? So, for example, what effects does

Heritage New Zealand registration of the Basin Reserve have on the 35

removal of, say for example, the perimeter fence?

MS DANGERFIELD: Registration identifies heritage and the identification

and writing a report and making the information available is part of that

registration process, it’s an identification and getting the information 40

out to people.

[10.00 am]

Once a place is recognised for that heritage from time to time change 45

happen. Change will happen even through just time as a historic place

Page 6603


or historic area where over 20 years, 50 years there is change that

happens just through the elements. But from time to time there is need,

other need for change, there is repairs and maintenance and other

desirable need that might occur for the owners where a development

might be proposed. 5

Being a historic place or historic area does not prevent appropriate

development or development that is consistent with the heritage values.

Heritage fabric doesn’t stay as it was when it was first constructed, it

will weather with time, and conservation measures are a first level of 10

change that happens that historic places always promotes a

conservation, and those might be conservation materials but it also

might be conservation of open space so that we have here.

Change isn’t necessarily bad and for the Basin Reserve there has been a 15

lot of change over a period of time, over the life time of it as

developments have occurred. The most recent of these has been the

introduction of the nets, which I supported, a modern construction built

within the other buildings to tuck in and find a little space and the

electronic scoreboard, which you can see through the curtains there, 20

alongside the existing scoreboard.

Both of those changes, firstly they promote the playing of cricket and

then you look at what location is appropriate for them and then the

design and, with advice in all of those three aspects, often change is an 25

appropriate measure to occur and is not prevented by the registration.

I think the key is that we are looking at holding on to the heritage

values and that may mean some change in material or change in

circumstance of conservation of the material which needs repairs, 30

maybe replacement material.

MS YARDLEY: So can I take you back to the example of the perimeter fence,

what effect would Heritage New Zealand registration have on the

removal of that fence? 35

MS DANGERFIELD: The fence itself is a noted structure in the registration,

so the registration has two individually registered historic places but it

is a collection of interrelated heritage features of which the fence is

one. The fence has been around the Basin Reserve almost all its life, 40

not quite all its life but almost all its life, and at various times it has had

changes to it. It has had that first level of repair and replacement and

then it has had other changes, it has had the corners taken off as the

Basin Reserve roads were turned into the roundabout format that we

know. 45

Page 6604


The removal of fences and posts to allow space for a new Gateway

Building is a change, that is certain, and it is a loss of a portion of the

fence, that is definite. Mr Salmond is correct, you could take the posts

and you could relocate them and hold onto them that way. The loss of

that section of a piece of fence will be noticed but I don’t think it is 5

significant enough, if the development was to go ahead, to make a

difference to the heritage values of the Basin Reserve.

MS YARDLEY: So does the Heritage New Zealand registration restrict or

prevent the removal of, say for example, the perimeter fence? 10

[10.05 am]

MS DANGERFIELD: I can't quite hear you, sorry.

15

MS YARDLEY: I’m sorry, no, no. Does registration restrict or prevent the

removal of the fence?

MS DANGERFIELD: No.

20

MS YARDLEY: Thank you, Ms Dangerfield. Sir, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Ms Yardley. Now, Ms Wedde is it?

MS WEDDE: I have one short question. 25

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WEDDE [10.06 am]

30

MS WEDDE: Good morning, Ms Dangerfield. You were asked some

questions by my friend about draft condition 21 in regards to the

construction survey of the Memorial stand. Could we just bring that up

on the screen, please?

35

Could we just scroll down please, to the highlighted text at the end of

that section? Thank you. And we see there the Trust’s comment on the

condition as it stands at this time. And highlighted in blue it says that

HPT supports the council and agree that the museum stand could be

included. 40

Again, we do not strongly support this as the stand is further away from

the construction works, but we consider it could still be worthwhile to

include it. If the Board hears evidence from the Transport Agency’s

vibration expert, Mr Fenwick that any damage to the building is very 45

minimal. What was your view about including it in this condition?

Page 6605


MS DANGERFIELD: I still think that it’s a good option to include it.

MS WEDDE: Does your view change if? No?

5

MS DANGERFIELD: No.

MS WEDDE: Okay, could you explain why you consider that is required, if

the vibration evidence is that any risk is very small?

10

MS DANGERFIELD: Well, it’s a preventative, look at anything that might

occur and I think if the option is taken to include it, I would support

that.

MS WEDDE: So it’s a precautionary approach is it. 15


MS WEDDE: And just to assist the Board, we are still continuing to work on

that condition with the council to see if we can reach an agreement on 20

that and we’ll take that up further in the conditions hot-tubbing.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Bennion.

MR BENNION: Thank you, sir. 25

CHAIRPERSON: It’s like pass the parcel isn't it?

MR BENNION: Literally. Ms Dangerfield.

30

CHAIRPERSON: I think the speed is blinding, yes.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BENNION [10.06 am]

MR BENNION: Sometimes the temptation to unwrap it becomes 35

overwhelming.

Ms Dangerfield, thank you for your evidence. Following up on a

comment that you just made about change around the Basin Reserve

and I think you mentioned the fence has been demolished and altered at 40

one stage?

MS DANGERFIELD: I don’t think you could say the fence has been

demolished.

45

Page 6606


MR BENNION: Sorry, you said, I think you’d said it had been, sorry,

continue.

MS DANGERFIELD: I don’t think you could say the fence has been

demolished. It has been through some repairs and changes over time. 5

[10.10 am]

MR BENNION: Well, one of the changes you referenced was the change in

the external roadway and bringing the fence in. It was my 10

understanding from Ms Rickard’s evidence that, that change happens in

the early twentieth century and I put to her that isn't it at that time that

the 1917 fence is erected so that we have the fence from that period out

there today?

15

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I think the two events are mixed there. I think the

earlier 1917, when the original fence was, when this fence was

constructed, this is my understanding that the boundary of the Basin

Reserve was brought in.

20

When the changes happened in the 1960’s when the roads were turned

into a roundabout, it was at that point that the corner changes happened.

MR BENNION: And did they bring the 1917 fence in? Is that what they did?

25

MS DANGERFIELD: I understand that they brought the boundary in and at

that time, the fence isn't as you see it today, so I think the fence had

been constructed in its position now, in 1917.

MR BENNION: And the Dempster and Reid Gates, their construction 30

happens, is it around 1918 I think?

MS DANGERFIELD: I think in the urgency of these proceedings, I can't

always recall dates but I do have the date here of the construction of the

gates if you would like me to refer to it? 35

MR BENNION: Yes, if you could, I thought I had seen it myself and lost it

again. Yes, I see, I’m looking at 36 Ms Rickard, she says were

constructed in 1918 is that?

40

MS DANGERFIELD: 1917 to 1918, that's right.

MR BENNION: And the, it’s called, I guess, the commemorative dedication

of the gates happens a long time later, is that right?

45

MS DANGERFIELD: I understand that is so, yes.

Page 6607


MR BENNION: In fact that's in the 1970’s, is that your understanding?

MS DANGERFIELD: I can find that in our report but again, it is 1970’s or

80’s, I’m not quite sure which. 5

MR BENNION: Right, I think I just want to establish that broad range. All

right.

MS DANGERFIELD: I suppose that's an interesting change in itself. As the 10

gates were named, they had a name put over the top of them adding to

their exterior appearance, so it’s an interesting element of change that

occurred around that time with respect to the gates.

MR BENNION: I guess, well, let me just go to this point. When I looked 15

yesterday at TR12, a comment that Mr Salmond had made about TR12.

Can I take you that report at page 28, that talks about the Dempster

Gate?

CHAIRPERSON: Which? 20

MR BENNION: So I’m looking at TR12. Heritage. Technical Report 12 on

the assessment of effects on built heritage, by Mr Salmond. You’re

familiar with that I take it? Ms Dangerfield, page 28.

25

Are you familiar, generally familiar with the report?

MS DANGERFIELD: I have read it, yes.

MR BENNION: Thank you. I was just interested in the assessment of the 30

Dempster Gate there on the top of the page in that table. Close to the

Dempster Gate is relocated to a position alongside Reid and has the

capacity to process patrons entering the ground.

Now, Wellington City Council criteria listed NZHPT guidance, 35

relocation should be informed by the concept of greater or total benefit.

And the ICOMOS Charter which, you’d agree is relevant here? The

ICOMOS Charter is valid?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes. 40

MR BENNION: And it says in exceptional circumstances a structure of

cultural heritage value may be relocated. Now the discussion on the

right-hand side, the assessment, it doesn’t to me to talk about an

exceptional circumstance. Do we just assume that it’s because the 45

Northern Gateway Building’s being built?

Page 6608


[10.15 am]

It says it’s going to be relocation arising mitigation propose to screen

from the bridge construction of a new building. That seems to be, 5

that’s your understanding too? The exceptional circumstance being

claimed has been the Northern Gateway being built and the

consequence of that is removal of the gate?

MS DANGERFIELD: I think the exceptional circumstances which Mr 10

Salmond is referring to here is the context in which the CS Dempster

Gate will find itself if the building is built. If the new Gateway

Building is built, the circumstances for the CS Dempster Gate in its

present location present, what appear to be, an untenable long term,

good heritage outcome for the gates which prompts, I think, those 15

words in his assessment.

MR BENNION: So, you regard it as an exceptional circumstance in that same

respect?

20

MS DANGERFIELD: I regard the context in which the building will find

itself, no, let me just rephrase that. I regard the context that the gate

will find itself in once the new Gateway Building is built – if it is built

– will not be a good heritage outcome for the gates.

25

MR BENNION: So you wouldn’t rate highly in terms of the, if the decision to

move the gates was primarily, well let’s say, it was driven by the gates

being underperforming in terms of their capacity to process patrons

entering the grounds, if the Northern Gateway Building wasn’t an

issue, that issue of processing patrons coming into the grounds 30

wouldn’t be at all a good reason to relocate the Dempster Gate?

MS DANGERFIELD: No it wouldn’t. I believe it wouldn’t, no.

MR BENNION: I just want to be clear on that point. But I understand what 35

you’re saying about the consequence of the Gateway Building. So, let

me then come to the joint witness statement and the issue of screening.

And we’re taken to, I think, paragraph 13C and asked about screening

and you expanded on your reasons there.

40

There has been discussion about possibility of screening for the cricket

events of most concern, test events, I guess high level regional, national

events. Have you seen any discussion or drawings about the idea of

temporary structures for that purpose on the bridge, length of time, that

sort of thing? 45

Page 6609


MS DANGERFIELD: No, no I haven’t.

MR BENNION: So you were thinking in terms of permanent screening of

some description?

5


MR BENNION: Somebody, I think Ms Poff might have, no Ms Weaver, I

think, mentioned the idea of opaque, translucent screens or say, glass

screens, a sort of smart glass type approach which can, you know, the 10

opacity or whatever of the screen can change. Was there any

discussion around those sorts of possibilities? Did you examine any of

those sort of possibilities?

MS DANGERFIELD: I have not had any proposals put before me to talk 15

about temporary screening, as yet.

MR BENNION: Now, just going through this list, may become a place for

signage to be installed. Well that is very simply dealt with, with a

condition preventing it isn't it? 20

MS DANGERFIELD: I’m sure it is.

MR BENNION: Yes. And will need to be of huge size. Did you see the

drawings in the NZTA materials of, and when you say huge size, what 25

sort of size are you thinking of?

MS DANGERFIELD: These were matters raised in conference to which the

people initialled there were able to agree. They were raised as reasons

for not supporting the screen. We, at that stage, did not discuss options 30

of how big a screen would need to be.

[10.20 am]

MR BENNION: What were you relying on when you signed up to, would 35

need to be of huge size to achieve the required purpose?

MS DANGERFIELD: I was relying on the cone of vision that was part of the

preparation of the drawings for working out how big a buffer, a visual

buffer would need to be to assist cricket playing. So in the discussions 40

there were options for 45, 55 and 65 and those cones of vision were

taken from the spot on the Oval.

And in terms of that cone of vision it produced a substantial length

along. 45

Page 6610


MR BENNION: Along the length of the bridge, that’s what you mean by

huge?


5

MR BENNION: We’ve seen drawings that NZTA has produced, indicative

drawings. Did you see those drawings of what the screening might

look like on the bridge?

MS DANGERFIELD: I didn’t see them in this Hearing. I have seen a 10

drawing of a screen. I might need to be directed to the one you’re

referring to.

MR BENNION: Let me just go through the list and I’ll come back to you.

Typical to fit into the surroundings. You say that's up on the bridge? 15


MR BENNION: And it’s just, okay. Potential to be ugly. Why do you say

potential to be ugly there? 20

MS DANGERFIELD: I think there’s always room for clever design to make

structures more presentable. In my travels, I haven’t seen any beautiful

screens.

25

MR BENNION: Ms Poff, I think, was suggesting that you could look at more

elegant screens, so that was part of the discussion, and there's

disagreement on that? Do you remember?

MS DANGERFIELD: I don’t remember what Ms Poff said during the 30

conferencing.

MR BENNION: Okay, now, well since I’ve, I guess I’ve gone there I should

put it in front of you. Needs to be a huge size to achieve the required

purpose. And I was asking you to look at drawings, I guess, let’s just 35

very quickly look at those. And it’s the 4F or something, Hardwick-

Smith, is that right? Thank you, can you give me a reference? Sorry,

sir, I’m just getting a reference.

Sorry sir, it’s Hardwick-Smith. One in his slides. So we’re just going 40

to get those on screen. I just wanted to make sure that we were at the

same place with understanding how much information and analysis

there had been of this.

Page 6611


[10.25 am]

So if we just bring up Mr Hardwick-Smith’s slides and let’s just go to

slide – well, just for example slide 64, is this the sort of thing you are

talking about? Does that look familiar to you at all? 5

MS DANGERFIELD: As far as a cone of vision is concerned, no, it’s not the

one that I - - -

MR BENNION: Well, let me take you back to slide 60, is that the cone of 10

vision that you were thinking of?

MS DANGERFIELD: This one 61, oh, yes, 61.

MR BENNION: Oh, that is the cone of vision? 15


MR BENNION: But had you seen these other fairly basic drawings of

screens, were they in the conferencing? 20

MS DANGERFIELD: No, not to my recall, I don’t think we looked at

specific drawings for screening.

MR BENNION: So people making these statements - well, you were making 25

these statements on the basis of no particular renderings, that is what

you are saying, particular drawings of screens?

MS DANGERFIELD: I was making them on the basis of my understanding

of the cone, this yellow portion which had been identified by people 30

who know cricket as being the area to cover the visual distraction. That

was what I was basing my understanding of our joint matters raised

during the conferencing.

MR BENNION: Can I just take you to slide 60, you see a sketch of a possible 35

screen attachment to the bridge structure and it’s a fairly simple one.

You hadn’t seen that before in the witness conferencing?

MS DANGERFIELD: No.

40

MR BENNION: A sort of an effort to have a look at it. In terms of the first

reason, becoming a place for signs to be installed, I presume you were

thinking of a straight fall, is that a concern?

MS DANGERFIELD: I am quite happy for your suggestion that this could be 45

covered by rules.

Page 6612


MR BENNION: Right. And in terms again huge size, I am assuming you are

thinking of length, is that the issue?

MS DANGERFIELD: I initially thought of length in terms of the 45, 55, 65 5

metre length. There is also the matter of how high off the platform of

the road a screen might need to be to cover cars certainly but also

trucks and busses and such like so it would need to be a certain height

as well.

10

MR BENNION: Were you thinking, when you signed up to the huge size to

achieve the required purpose and you were thinking about a cone of

vision that it would be of substantial height because you wouldn’t want

to see trucks close up, I am trying to understand what this word “huge”

size comes from? 15

MS DANGERFIELD: My understanding is that it would need to cover in

length the length that was necessary for cricketing, and I defer to the

cricket people who know what that would need to be, and of a height to

remove the distraction that they anticipated which would not only be 20

cars but it would also be larger vehicles of height.

MR BENNION: Okay. And you have got the last matter there, 5, would have

only one function, the building has a number – a screen on the bridge

might have some function for the walkway on the other side in terms of 25

wind, was that talked about at all?

MS DANGERFIELD: No, it wasn’t talked about but it is an attractive

possibility that it might perform another function.

30

[10.30 am]

MR BENNION: All right. I want to now come back to the issue of the

broader setting of the proposal and Historic Places Trust understanding

of it. And I think you have been supplied with an assessment – well, 35

let me understand this. How long have you been involved with this

analysis of this proposal and discussions about it?

MS DANGERFIELD: Well, since 2009 in its very early stages.

40

MR BENNION: All right. Now - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Are you moving on from the screen, are you?

MR BENNION: Yes, I am, sir. 45

Page 6613


CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask you, is it your client’s case going to be

submitted that the screen should be the preferred mitigation measure in

the event of the bridge proceeding?

MR BENNION: Sir, we have two positions, sir, one is that there has been 5

insufficient examination of the possibilities and, for example, Ms Poff

and I think Ms Weeber talk about elegant screen and, yes, several of

our witnesses, well - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know the - - - 10

MR BENNION: Come down on the side of a screen but I think there is a mix,

I would have to say there is a mixed response.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand what the evidence says, I just want to 15

know what your client’s case is?

MR BENNION: Yes. Well, sir - --

CHAIRPERSON: I mean because if you are going to advance the screen we 20

need a draft condition to consider because we can’t give an interim

decision.

MR BENNION: Yes, and our condition would go in the direction of – well,

let me - - - 25

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the time is coming where conditions should be on the

table.

MR BENNION: Yes, I will put that to the relevant planning witnesses, sir. 30

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because we are - do you see my point?

MR BENNION: Yes.

35

CHAIRPERSON: I am not trying to stop you from cross-examining.

MR BENNION: No, I understand, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: But I just want to know that it is there for a purpose and 40

you are going to follow that up with something concrete that we can

address.

MR BENNION: Yes. I appreciate, yes, I understand what you are saying, sir.

45

CHAIRPERSON: So if you could put your mind to that please.

Page 6614


MR BENNION: Yes. Let me ponder on that for a moment, Ms Dangerfield,

and I might ask you a question about that but I will pursue this line and

come back, sir, if that is acceptable. Ms Dangerfield, you have been

involved since 2009 with the proposal and you will therefore be 5

familiar with earlier engagement with the New Zealand Transport

Agency over its larger plans for works from the other side of the Mount

Victoria Tunnel Tunnel Duplication and right through Karo Drive

et cetera including the overpass?

10


MR BENNION: So you were – well, can I just ask the registrar to provide

you with a copy of an analysis that was undertaken in August 2011 by

Historic Places Trust of that fuller proposal. Sir, we have copies 15

available and they are on the website as well I understand.

Now, I think both Mr Milne and myself have come to this. I followed

it up from a comment that Mr Bowman made in a report, an earlier

report about New Zealand Historic Places Trust’s response to his early 20

discussions about Options A through F. So right through the period

when Mr Bowman is discussing different alternatives, there is

engagement with the public including New Zealand Historic Places

Trust who respond and engagement about Options A and B. And is

this document that you have got in front of you, you see it is August 25

2011 Heritage Impact Assessment for the Inner City Transport

Network.

[10.35 am]

30

That was in response to a proposal covering works on the state highway

running from Wellington Airport, Kapiti Coast – well, it’s the broader

RoNS proposal, isn’t it, is that right?


MR BENNION: Okay. And I am just trying to clarify in what – this was

prepared in response to what specific engagement was NZTA seeking

at that time? They were wanting a response on the broad RoNS

proposals, was that - - - 40

MS DANGERFIELD: NZTA engaged in consultation with us over the Roads

of National Significance at various stages, between Levin and the

airport, to enable us to discuss together what effects on heritage that

there might be and a lot of that work, in the first instance, was 45

discovering what heritage was near the paths. The paths weren’t

Page 6615


completely determined and, as that discussion took place, we were able

to identify what might be within the range of the paths and of it either

side, to look for all the heritage assets that were there. So I was

looking for built heritage. There was archaeology and Māori heritage

that was of interest as well. 5

And we looked for all possible advice that we could give NZTA to help

them make decisions about where their roads could be planned for the

least adverse effect on heritage values.

10

MR BENNION: All right, thank you. And, first of all, in relation to a number

of effects of this proposal, I want to check your current situation

against this document, which I think seems to be unchanged in a

number of respects but I am just wondering about a couple of matters.

Can I just take you to page 3 and at the bottom of page 3 there is a 15

paragraph that begins, “The New Zealand Company surveyors planned

a canal”. The last sentence reads, “The original grid format street

layout and the ring road around the Basin forms the basis for the urban

heritage landscape of today, the generous boulevards of Cambridge,

Kent, ring roads of Buckle, Dufferin, Rugby, Sussex reflect the original 20

plan”.

And you have got a drawing directly over the page showing the Basin

Reserve and the Canal Reserve, now this is consistent with NZHPT’s

concern that in particular the Kent/Cambridge, the bridge going across 25

the Kent/Cambridge roads and lying between the Basin Reserve and

that Canal Reserve is a major concern, isn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: This is background information. It comes under the

title of “Statement of Significance” and it is background information at 30

a landscape level, working out why the landscape or townscape is laid

out as it does and going back and looking at the history of how it has

been set up.

It doesn’t, of itself, produce concerns but as you then look for the 35

heritage and look at the projected developments there may be some

concerns that are identified and it has been our discussions and

consultations which have been aimed at advising NZTA of when those

concerns might arise and looking for ways to avert them.

40

[10.40 am]

MR BENNION: All right. Now, when you come to the Basin and consider

the Basin Reserve and here you are looking at – through this document

you are looking at Options A and B, aren’t you? A, which is pretty 45

much, well, broadly the current proposal in terms of where the Basin

Page 6616


Bridge sits and B is the Basin Bridge slightly further down Kent and

Cambridge Terrace, yes?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, that’s right.

5

MR BENNION: Now, when you come to the Basin Reserve on page 11, and I

am looking at paragraph 8, you have got, “Physical significance of the

Basin Reserve historic area is enhanced by four structures” and NZHPT

picks out four structures in particular - the Pavilion, the Edward Dixon

Clock, the William Wakefield Memorial, the ornately decorated 10

Groundsman’s Shed – I guess it should be five – and the fence with its

gates which enclosed the ground and which has remained largely intact

since it was built in 1917.

So this is what has been puzzling me. As I have been putting to other 15

witnesses the gate, the fence has been largely forgotten in the

discussions and in the evidence around the Northern Gateway Building

and the gates and the relationship between the two, which is clearly

discussed here, also seems to have been somewhat side lined. Well,

that is my contention. HPT’s position in August 2011 was that if you 20

were looking at particular features of importance in the grounds you

would be thinking about one of those would be the fence and the gates

which enclose the ground largely intact since 1917.

In terms of say the Northern Gateway Building proposal it has got then 25

a substantial impact, doesn’t it, on a key feature that is identified by

HPT as important in the Basin Reserve and that’s the fence and as it

meets the Dempster Gate?

MS DANGERFIELD: We have identified four structures in this paragraph 30

back in 2011 which we say enhance the Basin Reserve historic area.

An historic area is a space that has a set of interrelated buildings and

features and open space all connected to the story of that particular

place. It’s that interrelatedness of each of the features. Our registration

of the Basin Reserve notes these four or five enhancements to the 35

physical significance.

The oval, the picket fence, the embankments, the grandstands, the

RA Vance Stand, they are all included and important to the heritage

values of the Basin Reserve, all part of its story as a national and 40

international cricket ground of great standing. Many of them have been

with the Basin Reserve for a long time but some of them are much

newer and they are all part of the interrelated structures and features

that form the historic area, they are all important.

45

Page 6617


Not all of them might have the same levels of significance, and we

could discuss at length the concrete block toilets in that respect, but I

think for the most part it could be understood that the main structures,

the open space, the picket fence, the oval, all of these are interrelated in

the story of cricket playing over a long period of time. 5

[10.45 am\

You will have to remind me what your question was because that was a

preliminary - - - 10

MR BENNION: Well, it seems to me that it is curious – well, it’s troubling,

isn’t it, that one of the key proposals in the current development is the

Northern Gateway Building and the discussion about the greatly

enhanced opportunities it has produced, which you are talking about, 15

the opportunities it’s produced for people to see into the ground where

they haven’t been able to previously.

But I haven’t seen – I put it to Mr McIndoe and I haven’t seen, I don’t

think, in your evidence, anyone discussing this key feature which 20

NZHPT identified in August 2003 which was the fence with the gates.

And I understand that to mean that the Dempster Gate, the fence begins

and proceeds around to the Reid Gate, so the three components are

actually tied together, that’s the nature of them, isn’t it?

25

MS DANGERFIELD: The gates are entry points into a fenced enclosure and

although the fence is a newer fence it continues around the whole

grounds. It has original portions from its 1917 construction and it has

newer portions and it is that enclosure of the green and the way it is

enclosed. The fact that it is as high as that it is because the cricketing 30

authorities wanted to prevent people just looking over the fence and

watching the gate. So they made it high enough to prevent people from

doing that so that they actually had to pay to go in and have a look at

the game of cricket.

35

So the nature of the fence is that it encloses the ground. With repairs

and changes that have been brought about by circumstances around it

there have been alterations to it. There have been other gates put in,

there has been other openings put in and that hasn’t stopped the

significance of the fence being one of the interrelated features of the 40

Basin Reserve historic area.

MR BENNION: But in terms of the Northern Gateway Building it is the case,

isn’t it, that the views through the base of the building that are being

discussed as being an enhanced feature and a benefit actually have a 45

heritage disbenefit as well, don’t they, because they are going to

Page 6618


change, first of all the Reid Gate is gone and they are going to change

the nature of the Basin in that area quite fundamentally at the ground

level because the fence and gates, which are noted as important here,

are going to be - - -

5

MS DANGERFIELD: I think it is - - -

MR BENNION: - - - fundamentally changed, aren’t they?

MS DANGERFIELD: You said the Reid Gate is gone, it is the Dempster 10

Gate.

MR BENNION: Sorry, Dempster, yes, thank you.

MS DANGERFIELD: It certainly is a change. The openness at ground level 15

underneath the building is definitely a change. I can’t say that it would

be an adverse change yet. The design of the building, it’s in sketch

design form, we have got some drawings. It is part of, I understand, the

Heritage Management Plan, the final design, but without a doubt the

view through underneath on the ground level of that is different from 20

what it is now. It may be beneficial to the values of the grounds in that

more people can see into the ground, they can actually see the grass in

a clear way as they move around, that may be beneficial.

MR BENNION: In terms of the conditions and their discussion about final 25

design and what the building might look like, wouldn’t this analysis

from the Historic Places Trust about the importance of the fence and

gates enclosing the ground suggest that one outcome of that condition

might be that the fence is retained through the base of that building?

30

MS DANGERFIELD: It could be one outcome, yes.

MR BENNION: Thank you. Now, I just want to come to page 13 of this

August 2011 report and there is talk there of the Northern Gateway

Building as – well, it’s very preliminary talk, isn’t it, “New spectator 35

stand at the Basin Reserve”, do you see that at paragraph 26?

[10.50 am]

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, if I can just comment before your question, is that 40

I mention “circulated in the media” because we had no information

about it at that stage.

MR BENNION: Right, and I think your impression at that stage was it might

be quite large actually at a height somewhat similar to the current 45

Vance Stand. Now, you say at paragraph – well, it was HPT’s position

Page 6619


in August 2011 that “The location of the proposed stand…” – this is

paragraph 28 – “… is limited in space, constrained especially by the

distance between the green and site boundary and it might shade”. So

there was concerns there about dominance, enough to lead to shading,

but concerns there about that being an awkward space for a building? 5

Yes?

MS DANGERFIELD: I think I was noting there that the space was limited

between the boundary and the grass, it’s almost at the narrowest - it

might even be the narrowest point of the Basin Reserve so I am noting 10

there that the space is limited for a building but at this stage I have no

idea of what type of building it might be.

MR BENNION: All right, sorry, forgive me it is my fault for not asking, you

actually wrote this paper, is that what you are saying? 15

MS DANGERFIELD: I contributed to it.

MR BENNION: Contributed, all right. Paragraph 29 says, “Dempster Gates

are historically important and worthy of retention. They mark the axial 20

entranceway and pair with the opposite JR Reid Gate”. Now, I

understand what you are saying, that HPT have reached a position

where they believe that if the Northern Gateway Building is needed

then the gate will need to move. But it is clear, isn’t it, that moving

those gates, moving the Dempster Gates over beside the Reid Gates is 25

going to remove the axial entranceway historic aspect of those gates

and that pairing opposite to the JR Reid Gate, it is going to remove that

for the Dempster Gate, isn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: Just to answer the first part of your question I am not 30

sure that at this stage that I had come to the conclusion that a Northern

Gateway Building was needed. At this stage we were commenting on

the prospect because it had appeared in the media and raising some

issues about a potential building that might be there. But to move on to

your question about the gates. 35

MR BENNION: Coming to the gates, yes. So moving the Dempster Gate is

going to remove that historic relationship, the axial entranceway and

that pairing opposite the Reid Gate, that’s gone, isn’t it?

40

MS DANGERFIELD: No, it’s not gone. As long as an entranceway is there

that axial entranceway remains.

MR BENNION: But doesn’t the Dempster Gate, isn’t a mirror copy – well,

it’s not quite a mirror copy but it looks the same as the Reid Gate, 45

Page 6620


that’s the pairing across the axial entranceway, that’s the importance of

those two gates, isn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: It’s one of the importances, it’s one of the importances.

The axial entranceway is important because there is an entrance at the 5

south end, an entrance at the north end and they relate to the streets,

Kent and Cambridge Terrace, people walking up that direction, people

walking down Adelaide Road, it’s the point of entrance for that access

that continues through and makes a bend.

10

There are a number of reasons why it might be considered to relocate a

structure. Ideally they stay in their position, they retain their values

best in their original position. It’s the position where they were

constructed, it’s the position that the tradesmen worked on the building

and the paint dried on the building, but there are reasons to think about 15

relocation.

[10.55 am]

MR BENNION: Taking the Dempster Gate and placing it beside the Reid 20

Gate also has heritage effects on the Reid Gate, does it not, because it

removes the same axial entrance way pairing that is important for the

Reid Gate right now?

MS DANGERFIELD: It changes the nature of the two gates together, but it 25

does not remove the axial entrance pairing.

MR BENNION: Well it changes and reduces the heritage significance of the

Reid Gate, doesn’t it, because - - -

30

MS DANGERFIELD: I don’t think so. No.

MR BENNION: Doesn’t it remove its current axial relationship with the

Dempster Gate across the other side of the Basin Reserve?

35

MS DANGERFIELD: It does it not remove its axial entrance pairing with a

gateway - - -

MR BENNION: Any sort of gateway?

40

MS DANGERFIELD: Any sort of gateway. That is right. The intention is

always to keep heritage buildings in their original locations. It is the

best outcome in heritage terms. If there are reasons to consider shifting

a heritage building, I think I heard the words yesterday, I heard

descriptions of the rationale for shifting a building, it is the position 45

where its location becomes untenable. It is a last resort. That was the

Page 6621


words, it is a last resort. I think in this case the last resort occurs when

the building is built over and above it and over the top of it and/or in

place of it. Is it a demolition that occurs that enables that to happen or

is it a relocation that occurs or is an enclosure, enclosing it like a

museum object inside. And it’s the effects of what happens when each 5

of those options that is taken is considered that sometimes says a

relocation is a possibility.

MR BENNION: Can I take you to paragraph 37 on page 15 of this report.

And paragraph 36 you start talking or the HP test (ph 2.55) talks about 10

the tent in Cambridge Terrace forming part of the historic grid pattern.

And then 37 the visual seaward from the Basin to the harbour has been

lost, however, the option should be retained to reconnect the Basin to

coastal views. The landscape experience and sense of arrival along

Kent and Cambridge Terrace to the Dempster Gates in the Basin 15

Reserve will be compromised by the raised roading options. So that the

Dempster Gates do form, they are not just an entrance, any kind of

entrance are they, they are an important entrance on an axial length to

the Basin Reserve from Kent and Cambridge Terrace?

20

MS DANGERFIELD: That is right. They are the point at which now, when

you come up from the supermarket, up Kent and Cambridge Terrace,

that you are working your way towards the gates as part of the view,

once you get past the trees, part of the view that you see. And the

entrance, the point of entrance to the Basin Reserve, except there is 25

actually an open gateway, a more modern open gateway next to it, that

is used as well.

MR BENNION: The next sentence, in addition the prospect of a new stand

associated with option A significantly decreases the potential to 30

reinstate this visual and physical connection. So you must there be

talking about the connection from Kent and Cambridge Terrace looking

through to the Dempster Gates and that a new stand in the area where

the Northern Gateway Building is now proposed is going to

significantly decrease the potential to reinstate that visual and physical 35

connection to the Dempster Gates, and the fence in that area of the

Basin. That is what you are saying there, is it not?

MS DANGERFIELD: No. I think that at that last sentence I am referring back

to the first phrase, the prospect of a visual and physical connection 40

seaward from the Basin Reserve to the harbour. So I am actually

referring from the Basin Reserve itself through to the harbour.

Page 6622


[11.00 am]

MR BENNION: Yes, but you are saying there, are you not, that if you put a

large building behind the bridge, that is going to have a further impact

in severing the connection from Kent to Cambridge. That is a problem, 5

that is what you are saying? That was the view of HBT in August 2011.


MR BENNION: Now you are supporting a 65 metre building. Well, let me 10

come to paragraph 45 on the following page. Option A and the

proposed mitigation of a new spectator stand increased the

disconnection between the Basin Reserve and its historical landscape

context. Now, you are supporting, though, a 65 metre Northern

Gateway Building. Is that on cricket grounds? 15

MS DANGERFIELD: I am supporting a 65 metre long building in preference

to the shorter lengths, with a view that it masks more of the effects of

traffic on the Basin Reserve and thereby increases or stops the

decreasing of any values of cricket playing, which are relevant to its 20

historic heritage.

MR BENNION: In this document in August 2011, the concern was that the

building would increase the disconnection between the Basin and Kent

and Cambridge Terrace. So, the logic of that would be, if there needs to 25

be a building then you would want to limit its length?

MS DANGERFIELD: The difficulty was that we had no idea what was

proposed here. We were commenting on a possibility that had been

floated in the media. We had no idea what was going to be proposed. 30

MR BENNION: Yes, but the location of the over bridge in Option A to where

we are today does not seem to have changed, but your concern with

Option A was about this disconnection of the, that a building with a

Northern Gateway Building would stand, would bring, the 35

disconnection it would bring. I am trying to understand why now you

are in favour of the longest possible building that is being proposed and

why you would not be in favour of a shorter building.

MS DANGERFIELD: Well, the - - - 40

MR BENNION: At least.

MS DANGERFIELD: There is a disconnection, there is still a disconnection.

We wrote about it back then, based on no idea of what a building might 45

be proposed, no idea of what it sort of might look like, but put our

Page 6623


minds to trying to imagine how high it might be and imagining how

the, say the television presenters of cricket, when they swing their

television cameras in that direction what they would see and what

would appear.

5

The design of the building has progressed and the development of that

design and what I can see now how it covers the appearance of the

bridge is an effect on the Basin Reserve interior which helps in the

cricket playing. It does not take away the fact that we will lose that

connection, that sort of visual connection, from the Basin Reserve 10

through northwards.

That visual connection, what is it at the moment, it is an open space

visual connection that is above trees and above the fence and it goes

through to open space that we can imagine above the harbour, although 15

we cannot actually see it. So that would be affected and it would be

affected by the Basin Bridge and then any mitigation proposals for the

Northern Gateway Building masking the bridge. That is all it is

intended to do.

20

[11.05 am]

It may not, of itself, and it would be interesting to have a look at that, it

may not, of itself, make that disconnection worse than the bridge itself

creates. 25

MR BENNION: Can I just take you back a couple of pages to paragraph 24

and you have got this paragraph, noise attenuating barriers included in

the design for cars and larger vehicles will create a visual effect by

adding thickness to the road? Noise attenuation needs to account for 30

large vehicles. Overseas experience shows that transparent or

translucent noise barriers could allow light visibility through, but can

look untidy to track visually. So your position at this, the position of

HPT at this time was that you accepted screens on the bridge might

happen, you had concerns about how they would work and look and 35

feel and you were not in favour of a building at the location of the

Northern Gateway Building because it would detract and further close

off the Kent Cambridge connection through the Dempster Gates. That

is what is being said in this document, is it not?

40

MS DANGERFIELD: I think I am talking in paragraph 34 about the

possibility of noise attenuating barriers included in the design and the

way in which they would add bulk to the bridge and, therefore, increase

the size of it, the appearance of it, the bulk of it, and any appreciation

of the Basin Reserve with a greater bulk would, may, make a difference 45

to its values.

Page 6624


MR BENNION: So, again, you are saying in this document, look I understand

there might be noise attenuating barriers on the bridge. There will be

visual effects with that, but that is one issue. But also, separately, do

not put a large building on the northern side of the Basin Reserve 5

because you are going to increase the disconnection between the Basin

Reserve and the historical landscape context.

MS DANGERFIELD: At that stage I was raising the possibility. We had no

idea how high it might be, whether it would actually project up above 10

the road, there was the possibility of that, how wide it would be. We

had no details of what it might be.

MR BENNION: The disconnection would be from the ground level up, would

it not? The ultimate height, where a new stand reached over and into 15

the bridge area, well the bridge is already there, so it has got to be

around that. The connection, as you say, with the Dempster Gate.

MS DANGERFIELD: Possibly. We had no idea whether a new gateway

building might be larger than the bridge or not. 20

MR BENNION: Can I come to paragraph 56 of this document. Other options

to be reconsidered could retain Buckle Street in its original historical

alignment and scale and work to maintain the landscaping and setting

values. Talking about a cut and cover option. So the preference of, well 25

HPT, it considered this time it was worth continuing to explore

undergrounding options, land bridges, cut and cover options, at this

time.

MS DANGERFIELD: I think at this time we considered it was worth looking 30

at all possible options.

MR BENNION: Right. Okay. Now, I have just got a couple more matters

here. This might be of assistance to the Board in terms of a question

yesterday. If I take you to 105 and you have got, paragraph 105 and 35

you have got a discussion about the William Wakefield Memorial and

the suggestion there that it is, there is an assessment there that says, it is

likely to be viewed in passing in a far less intimate way, but there is an

assessment that says, it is not expected to have adverse effects per se on

the memorial. 40

MS DANGERFIELD: Sorry, what was the question?

MR BENNION: So that was your assessment at that time on the Wakefield

Memorial? 45

Page 6625


MS DANGERFIELD: From our understanding of the proposals at that time.

MR BENNION: Okay. Now, there was discussion this morning about the

pavilion being included in the heritage condition. I just wanted to, and

you said, look, you thought that was something that should be included 5

and at pages 25 and 26 in August 2011, and if I go to paragraph 99, the

Historic Places Trust was concerned that Option A has serious effects

on the operations of the Basin Reserve Pavilion and consequently its

heritage values, does that remain the position?

10

[11.10 am]

MS DANGERFIELD: I would need to go back through the whole documents,

that’s a conclusion and recommendation, I would probably need to go

back and have a look at that. The Basin Reserve Pavilion is an 15

important heritage building. We remain concerned about it because it

is seismically under strength and the Museum has moved out of the

Pavilion but it is a very valued and valuable heritage building so we

remain concerned.

20

MR BENNION: Well, looking at this discussion and conclusion, is that still

the conclusion, Option A has serious effects on the operation of the

Basin Reserve Pavilion and consequently its heritage values?

MS DANGERFIELD: I think it - - - 25

MR BENNION: Has that position changed and what changed it if anything?

MS DANGERFIELD: Well, I think referring back to our discussion slightly

earlier about drawing it into assessment in the conditions, when we 30

looked at the position of the road, how close the road became, how

high the road was to be constructed off the present carriageway, I think

probably our concerns about the operations of the Pavilion still stand

but they are not prompted by Option A.

35

MR BENNION: Well, if you go paragraph 101, ”Mitigation suggested for the

selection of Option A includes the construction of a new spectator

building. This would involve the construction of new buildings within

an historic area. NZTA would expect consultation and notified resource

consent process”. So the setting here is that you are aware of a 40

building like the Northern Gateway Building or something bigger at

that time perhaps but a building being in that location, and you are

concerned Option A and that building, there is serious effects on the

operations of the Basin Reserve Pavilion and its heritage values?

45

MS DANGERFIELD: Well, I think - - -

Page 6626


MR BENNION: And things haven’t fundamentally changed in that respect,

have they, since this time?

MS DANGERFIELD: Well, I think in the development of the design of 5

Option A - which, you know, continued – we were able to see how the

road was planned and it appeared that the road constructions were at a

distance but it remained a matter of concern because the Pavilion is

under strength seismically and is not now in use. So it remained a

matter of concern in the overall historic area that the Pavilion is 10

vulnerable but not so much prompted, once we learned more about

Option A not so much prompted by Option A.

MR BENNION: And I am just looking at paragraph 96 and the last sentence

of paragraph 96 on page 26 and HPT says, “An approach that 15

disregards places such as the Pavilion on the basis there are no direct

impacts serves to minimise and constrain the heritage landscape and

disconnect heritage places from the wider urban cultural landscape”.

So there has been questions earlier about a focus on built heritage, that 20

statement is saying that’s not – that the appropriate needs to be broader

than that because otherwise you lose focus on important building such

as this Pavilion?

MS DANGERFIELD: I think that’s true. We cast the net widely around the 25

roadway planned and included assessments of heritage places of all

different levels of significance over quite a large area.

[11.15 am]

30

MR BENNION: All right, can I go to page 36 of this report, just one last issue

on this, and you will see that this is entitled at the top, “Part 3 Mount

Victoria Basin to Tunnel” – the new Mount Victoria Tunnel. Now, just

as a background to this, something that has just - - -

35

MR BAINES: What page are you on?

MR BENNION: Sir, on page 36 and the first paragraph is numbered 163.

Now, this section of the report is talking about the heritage impacts of

duplication of the Mount Victoria Tunnel and changes to Paterson 40

Street, all right, is that right?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes. Yes, it is.

MR BENNION: And just as background context am I right that according to 45

the Wellington City Council’s plan the Mount Victoria character area

Page 6627


actually extends across into the southern side of Paterson Street, so

Paterson Street itself is included in the Mount Victoria character area?

MS DANGERFIELD: I believe so but I might need to be confirmed on that

with the plan. 5

MR BENNION: And I am not going to go through this in any detail but I just

wanted to look at page 36 and at paragraph 166, “Pedestrian vehicular

crossings, even the chance crossings people take between Mount

Victoria residential area and the south will be consigned to the past”. 10

“There will be a loss of a series of dwellings reducing the heritage

character suburb of Mount Victoria and the integrity of the Mount

Victoria character area”, and that’s at 167, then at 168 says, “The new

road and tunnel cause the loss of part of a heritage rich area of the city

and directly impact on a number of individual dwellings”. 15

So we are being asked to think about this proposal, this Basin Bridge

proposal and it potentially unlocking transport benefits in the future but

we also need to have in our minds too some potential heritage costs,

don’t we, in terms of the Tunnel Duplication, is that right? 20

MS DANGERFIELD: Well, as is written here we did note that there would be

changes to the Mount Victoria character area. I think perhaps further

on in the document we identified particular buildings and there could

be expected to be changes due to the new road in that area. 25

MR BENNION: Yes, and just over the page at page 38 and a conclusion at

paragraph 183, “The new road and tunnel cause the loss of part of a

heritage rich area of the city and directly impact on a number of

individual properties with recognised values”. It’s that sort of thing 30

that you are concerned about?

MS DANGERFIELD: We raised that concern, yes.

MR BENNION: And this is for a tunnel that is going to, I think it is still the 35

proposal, the tunnel that is going to be on the north side of the current

tunnel?

MS DANGERFIELD: I think the design has changed a little since this report

was written. 40

MR BENNION: And I just want to check something lastly about HPT’s

approach to the Mount Victoria character area and down in Ellice

Street, and I might have just simply overlooked it somewhere, but part

of the concern of HPT about the effects of this proposal include the 45

Page 6628


impact of the roadway on that south-western corner of the Mount

Victoria area, Ellice Street?


5

MR BENNION: In particular?


MR BENNION: Okay. And the conclusion about that is that it will be a 10

major - well, it will be a major adverse impact in that area?

[11.20 am]

MS DANGERFIELD: The removal or changes at this stage were in the 15

process of being planned. The heritage buildings that we specifically

noted went through some consideration after this report as to how they

could be looked after. There were a series of houses or a small

collection of houses that were going to be impacted on by the proposal

Option A or Option B, in fact Option B would have had greater effects 20

than Option A on this area.

And in raising these issues I didn’t want to dismiss that character area

corner even though it is actually right at the edge of the character area,

these were buildings that contributed to the streetscape of 25

Mount Victoria although the specifically mentioned precincts of

Mount Victoria area are – the nearest one is on the other side of the

block. These houses were the edge of the Mount Victoria area and they

did have values in themselves so we were raising this in this paper to

see if changes could be made to the design in order to keep as much as 30

possible and that occurred in part.

MR BENNION: Can I just take you to paragraph 16 of the joint witness

statement, I think that’s what I had overlooked, it does address the

south-west corner of the Mount Victoria inner residential area and there 35

is a discussion of the effect of this proposal on that area.

MR BAINES: Paragraph, please?

MR BENNION: Sorry, paragraph 16 of the joint witness statement. And 40

looking down who agrees or disagrees I see at 16C you are agreeing

with significant and dramatic change of character to the edge of

Mount Victoria inner residential area, trimming of the area along this

edge?

45

MS DANGERFIELD: Mm.

Page 6629


MR BENNION: Yes, okay. And just lastly then, the August 2011 paper does

talk about changes to Paterson Street that the tunnels will affect,

widening, significant alteration of that street as a heritage matter, and

the dramatic changes that are noted down in the south-west corner of 5

the Mount Victoria inner residential area, given that it extends across

Paterson Street, I assume you would have to include the quite dramatic

fundamental change to Paterson Street itself in that area, wouldn’t you?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, it’s going to have a completely different road, 10

yes, it’s a dramatic change.

MR BENNION: All right, thank you, sir, that is all I have.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Bennion. Well, Mr Milne, we will take 15

the morning tea break before we hear from you.

ADJOURNED [11.23 am]

RESUMED [11.45 am] 20

MR BENNION: Sir, I realised that I haven’t asked a question about a

condition.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay. 25

MR BENNION: Screening, I just wanted to put that question if I could please,

thank you, sir. Ms Dangerfield, I just wanted to ask whether you would

support a condition being added to the proposal which says that in

relation to the Heritage Management Plan, which would look at the 30

Northern Gateway Building and Dempster Gate and where those might

go to, that in addition there would be a further examination of

screening options on the bridge to see if those could possibly be an

alternative to the Northern Gateway Building?

35

MS DANGERFIELD: I think that’s highly appropriate. It will confirm

effects or it should confirm effects of a Gateway Building and/or a

screen, that would be an appropriate thing to look at for the Heritage

Management Plan because it’s the heritage of the Basin Reserve and

other heritage features that will be foremost in the mind of that plan. 40

MR BENNION: Thank you, sir, that is all I had.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Milne?

45

Page 6630


<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILNE [11.46 am]

MR MILNE: Good morning, Ms Dangerfield. I will come back to your

evidence-in-chief in a moment. Last week I asked or sent a letter to

legal counsel asking you to look at the history of the discussions 5

regarding the shifting of the Home of Compassion Crèche, didn’t I, and

you have researched that and as a result various documents have been

provided including the Heritage Impact Assessment Report that

Mr Bennion has discussed with you this morning?

10

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, that’s right.

MR MILNE: Now, your involvement in discussions with the Transport

Agency regarding this project and the Tunnel Duplication project dates

back to 2009, is that correct? 15

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I can’t remember whether it was the beginning or

the end of 2009, possibly the end.

MR MILNE: The Feasible Options Report discusses the possibility of the 20

moving or the relocation of the Crèche and that process was started in

the middle of 2010 and finished late 2010, where there discussions with

what was then the Trust regarding the possible relocation of the Home

of Compassion Crèche during 2010?

25

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, there was, there was discussions regarding

relocation during that year.

MR MILNE: Can you recall what month those discussions were in?

30

MS DANGERFIELD: Can I refer to a document?

MR MILNE: Yes, certainly.

MS DANGERFIELD: One of the ones that you have highlighted that we are 35

talking about. I can’t recall which month it was first discussed as a

possibility to move the Crèche. It came about because of the options

presented to us. The two options, one with the road as it is planned

now where the Crèche is in the path of that road. Quite clearly they

could not exist together. 40

And then another option, Option B, where the road went to the north of

the Crèche which would have resulted in the Crèche being on an island

with a significant road either side, and virtually making it into a

complete island with road on all sides as it skirted round a sort of eye 45

shaped island.

Page 6631


[11.50 am]

At that time, we’re presented with those two options, neither of them

presented a positive heritage outcome for the crèche. 5

MR MILNE: Now there was a, well there was the heritage impact assessment

completed in August 2011 and that discusses the possible relocation of

the crèche and makes it clear that the relocation, or the crèche would

need to be relocated for the purpose of option A, doesn’t it? 10

MS DANGERFIELD: That’s right.

MR MILNE: So moving back from that. That report was attached to feedback

on the inner city transport network improvements which is a letter from 15

the Trust to the Agency dated 25 August 2011 isn't it?


MR MILNE: Now, I think the Registrar has a copy of that document there? 20

MS DANGERFIELD: I have a copy here.

MR MILNE: Yes, you have a copy, I have a copy and I’ll just make sure the

Board has a copy. 25

But can you just confirm, Ms Dangerfield, that this is a document, this

letter is from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to the Agency

dated 25 August 2011 and it is feedback on the inner city transport

network improvements for a successful capital city, NZTA Cobham 30

Drive to Buckle Street. Is that correct?

MS DANGERFIELD: That’s correct.

MR MILNE: And could that be produced sir? 35

CHAIRPERSON: This is Dangerfield 1.

EXHIBIT – EVIDENCE: DANGERFIELD 01

40

MR MILNE: And that document at paragraph 22 says, this is discussed in

detail on the attached HIA and the attached HIA is the document you

were discussing with Mr Bennion, this document entitle Heritage

Impact Assessment, dated August 2011 isn't it?

45

MS DANGERFIELD: That’s correct.

Page 6632


MR MILNE: If that could be produced, sir.\

CHAIRPERSON: Dangerfield 2.

5

EXHIBIT – EVIDENCE: DANGERFIELD 02

MR MILNE: And then, I’ll come back to these documents but maybe we’ll get

the production over and done with. The next document in the sequence

is a series of emails dated March 2012, notes of a workshop meeting 10

regarding the Home of Compassion Crèche. Do you have those? So

they were forwarded through last month.

Sir, this document may not need to be produced anyhow. There is a

record of a meeting in March 2012, is it there, Ms Dangerfield? You 15

have a copy of that?

MS DANGERFIELD: That is correct, I do have a copy of it here.

MR MILNE: And then there is also a document which is referred to or follows 20

from that meeting which is dated 12 April 2012 which is a letter to

Dean Ingoe at the New Zealand Transport Agency from the New

Zealand Historic Places Trust, signed off by yourself and Sacha

Walters.

25

[11.55 am]

So that’s the letter dated 12 April 2012, headed New Zealand, or

Comparison of Two Options for Crèche Relocation, Addendum to

Heritage Impact Assessment. 30

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I have that.

MR MILNE: And then just again.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what was the one we missed, we haven’t got?

MR MILNE: It’s an email, two emails dated March 2012. I’ll just check my.

So I think the other document can probably be forwarded through and

copied at the break. So those documents in turn refer to some 40

guidelines for assessment of heritage effects.

That’s the sustainable management of historic heritage discussion paper

number 2, assessment of effects on historic environment. You’re

familiar with that aren’t you? 45

Page 6633


MS DANGERFIELD: I have read that, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was the fifth? So that’s five documents you've

produced is that right?

5

MR MILNE: Well, I haven’t produced the one that we don’t have a copy of

yet, sir. So there’s Dangerfield 1, Dangerfield 2, which is the impact

assessment, and then there is the missing document. So maybe if we

provisionally that Dangerfield 3.

10

CHAIRPERSON: The putative number of 3.

MR MILNE: And then there is the comparison of two options for crèche

relocation dated 12 April, so that would be Dangerfield 4.

15

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MILNE: And then the last document is the sustainable management of

historic heritage, this document, which will be Dangerfield 5.

20

MS DANGERFIELD: I don’t have a copy of that one with me.

MR MILNE: We’ve got spare copies here.

So just walking you through the sequence, so Dangerfield 1 document, 25

25 August refers to the Home of Compassion Crèche at paragraph 5

and following, and at paragraph 9 for a number of buildings NZHPT

has reluctantly recommended relocation as a measure of last resort

where new roading proposals present an exceptional circumstance and

imminent danger. 30

Then I take it that that reference to relocation includes the crèche

doesn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: Can I understand which document you’re looking at 35

now?

MR MILNE: I’m referring to the 25 August document, or Dangerfield 1.

MS DANGERFIELD: The letter? 40

MR MILNE: Which is the letter, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ve referred to paragraph 5 so far, and what else?

MR MILNE: Paragraph 5 and then paragraph 9 – NZHPT has reluctantly 45

recommended relocation as a measure of last resort. And then at page

Page 6634


4, there's a specific discussion of the crèche and at 20, both options A

and B will have highly adverse effects on heritage values and long term

prospects

[12.00 pm] 5

CHAIRPERSON: So what are we looking at now?

MR MILNE: Page 4, paragraph 20, same document – Dangerfield 1. And

then at paragraph 21, the document notes that relocation may mitigate 10

some of the effects of the proposed road, doesn’t it?


CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, that was paragraph? 15

MR MILNE: 21 and 22, there’s the reference to this is discussed in detail in

the attached HIA and that’s the Dangerfield 2 document which you’ve

got.

20


MR MILNE: And you made reference to discussions around options A and B

and both of these documents discuss options A and B and the crèche

within that context. These documents are dated 2011, my question was 25

whether there were prior discussions during 2010 when five options

were being discussed; options A to E, and where the feasible options

report refers to potential relocation of the crèche. Whether there were

discussions at that point with the Trust regarding that possibility.

30

MS DANGERFIELD: Relocation became a matter to discuss when we

realised what the proposals were going to be and that became evident

with options A and B.

MR MILNE: Yes I understand that. My question was were there discussions 35

during 2010, the feasible options report stage, regarding the possibility

of relocating the crèche?

MS DANGERFIELD: There were discussions framed as there would be

options where a relocation would not come into a framework for 40

discussion. While the options were greater than A and B, I can’t recall

the options, but there remained an option where it looked as if the

crèche was going to be in a good position.

Page 6635


As the options were fine-tuned, it became clear by the time of this

report, or in the preparations for this report, that discussions about

relocation were going to need to be a bit more seriously considered.

So at this early stage of 2010, there were discussions about demolition, 5

possible demolition of the building as a way of resolving the issues and

our advice was demolition is a loss of heritage values for the building,

which we would be very disappointed about.

We were looking for options that would have a good outcome and 10

demolition was something that we were working, given advice on

about the effects that demolition would have. As we moved into fine-

tuning the options and they became A and B, that's when relocation

was seriously considered.

15

MR MILNE: You haven’t quite answered my question, Ms Dangerfield,

which is, was the Trust approached by the Agency or Opus during 2010

to discuss the possibility of relocating the crèche?

MS DANGERFIELD: I wasn’t approached about that. It was discussed but 20

until A and B became the two options, it was not discussed as a

certainty.

MR MILNE: Right. So there was some discussion as a possibility back at the

feasible options stage and then, once the decision had been made to go 25

out to consultation on only the bridge Options A and B, there was

further discussions. Is that a fair summary?

[12.05 pm]

30

MS DANGERFIELD: There was more certain discussion. And that is a good

summary of what I was trying to say.

MR MILNE: And it was your understanding, and it was recorded in the

documents Dangerfield one and two, is it not, that with Option A it 35

required either the destruction of the crèche or the relocation of the

crèche? Is that correct?

MS DANGERFIELD: For Options A and B?

40

MR MILNE: No, for Option A, which is the option before the Board. Was

your understanding, back in 2011, when these reports were done, that

that option required either the destruction or the relocation of the

crèche.

45

Page 6636


MS DANGERFIELD: Yes. Option A. Something would need to happen if

Option A went ahead, the building was right in the path of the road.

The road tarmac would be in the place where the building is currently.

MR MILNE: And that is recorded at page 18 of Dangerfield two at paragraph 5

65, the crèche and the road cannot coexist in this position. The proposal

notes that the crèche will need to be relocated. That is what it says

there, does it not?

MS DANGERFIELD: It is an option to relocate when we were advocating to 10

avoid demolition.

MR MILNE: Yes. I am simply pointing you to the - - -


MR MILNE: What the document says - - -


20

MR MILNE: Which is the crèche and the road cannot coexist.

MS DANGERFIELD: That is exactly right.

MR BAINES: Can you just tell me what that reference is please? 25

MR MILNE: Page 18 of Dangerfield two, paragraph 65, the last paragraph on

the page.

MR BAINES: Thank you. 30

MR MILNE: And then at 66 it says relocation is not desirable, etc. For this

reason any proposal for relocation would be acceptable only as a last

resort where its original location is to become unsupportable, does it

not? 35

MS DANGERFIELD: Could I just organise my papers to get to the right

page. Could you refer me to those - - -

MR MILNE: Page 19 of the report, paragraph 66. 40

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, that is right.

MR MILNE: And then there is discussion of setback relocation and the plan

on this page and over the page, which I could not follow and I 45

understand you do not have the more detailed versions, but is either of

Page 6637


these plans the relocation proposal as it now is, or as it now is

happening under the legislation?

MS DANGERFIELD: No. The first one, the one in 67 is where the existing

position, there is an arrow to the existing position, is pushed 5

northwards up the page to a relocated position and that is not as is

proposed at the moment.

MR MILNE: So pushed north eastwards, is it, towards Mount Victoria.

10

MS DANGERFIELD: It is pushed up the page, which is northwards.

MR MILNE: Yes, but is that towards Mt Victoria?

MS DANGERFIELD: No, it is towards the sea, towards - - - 15

MR……….: The harbour.

MS DANGERFIELD: The harbour, yes.

20

MR MILNE: And the diagram over the page, Westward Buckle Street

relocation?

MS DANGERFIELD: Image two, you can see the crèche in its current

location there coinciding with the road and then it gets taken up, in this 25

option, it gets taken up to a position near Tory Street.

MR MILNE: So that option is no longer on the table and the other option has

been amended to what is now proposed. Is that right?

30

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes. So the image one, it is pushed northwards and

then westwards and then raised around two to three metres. There is a

shaded portion of approximately the position where it will be. It is not

exactly at that portion.

35

[12.10 pm]

MR MILNE: Right, then moving to the next document, Dangerfield three, this

is the meeting notes of a meeting dated Tuesday 20 March with

representatives from the Agency Opus and the Trust and WALA Mr 40

Hardwick-Smith and Andre Bishop from WALA and Wellington City

Council, Ms Rickard. Now there was a discussion there of possible

options to relocate the crèche, was there not?


Page 6638


MR MILNE: And at page two of the notes, points of agreement, it was agreed

that the two locations that should be considered close to Tory Street or

on the Sussex Street axis?


MR MILNE: Correct?


10

MR MILNE: And then their actions involved there, New Zealand Historic

Places Trust to undertake a heritage assessment of the two proposed

sites by 10 April, which includes consideration of possible mitigation

for the adverse effects of the relocation of the crèche and that report

that was then done is the Dangerfield four document, comparison of the 15

two options, is it not?

MS DANGERFIELD: That is right.

MR MILNE: And there is a reference there to NZTA to provide combined 20

thoughts of Ian and Jeremy, so that is Ian Bowman and Jeremy

Salmond, is it not?

MS DANGERFIELD: Could you refer me to - - -

25

MR MILNE: Paragraph 7 on the second page of that email. It is up on screen

now.

MS DANGERFIELD: Oh, I see.

30

MR BAINES: Mr Milne, can you just take us back to where you pointed to

something in Dangerfield three, which then ended up with Dangerfield

four?

MR MILNE: Yes, Dangerfield three refers to, at point six - - - 35

MR BAINES: Because we have not got it.

MR MILNE: The Trust undertaking a Heritage Assessment, which is then

Dangerfield four. 40

MR BAINES: Okay. Thank you.

MR MILNE: So, this meeting was in 20 March 2012 and it was agreed that

the trust would provide the combined thoughts of Mr Bowman and Mr 45

Page 6639


Salmond in relation to the possible relocation of the trust, of the crèche,

is that correct?

MS DANGERFIELD: Can you direct me to where - - -

5

MR MILNE: Paragraph 7 on the second page. It is up on the screen beside

you. Actions. Under Actions.


10

MR MILNE: Yes.

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I see that.

MR MILNE: And then at eight, Wellington City Council to discuss the 15

proposed options more widely and provide their view on relocation.

And then the next notes of meeting over the page. I have got them all

together. Do you have the next notes, which is Thursday 4 August

2011, meeting?

20


MR MILNE: And note there, AD, which I assume is yourself, advised that

although the crèche would lose its association with its original site,

many of its historic values could be retained through appropriate and 25

sensitive relocation.


MR MILNE: That is correct, is it not? And then, the paragraph two, discussion 30

was held about the proposed Museum precinct and what that might

entail with respect to the crèche. There were mixed views about

whether a shift in location to the crèche would enable it to become part

of the precinct and if there was any value in that actually happening.

That is correct, is it not? 35

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes

MR MILNE: And, in fact, am I correct in my understanding that the proposal

was not that the crèche become part of the precinct. It is to be moved to 40

the area which is proposed now as part of this project for the War

Memorial Park Extension, as it is being called here. Is that correct?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes. It did not go into the Museum precinct, was

discussed at the meeting with the idea of it being on the Tory Street 45

vicinity either facing Buckle Street or turned round facing Tory Street,

Page 6640


but in the end, no that one, possibly for a range of reasons, that site was

not chosen and the Sussex Street intersection site was the one that was

chosen.

MR MILNE: Also, the option of including it within the National War 5

Memorial Park itself, that did not occur, did it?

[12.15 pm]

MS DANGERFIELD: Its new position is in the Memorial Park legislation 10

area.

MR MILNE: Yes, it is in the legislation area, but it is not in the area which is

shown for the National War Memorial Park, is it?

15

MS DANGERFIELD: Which, we might understand. The drawings for

Memorial Park include, sometimes some of the drawings include the

space - - -

MR MILNE: There are three - - - 20

MS DANGERFIELD: The other side of Tory Street and the Memorial Park,

we understand for the greater park, runs from Taranaki Street through

to Tory Street, and beyond Tory Street heading east there is additional

open space and the location chosen for the crèche is within that open 25

space fairly close to its original location.

MR MILNE: It may be useful if we can get up on screen the National War

Memorial Park legislation and the three figures which are attached to

the end of it, on the Government legislation website, and I will just 30

pursue some questions in the meantime.

So that document also refers to TB, Tony Brennand from New Zealand

Transport Agency, indicating that a decision was yet to be made

regarding the ownership and use of the open space between Tory Street 35

and Cambridge Terrace, does it not?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, that is right.

MR MILNE: And, over the page under Option A, treatment at I.b, another 40

potential idea raised was to shift the crèche to the north on its current

plot and rotate it. The final proposal for shifting the crèche doesn’t

involve rotation, does it?

MS DANGERFIELD: No. It does not. I was very keen for the orientation of 45

the building to remain as it was. Its heritage layout involved the main

Page 6641


room, which children played in and then accessed their yard, and that

was to the north.

The crèche is a domestic size building, it has two rooms facing the

road, one was a small office, and one was the room in which young 5

children slept. Down the west side there was a row of service rooms,

bathroom, toilet, kitchen, and then the greater part of the building,

which faced out on to the north was a large room with windows and

this was the area that the children were in and then they accessed the

outside through a veranda area. 10

And it seemed to me that the orientation of that room was very

important to its heritage values. If the building got swivelled, turned 90

degrees, that room would access on the east side and miss the north sun

and the west sun, and if it swivelled the other way, it would do the 15

opposite. It was, for me, it was one of the - - -

MR MILNE: Sorry. Ms Dangerfield.

MS DANGERFIELD: Defining characteristics of that building. 20

MR MILNE: The Board may be interested, but I am not asking about an

option which has not been pursued.

MS DANGERFIELD: Right, okay. 25

MR MILNE: The point, if I could take you to the diagram at the bottom of

that meeting notes, that there is a, I realise, your Honour, that this

difficult without the document, but the position on the right is the

position of the crèche as it now is, is that right? 30

MS DANGERFIELD: We are looking at - - -

MR MILNE: Document - - -

35

MS DANGERFIELD: Page two of the - - -

MR MILNE: It is the last page of the four pages of the notes and it is the

second page of the notes of the August meeting, there is a diagram

there. 40

MS DANGERFIELD: So, on that diagram, which looks a little bit hairy up

there, but you can see to the very right, there is an option for the

location of the crèche, which is almost in the car yard. I think it’s been

a car yard, but it’s not any longer. There is this option here, that’s an 45

Page 6642


Option and below that, this is where it is – or it has been, for its most

its lifetime.

[12.20 pm]

5

MR MILNE: Yes.

MS DANGERFIELD: It’s about to undertake a shift, and up on this end here

is another alternative, the one that would be closest to assisting the

building into a museum precinct either in that orientation or in an 10

alternative orientation.

MR MILNE: So do any of these locations show where it is now propose the

crèche be with its now - - -

15

MS DANGERFIELD: No.

MR MILNE: - - - proposed orientation? No.

MS DANGERFIELD: No, they are all different. The closest one is this one in 20

the centre here, and the orientation has been changed.

MR MILNE: Now – so the final plan, presumably the Trust was involved in

discussions in terms of reaching the final plan for the relocation and its

approval was required for that, was it, or its – is involvement in a plan, 25

relocation plan?

MS DANGERFIELD: We were certainly in discussion and we provided

plenty of advice on what we considered, what I considered to be

appropriate locations and adverse effects of other locations and 30

orientations. As the - - -

MR MILNE: Sorry, Ms Dangerfield, if you could just try and answer my

questions, the question is, was the Trust involved in signing off on a

plan for the final relocation as it is now proposed? 35

MS DANGERFIELD: I think it’s – it, I, I – I’m not – unhappy with the word

“signing off”, but we did agree to the final plan.

MR MILNE: Yes. And was that agreement a requirement of the legislation? 40

MS DANGERFIELD: I would need to have a look at that legislation. I know

we took part in discussions as those documents, those drawings have

been going through the legislation processes.

45

Page 6643


MR MILNE: Now, we know that the Trust needs to be relocated for Option A

- - -

MS DANGERFIELD: The Trust.

5

MR MILNE: Sorry, the crèche – too long here, sir – the – do you have a copy

there of Ms Kennemore’s evidence?

MS DANGERFIELD: I don’t.

10

MR MILNE: Well perhaps if we just get paragraph 18 of Ms Kennemore’s

evidence up on the screen – while we're dealing with that, Ms

Dangerfield, what is your understanding of the reason why the crèche is

being shifted?

15

MS DANGERFIELD: My understanding is that, the project has or those

arranging the project have responded to advice concerning the values of

the crèche, and have looked for an option of relocation as a way of

preserving its heritage values as much as it can.

20

MR MILNE: So, in summary, the New Zealand Transport Agency has

suggested the shifting of the crèche as opposed to its demolition for the

purposes of enabling this project, hasn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, for enabling Option A. 25

MR MILNE: Yes. Now, turning to Ms Kennemore’s evidence at paragraph

18, it says there that the NZHPT requested that the crèche building be

removed from its current location within the designation area to the

new location within the National War Memorial Park as shown in the 30

plans provided in the Basin Bridge Project application, including

drawing 1A01, and you refer to that same drawing in your evidence –

I’ll bring you back to that in a moment.

[12.25 pm] 35

What I am wanting to understand is, Ms Kennemore has said to a new

location within the National War Memorial Park, but it’s my

understanding from the relevant plans and indeed from your evidence

that, the new location isn’t in the new park as proposed in the 40

legislation, or as authorised in the legislation, is that correct?

MS DANGERFIELD: I think it’s an appropriate question for Ms Kennemore.

The park, as it is defined in the legislation, it’s then an understanding of

it that it continues all the way to – down to Kent Terrace – Cambridge 45

Terrace.

Page 6644


We certainly – I certainly asked for, of all the options that had been

presented, I asked for this option that it is currently planned for, the

naming of the park and the naming of the area of open space that it is

maybe something you could ask Ms Kennemore. 5

MR MILNE: Ms Dangerfield, I’ve drawn your attention to what Ms

Kennemore is saying, which is that the crèche is to be relocated to

within the new park.

10

I’m wanting now to know what your understanding is, that is, your

understanding in preparing your evidence, as to whether the crèche is to

be relocated within the National War Memorial Park as shown on the

plans in the legislation, and if you’d like some assistance with that we

can – it may be useful to get the plans from the legislation back up, if 15

we could move to figure 2 and this figure is attached to the

Memorandum of Counsel which has been filed on Friday I think, and

just go to the label of that for the moment – so, can’t read sideways

very well, but what’s the heading on there - National War Memorial Park.

20

So, can you indicate the location of the crèche on that plan?

MS DANGERFIELD: Is that – is that the same as that, are they the same? I

see, okay.

25

MR MILNE: Maybe if I can do it this way, Ms Dangerfield, if you see the

purple hash line which is the boundary of the National War Memorial

Park as set out in the legislation in that figure, the bottom – well the top

right hand dotted rectangle, the eastern most position of that is

approximately in line with the western side of Sussex Street, isn’t it? 30

MS DANGERFIELD: I cannot tell from this plan - - -

MR MILNE: Well if you look at the line for Sussex Street - - -

35


MR MILNE: - - - the label down the bottom, if you project that line through,

does it not come to a position pretty much where the bottom of the –

sorry, where the eastern side of the National War Memorial Park is? 40

MS DANGERFIELD: It does.

MR MILNE: Right. And you will know where the crèche is in relation to

Sussex Street, so can you just indicate on that diagram where the 45

crèche is – currently is.

Page 6645


MS DANGERFIELD: Well I cannot tell from this plan. My impression is,

that the crèche is here now – oops stop moving – is here, and that it’s

going to here.

5

MR MILNE: Right. So it’s moving to an area which is outside the National

War Memorial Park, but within the proposed National War Memorial

Park extension area isn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, yes. 10

CHAIRPERSON: Which is part of the project area.


15

CHAIRPERSON: Part of the designation area.

MR MILNE: Yes, sir. And just to complete the picture, if we move up to the

other figure, figure 1 – no sorry, figure 3, sorry – if you just zoom in on

that one – that shows the construction area - - - 20

[12.30 pm

CHAIRPERSON: So what, what – can you name what it is for the purposes

of the record? 25

MR MILNE: Figure 3 is from the Empowering Act, the National War

Memorial Park at, and it’s – figure 3 is in the annexure to that

legislation.

30

CHAIRPERSON: And it’s the construction area plan.

MR MILNE: And it’s – yes sorry, the construction area plan.

CHAIRPERSON: Number 1. 35

MR MILNE: CON01, and that shows the construction area is extending

through the crèche, where the crèche is currently located through where

it will be relocated and down to Kent/Cambridge, doesn’t it?

40

MS DANGERFIELD: It does.

MR MILNE: Yes. And moving to figure 1 – that plan is the – also from

schedule 9 – sorry, if that’s the correct reference, your Honour – is the

land requirement plan, LR01 and that is, similarly shows the land 45

requirement area is extending down to Kent/Cambridge, doesn’t it?

Page 6646


MS DANGERFIELD: Yes it does.

MR MILNE: Yes. So, we’ve established that the relocation of the crèche is

not part of the National War Memorial Park itself. 5

Now, I put it to Mr Salmond and he agreed and I just want to check

your understanding, that the crèche doesn’t need to be moved for the

purpose of the underpass itself, does it?

10

MS DANGERFIELD: That’s my understanding.

MR MILNE: And the question is – well if we – yes, the question I have

regarding all of that is, what is your understanding, from the documents

you’ve seen and the discussions you’ve taken part in, as to the reason 15

that the crèche relocation was included in the legislation, given that it

isn’t necessary for the park or for the underpass?

MS DANGERFIELD: I have no knowledge of that at all.

20

MR MILNE: If the relocation had not been in the legislation, what would

have been the resource consent requirements under the district plan and

the activity status for relocating the crèche?

MS DANGERFIELD: I would prefer that our planning advisor - - - 25

MR MILNE: Ms Kennemore will be able to assist with that?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, rather than me, as a planner.

30

MR MILNE: So are you aware of any reports either from the Agency or from

the Ministry of Culture and Heritage (Heritage and Culture - from

which it is), explaining to parliament why the crèche needed –

relocation of the crèche needed to be included in this legislation?

35

MS DANGERFIELD: No, I’m not aware of anything.

MR MILNE: Moving away from the crèche to your evidence-in-chief – sorry,

just if I move briefly to your concise witness statement – at paragraph

22 I think you answer the question I had for you earlier, which is, the 40

proposal provides the landscaping up to the crèche in its new location,

under the War Memorial Park project, so you’ve noted there that its

outside of the project, it’s just under the eastern boundary of the park,

isn’t it?

45


Page 6647


MR MILNE: Moving then to your evidence-in-chief, and just taking you

directly to your conclusion, you firstly say that, “While the bridge

structure alone has major adverse effects on heritage”, the design of the

bridge and mitigation proposals for the Basin Reserve historic area, 5

Home of Compassion Crèche and other heritage features substantially

reduce those effects on heritage.

Now were you here when I had a discussion with Mr Salmond who

made a similar statement? 10

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes I was.

MR MILNE: And, my understanding was that Mr Salmond agreed that even

with mitigation there would still be significant adverse effects on 15

heritage, do you agree?

[12.35 pm]

MS DANGERFIELD: I do, yes. 20

MR MILNE: And then I understand that under re-examination, he

characterised those as ‘moderate negative.’ Do you prefer the

terminology ‘significant adverse effects.’? Do you think that

adequately summarises the position in terms of heritage effects of this 25

project?

MS DANGERFIELD: I think in the joint witness statement, the word ‘major’

has been used. I think that the Basin Bridge structure alone has major

adverse effects and that the mitigations goes some way to reducing 30

those. They do not reduce them beyond as much, even, as moderate.

MR MILNE: And the mitigations you referred to are, firstly, the design of the

bridge. Do you agree that although the design may be of high quality,

the bridge will still remain a dominant structure within the heritage 35

context within which it sits?


MR MILNE: And that the design changes do little to address that dominance, 40

rather, they address the appearance of the bridge so far as is practicable.

MS DANGERFIELD: I think that is correct. It is not a heroic structure or a

magnificent statement of bridge rather like a suspension bridge, it is not

a big, heroic bridge. I am not an expert in bridge building, but I can see 45

Page 6648


that an alternative approach has been taken to a grand statement, and

that a slimmer, lower bridge design has been chosen.

MR MILNE: I take it you would not agree with the description of that design

as being ‘elegant’ within its context? 5

MS DANGERFIELD: Elegance is a perception. I can see that it has smooth

lines and formed concrete, and that is thought of sometimes as elegant.

MR MILNE: I think the dictionary definition of elegance uses the word 10

‘graceful.’ Would you describe this as being a graceful structure

flowing through this heritage area?

MS DANGERFIELD: I would not go so far as to say it was graceful, no.

15

MR MILNE: So just dealing with some other aspects of your evidence, you

talk about the best practise guidelines published by the New Zealand

Historic Places Trust at page 7 of your evidence, and does include this

document which is now Dangerfield 5, which is the discussion paper.

20

MS DANGERFIELD: This is a discussion paper, and the sustainable

management guidance series is a large publication of a number of

discussion papers and information sheets.

MR MILNE: And at pages - - - 25

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what are we looking at?

MR MILNE: This document, Dangerfield 5, sustainable management of

historic views. At pages 18 and 19 of that document, there is a 30

discussion around assessing the impacts on the surroundings associated

with historic heritage, is there not?


35

MR MILNE: And that is something that you would agree is important, and

indeed it is discussed also in the heritage impact assessment which was

carried out in August 2011.


MR MILNE: And then at page 19 you have discussion of other general points

to be taken into account, and at page 20 a checklist, and then at page 21

a discussion of assessing impacts on historic areas, and the Basin

Reserve itself is a historic area, is it not? 45

Page 6649


MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, that is correct.

MR MILNE: So just remind me, the actual status, what that term ‘historic

area’ comes from where? And how has it gained that status?

5

[12.40 pm]

MS DANGERFIELD: It’s a historic area, the Basin Reserve historic area is

registered historic area, registered under the Historic Places Act, and it

is a collection of interrelated heritage features within a defined area. 10

MR MILNE: And the wider heritage area, the – what I’d referred to as “the

precinct” but we use the term “area precinct” or any other term that that

is the area through from Taranaki Street, the army facilities there,

National War Memorial, Carillion, Home of Compassion Crèche, Basin 15

Reserve right through to Wellington East Girls and Government House,

that wider area hasn’t been given any formal status has it?

MS DANGERFIELD: Within that area there are a number of places that have

been given formal recognition under the Historic Places Act as historic 20

places. Within that area Taranaki Street through to, let’s say the tunnel,

there are no other historic - registered historic areas – but there are

many registered historic places and places of heritage character.

MR MILNE: You would agree, wouldn’t you, and again I think it’s reflected 25

in the Heritage Impact Assessment, that that wider area is an area of

national significance in terms of the historical heritage values of that

area.

MS DANGERFIELD: I think there are many places in it, that have national 30

significance, they are part of the city, they run from Taranaki Street

through to the tunnel, they – there is slight concentrations of places

such as around the Carillion where there’s three or four together there,

and they are stretched and are spaced through in that zone that goes

from Taranaki Street through to the tunnel. 35

I’m not sure that that whole area is a contained full heritage area from

Taranaki Street through to the tunnel, I can see that it has a lot of

heritage features within that area.

40

MR MILNE: The Heritage Impact Assessment 2011 talks about the need to

also consider the space between buildings and between sites doesn’t it?


45

Page 6650


MR MILNE: Would you not agree that, that wider area that I’ve described to

you has one of the highest if not the highest concentration of nationally

significant heritage buildings and sites within the whole of the country?

MS DANGERFIELD: I can’t confirm whether it is the highest or nearly the 5

highest, but it is certainly high. It has around where the Carillion is,

there’s several buildings there, the Basin Reserve and the crèche

alongside and Government House diagonally opposite up on the hill,

there’s definitely a high concentration through this zone. I have not

done the study to work out whether it is the highest concentration in the 10

country.

MR MILNE: But you would agree that it is a highly significant area because

of that concentration of heritage buildings and sites and the specific

Basin Reserve heritage area, all of which fall within that wider area. 15

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I think you can go as far as saying that. The

historic places around where the Carillion is, involve some of the same

stories and the relevance of the stories to do with the original use of it

as a military place, are reflected in some of the buildings that are there. 20

They then take on the cultural with the museum, they become amenity

for the country and there’s several buildings that take that role, the

Carillion, the Hall of Memories and then the museum behind.

[12.45 pm 25

Alongside that are the Police barracks and the Tasman Street wall, are

part of the early policing of the area, and then moving eastwards you

come to what was a collection originally of catholic buildings of which

there’s really very little left and the crèche and the house on the other 30

side of that valley are all that remain really of that connection with the

Catholic Church and then Government House, so you got a collection

of very important places in that area that all have different stories to

contribute, but they’re happening and in that area.

35

MR MILNE: So as well as the stories and the values of those particular

buildings or sites that you’ve referred, and we’ve also got the values of

the Basin Reserve itself and the Home of Compassion Crèche that

we’ve been talking about, doesn’t it?

40


MR MILNE: And we’ve got Government House and we’ve got the schools,

and you’d agree that both of the schools are heritage sites in their own

right? 45

Page 6651


MS DANGERFIELD: They do have heritage places there.

MR MILNE: And, overlaying all of that we have, or within that area, fairly

much central within that area, we have the Basin and as well as its

current values the cricket it’s also got historical values in terms of 5

being the Basin, that is the shipping basin, which was in the heart of

this historic area back when Wellington was formed, don’t we?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes that’s correct. The report for the Basin Reserve

discusses its early potential use as a shipping harbour, and then after 10

the earthquake occurred and the area was uplifted with public

assistance the Basin became a cricket ground, a sports ground, a

reserve and has been an important place for many people so that its

public esteem is very high and that becomes one of its values as well

over a very long period. 15

MR MILNE: So would you agree very high values for the Basin Reserve

historic area and also a high level of sensitivity in terms of sensitivity

to change?

20

MS DANGERFIELD: A high level of public esteem.

MR MILNE: And the – we have – also we had the basin, the shipping basin

and then we had subsequently the Sussex Square, and you’re familiar

with the Sussex Square being the square of streets around - - - 25


MR MILNE: - - - the Basin, and again, that sat in the heart of the area

between Government House and the other buildings that you’ve 30

referred to a long Buckle Street and indeed the crèche, the Basin sat at

the heart of that historically didn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: Well the Basin is there and these other buildings are

there also, in a landscape there are a number of heritage places. The 35

Basin Reserve appears to be a central place because of the way it sits in

its landscape, it sits in an indent in the ground and it is encircled by a

perimeter of buildings that are a mix of buildings that look towards it

and appreciate the views when they can of the Basin Reserve.

40

MR MILNE: What I’m talking about now is, Sussex Square as it then was,

that is that the, the square with the green in the middle, was part of the

historic area, stretching from the Buckle Street area through to

Government House and the schools on the other side in the Catholic

precinct, wasn’t it? 45

Page 6652


[12.50 pm]

MS DANGERFIELD: Well the Sussex Square was the shape of the Basin

Reserve at that time. It was a rectangular form of streets which held the

field in the middle. I commented before that I think the Basin Reserve 5

is one place, along with a whole lot of other places that are in this

heritage rich area. The connections between particular heritage places

are due to their proximity in the area, not all of their stories are

connected, so that, say, the Museum building may not be as connected

to the Basin Reserve as, say, the crèche, which is at a closer location to 10

the Basin Reserve.

MR MILNE: You’d agree that the context of the Basin, that is the wider

context within which it sits, is important?

15

MS DANGERFIELD: I do.

MR MILNE: And that includes the views from the Ellice Street area, from the

Catholic Church area, St Joseph’s, and Wellington East School, back

across, over the Basin Reserve and towards what is now the National 20

War Memorial Park, doesn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, some of these views are more affected than others

by the bridge.

25

MR MILNE: You’d agree that that is a particularly sensitive view shaft, if I

can use that term, that is the view from that historical area to the east

looking out over the Basin and towards the National Warm Memorial

Park?

30

MS DANGERFIELD: It’s one of the views.

MR MILNE: And you’d agree that one of the other important views is the

view from National War Memorial Park, given the importance of that

park, or its future importance, so from the National War Memorial Park 35

and the proposed extension of that park out across towards Mt Victoria,

Mt Albert and the Catholic Precinct you have referred to?

MS DANGERFIELD: It’s another important view, yes.

40

MR MILNE: And, as discussed in the Heritage Impact Assessment Report,

the entry experience to the Basin and the views of the Basin from Kent

Cambridge are other important views, aren’t they?


Page 6653


MR MILNE: As are the views out as one exists the northern entrance of the

Basin and looks down towards where the harbour would be without the

New World Supermarket?


MR MILNE: And you mentioned that the area is held in high public esteem.

By that, can I take it you would accept that the area is highly valued by

the Wellington community, or indeed, the national community?

10

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes. I believe that is so.

MR MILNE: And getting back to my question, that makes it particularly

sensitive, doesn’t it, to ensure that the things that people value are

maintained or enhanced. 15

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, that is correct.

MR MILNE: You don’t reach a conclusion, do you, as to whether the proposal

is appropriate within this environment for the purposes of Section 6? 20

MS DANGERFIELD: No, I don’t. I find that the effects are adverse and leave

the Board to make that decision.

MR MILNE: The Catholic Presbytery, how does this proposal affect that? 25

MS DANGERFIELD: This proposal I believe doesn’t affect it. I don’t believe

this proposal goes as far up the hill - - -

MR MILNE: So, we’re talking Ellice Street, are we? 30

MS DANGERFIELD: It’s Patterson Street, number 7 Patterson Street.

MR MILNE: That area will also be affected by the dominance of the structure

in that vicinity, won’t it? 35

[12.55 pm]

MS DANGERFIELD: There are views from Patterson Street down to the

Basin that will be changed. Ellice Street, in particular, has views of the 40

underside of the bridge and, in my viewing of all of the photo montages

that were produced for the project, it seemed to me that that view was

the least attractive as far as heritage or character area viewing their

setting or surroundings would be.

45

Page 6654


MR MILNE: The tunnel duplication proposal does, however, affect the

Presbytery, doesn’t it?

CHAIRPERSON: What number is the Presbytery?

5

MR MILNE: Do you know the street number of the Presbytery?

MR ...........: No. 7 Patterson Street.

MS DANGERFIELD: I said no. 7, but I’d like to just make sure that it is. 10

MR ........... : It appears at page 8 of the Heritage Impact Assessment 2011.

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, 7 Patterson Street.

15

MR MILNE: And, as recorded at paragraph 27 of the Dangerfield 1

document, the former Catholic Presbytery could be relocated to the

south end of Brougham Street, as it is unlikely the house can be

sufficiently accommodated on what will remain of its original site,

once the road has been enlarged. That is talking about tunnel 20

duplication, isn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: No, that’s talking about the approach to the tunnel.

And since that was written, the proposals have developed and taken

account of heritage of this particular house. There are changes 25

proposed for it that I am feeling comfortable with the way it is going to

be handled as far as the heritage fabric of the house is concerned. It is

not intended for relocation, but for slight modification.

MR MILNE: So, we’re approaching lunchtime, but in terms of your overall 30

approach to your evidence, at paragraph 9, you’ve said the focus of the

evidence is on the effects and mitigation of the Basin Bridge project

and you note that you’ve taken part in a consultation regarding

potential heritage effects on the Memorial Park Project site and you

referred to connection with the site and then Mt Victoria beyond the 35

project site. So, you would agree that it is important to consider the

relationship of the project to the heritage and other values of the

National War Memorial Park area?

MS DANGERFIELD: It is certainly important to consider the project with 40

respect to heritage values. That is the way I am approaching the project

and I recognise that there are other factors involved.

MR MILNE: And in paragraph 11, you say, I believe the design of the bridge

reduces the impact on the surroundings in as much as a piece of large 45

infrastructure might be able to do.

Page 6655


MS DANGERFIELD: I’ve got out Heritage Impact Assessment in front of

me, could you refer me to the document - - -

MR MILNE: No, I’m referring you to your Evidence in Chief, paragraph 11, 5

you say, don’t you, that I believe the design of the bridge reduces the

impact on the surroundings in as much as a piece of large infrastructure

might be able to do. Don’t you?


MR MILNE: And that’s a similar sort of statement as we’ve had from Mr

Salmond and from the urban designers. In other words, your satisfied

that as much as is reasonably practicable is being proposed by way of

mitigation. Is that a fair summary? 15

MS DANGERFIELD: No. I’m more reassured that the general design appears

to try to reduce the scale and avoid a large elaborate sculptural high

above the deck of the bridge approach and to have one that keeps it as

low as possible. 20

[1.00 pm]

MR MILNE: So, to get back to the point I made to you, what you are saying

is that you are satisfied that the design is a good design and that it does 25

as much as is reasonably practicable with infrastructure of this type to

fit within this context. Is that a fair summary of what you are saying?

MS DANGERFIELD: Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to be able to say that it

was a good design. But I can see that there is an approach that reduces 30

the height from what might be an Auckland Harbour Bridge. There is

no suggestion in the design that it is going to be a large structure above

the deck. And I think that is positive for the heritage values of the area.

MR MILNE: And I referred you to your conclusion and you talked about the 35

mitigation proposals, so that the design of the bridge and the mitigation

proposals, so I take it from that you’re taking the design of the bridge

as being part of the proposal and you’re talking in the second part about

the separate mitigation elements of the proposal.

40


MR MILNE: What are the particular mitigation measures that you rely on in

terms of that statement where you say, will substantially reduce the

heritage effects? 45

Page 6656


MS DANGERFIELD: The Northern Gateway is the mitigation proposals that

I rely on there.

MR MILNE: Now, you were present when I had the discussion with Mr

Salmond on that and I think we got to the point where he was of the 5

view initially, or at least in his written evidence, that the Northern

Gateway Building didn’t provide heritage mitigation, it provided

mitigation in relation to the game of cricket. Do you agree with that?

MS DANGERFIELD: It is there to mask traffic on the bridge for cricket 10

players and, by doing that, to conserve the heritage values of the

grounds, because the heritage values are concerned with cricket

playing.

MR MILNE: So you do see the Northern Gateway Building, which you 15

recommend as being 65 metres, don’t you?

MS DANGERFIELD: I prefer that length.

MR MILNE: You do see that as being mitigation of heritage values, don’t 20

you?

MS DANGERFIELD: I see it as mitigation for the effects created by the

bridge in terms of the traffic moving on the bridge and the disturbance

that it will create for cricket playing at an important level and it is that 25

that affects the heritage values. Anything that affects the heritage

values of a place, may - - -

MR MILNE: And as - - -

30

CHAIRPERSON: We’ve now gone over 5 past 1, so, would that be a

convenient place to break?

MR MILNE: I’ve just got one more question, and that’s it.

35

Ms Dangerfield, as I discussed with Mr Salmond, you would agree that

the Northern Gateway Building, particularly at 65 metres also has

adverse effects, both on amenity and heritage values because of its

dominance and its effects on the view shafts that we discussed earlier.

40

MS DANGERFIELD: I can’t agree with that. And I’d like to give a longer

answer.

MR MILNE: Well, we’ll do that after lunch. Thank you.

45

ADJOURNED [1.04 pm]

Page 6657


RESUMED [2.07 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

5

MR MILNE: Thank you. Now, Ms Dangerfield, before lunch we were

talking about the Northern Gateway Building and you were going to

explain your views, or your opinions regarding the effects of that on, I

want you to deal with the topic of dominance and the topic of visual

impact and character for those three areas of the area which they affect. 10

But before you do that, you were present when I questioned Mr

Salmond weren’t you, on the same topic?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I was. 15

MR MILNE: And I referred him to page 8 of his assessment where he noted

that a 45 metre, this is front page 8 of TR12, that a 45 metre structure

will be a significant element in the Basin Reserve landscape and in this

respect, the dominant effect of the bridge structure will be transferred 20

to a new building, although that effect may be moderated by contrast

with existing RA Vance Stand.

And then he said for 55 and 65 metre structures, the larger buildings

will have a correspondingly greater effect of dominance relative to the 25

Reserve. So, dealing with that question of dominance, do you not

accept that a 65 metre Northern Gateway Building will add to the

dominant effects of the flyover rather than reduce those effects?

MS DANGERFIELD: No, I don’t accept that. And the reasons are to do with 30

being a new building in a heritage area. I spend a lot of my time with

most of the projects that come in, looking at exactly this issue of new

building or new construction either in the area of a setting or as part of

a historic area or as actually part of the building itself.

35

It is firstly a matter of the purpose of the extra structure, the extra

building. Does it have a purpose that is in line with the purpose of the

heritage?

The location and the scale of the building are important to consider. 40

With respect to the New Gateway Building, the purpose of the building

is to mask adverse effects from the traffic that is travelling along the

elevated road and the reason for doing that as far as heritage is

concerned is that an effect which reduces the sustainability of the

grounds may well have a long term effect on the grounds itself, 45

whether they can be used or whether they are as valued.

Page 6658


[2.10 pm]

So the purpose of the building is in line with the cricket purpose in that

it’s been designed with cricket activities in mind that add to that need 5

to mask the effects of traffic on the road.

MR MILNE: Ms Dangerfield, I’m asking about dominance. Are you saying

that the purpose of the building will affect the degree to which it is

dominant and adds to the dominance or not of the flyover structure? 10

MS DANGERFIELD: What I’m saying is that the purpose of a building gives

a start in understanding dominance.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you explain why and how? How does it relate to 15

dominance, which is what you see?


CHAIRPERSON: Irrespective of what it’s used for. 20

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, the purpose gives us an understanding of what the

building is there for and a heritage building is more secure as a heritage

building, firstly if it has a purpose that is in line with the heritage of

that building. If not, you go into an area of adaptive reuse, where 25

you’re looking for a use that is consistent with the heritage values.

The use does not, of itself, create or alleviate dominance, but it gives a

head start in understanding other aspects of dominance.

30

MR BAINES: You did just say that the use doesn’t actually change

dominance?

MS DANGERFIELD: No.

35

MR BAINES: It gives you a head start to understanding it but it doesn’t

change it?

MS DANGERFIELD: No, that’s right.

40

MR BAINES: Okay.

MR MILNE: Can I refer you to paragraph 3, or page 3 of Dangerfield 1

document. So that is the letter dated 25 August 2011, paragraph 17,

where is says the flyover will affect Kent and Cambridge Terraces, 45

adding a solid structural barrier, disrupting the north to south

Page 6659


boulevards and obscuring important views and connections from the

Basin Reserve to the waterfront.

And as a preference NZHPT recommends the road is redesigned etc.

And then, so bear that in mind, and then, did you hear me, or are you 5

familiar with Mr Bowman’s assessment of document 8 para (ph 03.38)

9 which I discussed with Mr Salmond.

And where Mr Salmond said he had reviewed the conclusions, or

verified the conclusions and where Mr Bowman at page 10 talks about 10

the visual effects on the settings and within the grounds.

And concludes at 2.3 the bridge will be a large and dominating

intrusion into the historic landscape as a physical and visual obstruction

causing a dramatic change in the context to the Basin and its immediate 15

and wider environs. Do you agree with that statement, Ms

Dangerfield?

MS DANGERFIELD: I do, yes. I don’t have that document in front of me

and I have read it in the past. I’m not sure if I have it in my portfolio 20

here.

MR MILNE: Okay. What I’m asking is, so you’ve agreed with that statement

which was about the bridge. What I’m wanting to understand is how

the Northern Gateway Building reduces that dominance rather than 25

adds to it.

And when you are considering your answer, can you consider the

perspective of someone walking up Cambridge Terrace or up Kent

Terrace, looking towards the Basin Reserve and the view which they 30

would currently get versus the view they would get with a flyover and

the view that they would get with the flyover plus the 65 metre

Northern Gateway Building.

[2.15 pm] 35

MS DANGERFIELD: I think the views to and from the Basin Reserve are –

or to the Basin Reserve from the Kent/Cambridge Terrace vicinity, as

you approach there are visual effects of the bridge being there. You can

see the bridge first as you pass under it, you’re under a – I’m 40

anticipating here – under a structure that is above you that, because of

its very nature is going to feel somewhat heavy, we can try that out by

going to other bridge over pedestrian areas or road areas and see what

it’s like, there’s definite adverse effects on the exterior.

45

Page 6660


As you move into the interior, while there is no Gateway Building

there, you can see the bridge, and it is a feature in the view as you look

towards that direction, it is quite clear that it is there and it makes a

difference, and the traffic on it will make a difference we understand

from the cricketers perspective, it may also make a difference to other 5

people as well.

MR MILNE: So I think we’ve moved away from the Northern Gateway

Building, you’ve described the dominance of the – and visual impact of

the flyover structure as one comes up Kent Terrace. 10

Without a Northern Gateway Building the view under the flyover is of

the Basin Reserve, the fence, the sky above it and the hills in the

distance, and with the proposed Northern Gateway Building,

particularly at 65 metres, much of that openness of the view is lost, 15

isn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: Well the openness underneath the bridge is offered

through the ground floor being open. Above it would be useful to refer

directly to those images, but as you look above the bridge you might be 20

able to see a certain amount of the Gateway Building – I’m not sure

that you can see much of it above the bridge as you approach from

Kent/Cambridge Terrace area end.

MR MILNE: Were you here when I discussed this matter with Ms Popova 25

who carried out the visual impact assessment?

MS DANGERFIELD: No I was not here for that.

MR MILNE: And with Mr Brewer? 30

MS DANGERFIELD: No I was not here for that.

MR MILNE: And when we discussed this particular aspect with Mr Salmond,

you were here for that? 35

MS DANGERFIELD: I was here for that, yes.

MR MILNE: You are disagreeing with Mr Salmond, you’re disagreeing with

Mr Bowman, both of whom are highly experienced heritage experts as 40

to the dominance issue.

MS DANGERFIELD: I don’t believe I am. I agree that - in fact it is in my

evidence that dominance of the bridge is part of the adverse effects.

45

Page 6661


MR MILNE: Well I referred you to Mr Salmond’s TR12 before and the fact

that he said that a Northern Gateway Building at 45 metres will be

dominant and that at 55 and 65 metres it would be even more dominant,

do you not agree with that?

5

MS DANGERFIELD: No I don’t.

MR MILNE: So you are disagreeing with Mr Salmond?

MS DANGERFIELD: I don’t agree in that instance. 10

MR MILNE: Turning – well, you are familiar with – firstly, do you have any

qualifications in visual assessment and assessment of amenity values as

opposed to heritage values?

15

MS DANGERFIELD: My experience that I brought here is in heritage

assessment. Part of that and part of the guidance made available is

discussing visual effects, in particular the views to and from a heritage

place.

20

MR MILNE: If we could have up on the screen image, is 7B.55, are you

familiar with the walkthrough?

MS DANGERFIELD: I have seen the walkthrough, yes.

25

[12.20 pm

MR MILNE: That is the current view from that point on Kent Terrace, you

would agree that it is a very open view and it includes a view of the

Basin and sky above it and hills out to the right, is that right? 30


MR MILNE: If we go to 7B56 – that’s the flyover without the Northern

Gateway Building, you would agree there that there are trees and sky 35

clearly visible and the hills out to the right over the Basin Reserve are

albeit underneath the flyover structure which I think you’ve agreed is

dominating.


MR MILNE: And then we go to 7B57 with a 65 metre Northern Gateway

Building, whilst there are views underneath that building achieved by

demolishing the fence and putting the building in its place, the view of

sky and hills and the openness which would otherwise exist between 45

the fence and the base of the flyover structure is lost, isn’t it?

Page 6662


MS DANGERFIELD: Underneath the bridge it is, yes.

MR MILNE: Yes. I’m struggling, I’m struggling to understand how you can

suggest that the dominance effect of the bridge is not added to by the 5

Northern Gateway Building, particularly since that seems to be a view

you hold on your own.

MS DANGERFIELD: The scale of the dominance of the bridge is the thing

that most impacts on the view here. I hold to the view that the bridge 10

does create visual effects from its structure there. Beyond there is the

loss of the through view to sky, but the main impact of that view with

respect to the approach to the Basin Reserve is the impact of the Basin

Bridge.

15

MR MILNE: Yes. So we're agreed that the main impact is the bridge, but you

seem to be saying that the Northern Gateway Building doesn’t, in

anyway, add to the impact on views or dominance, is that what you’re

saying?

20

MS DANGERFIELD: No I don’t say that because as you approach and you

go underneath, you see the full size of the Northern Gateway Building,

you stand you see underneath, in the current sketch design you see

underneath into the grassed area, but above you see in the current

sketch design you see two floors of building above. 25

MR MILNE: I’m not going to take you through more images, but also you’d

agree that from the Ellice Street area the Northern Gateway Building is

highly visible when one looks from the Ellice Street out towards the

National War Memorial Park. 30

MS DANGERFIELD: It is certainly visible, yes.

MR MILNE: And do you not agree that it is dominant from that perspective?

35

MS DANGERFIELD: I still believe that, that it is the Basin Bridge which is

the - - -

MR MILNE: Yes I understand that.

40

MS DANGERFIELD: - - - overriding dominant structure.

MR MILNE: So are you then saying that the bridge is so dominant that the

adding another structure makes no difference to that, you’re not saying

it improves the position are you? 45

Page 6663


MS DANGERFIELD: I won’t say “it improves the position”, it certainly adds

another structure into this area and quite close to the Basin Bridge. But

what I can say, is that, from the interior the new Gateway Building

masks the visual – some of the visual effects of the bridge and the

traffic on it - - - 5

MR MILNE: Yes.

MS DANGERFIELD: - - - which is an effect that may impact on its heritage

values. 10

MR MILNE: Yes, and so it has a mitigating effect in terms of that component,

doesn’t it?


CHAIRPERSON: So what you’re really saying is that the mitigating effects

on that cricket component of the heritage aspect of the Basin Reserve

offset its dominance, is that what you’re really saying?

20

[2.25 pm]


MR MILNE: And just sticking with the concept of dominance, but from 25

inside the Reserve, leaving aside the mitigating effect and just

considering that we have a building there and forgetting about what it’s

use is, do you not agree it is the case that we are taking a situation

where we have a relative degree of high degree of openness around the

Reserve and we are adding in another enclosure. So, if we considered it 30

as a clock, we are adding in another five, ten or fifteen minutes to that

clock in terms of the enclosure of the Reserve by buildings, aren’t we?

MS DANGERFIELD: That is happening. And it is a change for a heritage

place that quite often occurs. Not specifically, the closing in of the 35

clock, but a change to a heritage place with new building. Being a

historic place, doesn’t mean that it has to stay the same for ever. For

some buildings, it’s nice to continue them and have them as virtually

museum exhibits in the open, but a lot of my work is geared to advising

on how to undertake changes and giving advice on proposed changes 40

so that the heritage values can still be retained and yet the client, the

owner, the architect for the client can achieve their development

wishes.

MR MILNE: Yes. We’re talking about dominance. Do you agree that from 45

within the Basin Reserve, whilst the proposed 65 metre building will

Page 6664


have mitigating benefits in terms of cricket it will add to the dominance

of the ground by another building, in this case, a new building within

that setting.

MS DANGERFIELD: I don’t necessarily see that the addition of a building 5

equates to dominance. And that is where the design of the building will

come in to play. The location of its bulk, where it’s situated and the

scale of the building, and then the design of the building. And that’s

why I’m relying to some extent on the Heritage Management Plan to

take that further. New buildings in a heritage area are possible. I have 10

had a number built and I am comfortable with the outcome, looking

back on them afterwards. It is entirely possible.

MR MILNE: Do you accept that the building will increase the sense of

enclosure from within the grounds. 15

MS DANGERFIELD: By that 65 metres or 45 or 55, yes.

MR MILNE: So, moving away from that and back to the Heritage Impact

Assessment, Dangerfield 2 and the letter which accompanied that. You 20

would agree that that report, which is some 59 pages long, is a

reasonably comprehensive heritage assessment of the potential effects

of the proposal as it then was.

MS DANGERFIELD: Certainly as it then was as far as we could go with the 25

information that we had at that time and we were looking at a Taranaki

Street to Evans Bay proposal at that stage.

MR MILNE: Yes, I’ll come back to the detail. You’d agree that it was a

reasonably comprehensive report and that it is 59 pages long and 30

contrasts to your rather brief evidence?

MS DANGERFIELD: It is certainly a comprehensive as we could make our

advice at the time.

35

MR MILNE: There was no reference in your evidence to this report, was

there?

MS DANGERFIELD: No.

40

MR MILNE: And you’re signed up to the Code of Conduct for expert

witnesses and you know the importance of explaining the material on

which you base your conclusions, don’t you?


Page 6665


MR MILNE: And the Joint Witness Statement has a section in it at page 9 on

identification of published information and primary data relied on and

at 24 identify any material that experts agree is primary data.

[2.30 pm] 5

Do you not consider that the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Impact

Assessment was primary data that should have been disclosed and

discussed?

10

MS DANGERFIELD: It was our advice to NZTA at the time.

MR MILNE: It’s a publicly available document, isn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: It is on the file, yes. 15

MR MILNE: But it wasn’t referred to and it wasn’t provided to parties until

last week, was it?

MS DANGERFIELD: It wasn’t attached to any of my evidence. 20

MR MILNE: And it was made available to me as a result of my request last

week via legal counsel, wasn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: It was. It’s been on the file. 25

MR MILNE: Yes. Working our way through that, as you have discussed, the

report at page 5 indicates the proposed work includes the construction

of a second tunnel of the existing Mt Victoria tunnel, so at that stage

the proposal was being considered by the Trust in a holistic way, that is 30

including both parts of the proposal, the tunnel and the Basin Reserve

flyover.

MS DANGERFIELD: That is what we understood. Yes.

35

MR MILNE: And at page 8 of that report it talks about the different areas,

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4. And Part 1 around the Basin Reserve

includes the Home of Compassion crèche, Kent and Cambridge

Terraces, amongst other things. Page 11 under paragraph 8 talks about

the physical significance of the Basin Reserve historic area and 40

paragraph 9 the high cultural significance of the Basin Reserve, don’t

they?


45

Page 6666


MR MILNE: And paragraph 10, built heritage, the Basin Reserve is a historic

area which encompasses all the features necessary for it to operate as a

recreational ground with an emphasis on cricket. The significance of

the area is not confined to the playing surface and includes the

buildings and the space between them, where people have gathered and 5

used the grounds and includes the land to the very edge of the site and

the fence that borders the Basin.

And then it goes on at 11, the curtilage of the Basin Reserve goes

further and includes the immediate area around the outside of the 10

reserve where the surrounding buildings and roads have defined the

street scape. You would agree that it is important to consider not only

the reserve, but that curtilage area?


MR MILNE: And at paragraph 13, Options A and B are therefore major

roading changes in close vicinity to the Basin and are intended to take

more traffic more easily past the Basin, etc, and in the long term with

effects on heritage values by noise, change in amenity, vibration, bulk 20

and visual intrusion. That is still the case with Option A, isn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: This was at an early stage of our discussions and it was

raising these matters that we thought may be issues. All of these issues

may affect heritage values. In the subsequent years, some of these 25

items have been looked at and discussed by others who are qualified in

that respect.

MR MILNE: And at paragraphs 21 and 22 there is a discussion of visual

effects and bulk. And it says there, the design of the flyover and its 30

structure is streamlined and minimalist and it is recognised that a

slender and sleek approach to design reduces the bulk of the high level

road and its effects, notwithstanding this there are adverse effects on

the Basin Reserve related to the visual effects and bulk. That is still the

case, isn’t it? 35

MS DANGERFIELD: That is still the case.

MR MILNE: And at 22, the bulk of the new road will affect the views to and

from the Basin Reserve. The new flyover will be visible from the Basin 40

Reserve from almost every part of it. The proposed Northern Gateway

Building is designed to address the effects from cricketers, but there

will still be some views of the flyover for patrons and other users,

won’t there?

45

MS DANGERFIELD: I expect that to be the case. Yes.

Page 6667


[2.35 pm]

MR MILNE: And it says, while the trees, buildings and the bank will mask

out portions of the road and the road will sit below the general building 5

height, the road will be new, busy and within the field of vision of the

Basin Reserve patrons and will have a constant stream of vehicles

within vision. Again, that is still the case, even with the Northern

Gateway Building, although the building would reduce that effect. Is

that a fair summary? 10

MS DANGERFIELD: That is correct.

MR MILNE: And are you familiar with the evidence regarding the views of

the flyover and vehicles on the flyover between the trees to the east of 15

the Northern Gateway Building?

MS DANGERFIELD: I didn’t hear evidence at the hearing, but I am aware

that the road is visible through the trees, there’s gaps between the trees,

which would not be addressed. 20

MR MILNE: And at paragraph 23, the imposition of the bulk of the new road

will be most closely felt at the north side of the Basin, especially near

the gates where patrons enter. That is still the case isn’t? That’s the area

of most effect in terms of the dominance of the structure, isn’t it? 25

MS DANGERFIELD: On the Basin certainly. It is most closely felt on the

north side. There are other areas where the structure of the bridge

would also be felt strongly.

30

MR MILNE: The north side is important, isn’t it, because that’s the northern

entrance with the Dempster Gate and patrons and other users of the

Basin Reserve approaching up Kent and Cambridge Terraces, that is

their view of the Basin, that is their approach and entry into the Basin

isn’t it? 35

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, it’s one of two entries that are very important.

MR MILNE: And it is also an exit from the Basin and that is important, too.

40

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, one of more than two exits, but one of two

important exits.

MR MILNE: And it goes on to say, the proximity of a high level two lane

road will impose overhead bulk and shade to the area in front of the 45

northern entrance, which has always been open and light, it will

Page 6668


negatively affect the way in which the Basin Reserve connects to the

city. All of that is still correct, isn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: Can you direct me to those words?

5

MR MILNE: Paragraph 23, the second sentence.

CHAIRPERSON: A lot of these have already been put to the witness by Mr

Bennion. I don’t want reiteration.

10

MR MILNE: I apologise for that, Sir. I’ve not taken sufficient attention.

MS DANGERFIELD: If I was rewriting that after more drawings had been

produced of the bridge and the new Gateway Building, I might have

phrased it differently. Because I think the Northern Gateway Building 15

in part covers from the interior a view of the bridge and so they sort of

double up and certainly the bridge stops a view and the Northern

Gateway, in part, stops a little bit more of a view underneath, but they,

in part, double up.

20

MR MILNE: The issues of overhead bulk and shade still exist, don’t they?

They haven’t been reduced by the proposal since you wrote this?

MS DANGERFIELD: I think to an extent that the design of the bridge has

been fine-tuned, there have been changes. 25

MR MILNE: There have been no changes in terms of the shading effects of

the bridge, have there?

MS DANGERFIELD: I think there have been minor changes in the shading 30

as the design has been refined.

MR MILNE: If anything, it has increased as a result of adding on the

pedestrian cycleway, hasn’t it? The width has increased as a result of

that change? Or was that already in here when you prepared this report? 35

MS DANGERFIELD: I think, from memory, the possibility of a cycleway

was already contemplated. Again, we had limited information about

how it would be, but I think the design of the bridge itself, although the

general carriageway width seemed to be reasonably firm, the height 40

above ground, from memory, had some change in the intervening time.

The design of the bridge at that stage, we understood from the

designers and NZTA was as close as they could get it but there would

be some fine tuning to dimensions.

45

Page 6669


[2.40 pm]

MR MILNE: So to get back to my question, the overhead bulk and the shade

issues have not decreased since when your report was prepared, or this

report was prepared in August 2011, have they? 5

MS DANGERFIELD: I can’t tell to the finest detail, I understand that there

have been some fine tuning in the design that has halted it, I can’t tell

whether it’s an increase or decrease, but in general terms, for the most

part, for the greater bulk and the greater shade they are – it is very 10

much the same as it was when we first looked at this report.

MR MILNE: And the last point, the bridge will – the proposal will still

negatively affect the way in which the Basin Reserve connects to the

city won’t it, nothing has changed in terms of that? 15

MS DANGERFIELD: Um - - -

MR MILNE: Or if something has changed could you please tell us what has

changed. 20

MS DANGERFIELD: We know more about the design of the Northern

Gateway Building than we did at this time, and I think, because of the

design of it and the intentions to keep it open at ground level, there is a

bit more of a connection from the interior of the Basin to the road and 25

the - and what happens northwards than I had to expected.

MR MILNE: Well this paragraph 23 which I referred to you is talking about

the bridge not the Northern Gateway Building which is discussed

below. 30

MS DANGERFIELD: Right.

MR MILNE: There had been no improvements in terms of the bridge which

would in any way reduce its effects in terms of how it connects to the 35

city?

MS DANGERFIELD: Not the bridge no.

MR MILNE: And the Northern Gateway Building is discussed in the next 40

section and I think Mr Bennion has taken you through that.


MR MILNE: At page 14 there’s a useful discussion, isn’t there, of a 45

landscape setting of the project area.

Page 6670



MR MILNE: And there is some criticism at paragraph 31 or some comment,

that the current approach applied by NZTA is to treat each heritage 5

structure site or area in isolation, this undermines the significance of

setting and the effect this has on heritage significance, significant

groupings of buildings and character in what is a unique and iconic part

of Wellington, that was the view then.

10

Since then, the project has been further disaggregated, if you like, and

is now being considered in isolation from the tunnel duplication project

isn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: It has – we're looking at a distinct deception. 15

MR MILNE: Yes.

MS DANGERFIELD: I should just mention that my – I had a built heritage

contribution to this report and in moving into landscape and setting 20

these sections were written by the planner for the Trust at the time.

MR MILNE: So you don’t take issue with what’s in the report that was

prepared by the Trust at that time do you?

25

MS DANGERFIELD: That’s right, yes.

MR MILNE: And 32 the report says that “the Agency’s approach to existing

historic heritage will see places disconnected from the urban cultural

landscape” and I won’t take you through the rest of that, but all of that 30

still those comments are still relevant aren’t they, at least so far as they

relate to this part of the project as opposed to tunnel duplication,

they’re still relevant aren’t they?

MS DANGERFIELD: These were the views of our planner at the time and - - 35

-

MR MILNE: Yes.

MS DANGERFIELD: - - - it contributed to this report. 40

MR MILNE: Yes. And this report is an official report of the New Zealand

Historic Places Trust and a response back to the Agency - - -

MS DANGERFIELD: That’s correct. 45

Page 6671


MR MILNE: - - - on the proposals.


MR MILNE: And I think Mr Bennion may have referred you to paragraph 37 5

and then at 39 the significance of Kent and Cambridge Terraces as a

key boulevard has been recognised in a draft Wellington City Council

2040 spatial structural plan, the plan also makes mention of the opening

up the Basin Reserve in a section of the strategy referred to in a TRO

(PH 4.48) focus area, the proposal for an above grade option for the 10

road is inconsistent with the vision for the 2040 strategy currently

being developed by Wellington City Council and out for public

consultation, is that still the case?

[2.45 pm] 15

MS DANGERFIELD: Our planner made this comment. I am unable to help

you with that one.

MR MILNE: But you would agree that the – it’s not just the Basin that’s 20

important, but it’s, it’s context and it’s connection, the Basin historical

connection down Kent/Cambridge, down the old canal, out to the sea

and so therefore, that Kent/Cambridge area is important isn’t it?

MS DANGERFIELD: The Kent Terrace/Cambridge Terrace and the Adelaide 25

Road they are approaches to the Basin Reserve, and heritage values

consider and include approaches to heritage places and views that can

be seen on those approaches, so as you’re arriving at a heritage place

the way it appears as you arrive at it is important.

30

MR MILNE: Yes. But not only that, as discussed at paragraph 40, the

importance of Kent/Cambridge is because it links the Basin historically

by way of a canal, and in contemporary terms it links the Basin through

to the city and indeed is also part of the ceremonial route coming up to

Government House, you’d agreed that all of those are important things, 35

aren’t they?

MS DANGERFIELD: Well I agree that it is on a significant route. I’m unsure

about the ceremonial nature.

40

MR MILNE: And at 40 it says because the view shaft and road alignment is

of a historical significance connecting the Basin Reserve to Wellington

Harbour, the above grade options for flyovers in the area will have

severe negative effects on Kent and Cambridge Terrace.

45

Page 6672


There is nothing in the proposal which has changed which would give

rise to a change to that conclusion, is there?

MS DANGERFIELD: I’m surmising what our planning advisor meant there,

my area being - - - 5

MR MILNE: Well I don’t want you - - -

MS DANGERFIELD: - - - heritage - - -

10

MR MILNE: - - - to surmise - - -

MS DANGERFIELD: No.

MR MILNE: - - - you can’t do that. What I want is, the question I’ve put to 15

you is, that was the view then of the Trust as expressed in this report,

there has – the Northern Gateway Building and the design

improvements haven’t done anything in terms of reducing the effects

which are discussed there in relation to Kent and Cambridge Terrace

have they? 20

MS DANGERFIELD: Well I think you’re right that the design hasn’t

changed, these were the views at the time the design has not – of the

actual bridge in its environment of Kent and Cambridge Terrace hasn’t

significantly changed in the plans. 25

MR MILNE: And at least from the perspective of some of the experts the

Board has heard from, including Mr Salmond, the Northern Gateway

Building will add to those effects and the larger it is the greater will be

that additive effect, that’s where we’ve reached isn’t it? 30

MS DANGERFIELD: That’s not consistent with my views.

MR MILNE: Yes, we understand that.

35

And then Option A and the proposed mitigation of a new spectator

stand will also accentuate the separation of the Basin Reserve from its

landscape context, so at that point the view was that this proposed

additional building which is now called the Northern Gateway

Building, would accentuate separate of the reserve from its landscape 40

context, isn’t that still the case?

MS DANGERFIELD: We have a greater idea of what the new spectator stand

will be. At the time it was an idea floated in the media and at the time

we wrote this report we felt the need to address because it had come up 45

in the newspapers. But we had no idea of what the design would be.

Page 6673


MR MILNE: Yes, and it is now that we know what the design would be or at

least some level – or at least we know the bulk of the structure and

some elements of the design, is there anything in that design which will

have avoided it having that affect that is separation of the Basin 5

Reserve from its landscape context – and before you answer that,

consider the three images which I had up on the screen earlier.

MS DANGERFIELD: Could you repeat the question please

10

MR MILNE: Well, the proposition that was put at paragraph 41 was that the

new building would accentuate separation of the Basin Reserve from its

landscape context. Thinking of someone coming up Kent and

Cambridge Terrace and the views that I put to you earlier on.

15

[2.50 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: She’s already answered that question. She said that the view

of the gates has an ameliorating effect. She said it about 15 times.

20

MR MILNE: Very well, sir. And at 44 the view shafts and road alignments of

Adelaide Road, Rugby and Dufferin Street, they’re also of historical

significance, you would agree with that?

MS DANGERFIELD: I do. 25

MR MILNE: And option A in the proposed mitigation would increase the

disconnection between Basin Reserve and the historical landscape

concept. That is still the case isn't it?

30

MS DANGERFIELD: The key there is option A in the proposed mitigation.

It is option A that is not explained here in detail. What we collectively

understand by option A is still the case and the proposed mitigation of a

new spectator stand is now understood by the drawings that we have

available. It wasn’t at the time and all sorts of things could have been 35

imagined.

MR MILNE: Right. Well just taking you to the conclusion at 51. Option A

will have significant negative effects on the heritage values of the

Basin Reserve including noise, change and amenity, visual intrusion, 40

imposition of bulk on the Basin as a whole, in passing on the

immediate area around the north entrance.

The conclusion then was significant negative effects. Is that still your

view? 45

Page 6674


MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, it is.

MR MILNE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Milne. Any re-examination? 5

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS KRUMDIECK [2.51 pm]

MS KRUMDIECK: Yes, I have a few questions, sir.

10

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MS KRUMDIECK: Ms Dangerfield, I would just like to talk with you about

the heritage impact assessment and the letter. As my learned friends

have discussed this with you at length, and those are both dating to 15

August 2011. It might be worth hearing from you briefly, what you

consider the context in which these documents were produced.

MS DANGERFIELD: We had been in discussion with NZTA for some time

trying to assist with identification of heritage that might be impacted 20

upon by the road between, in this case, Taranaki Street through to

Evans Bay.

At a particular point, options A and B were presented and at that point

we collected all of the heritage structures, open space buildings, 25

everything that we could find, Maori heritage, archaeology into one

document to help NZTA understand the heritage landscape, if you like,

from our point of view.

MS KRUMDIECK: And did these documents specifically relate to the Basin 30

Bridge project?

MS DANGERFIELD: Well, the Basin Bridge Project as it’s called now as

this consent is about, is some time away from this. At the time we

were looking at two options that had been presented to us in plan form, 35

so we just had a road location on a map, no elevations or understanding

of what it would be, what it would look like, terribly much.

And those two options had been reduced from a number of others

before it had been discussed. 40

MS KRUMDIECK: And has there been substantial design development since

this time? Since 2011?

MS DANGERFIELD: Since this, there has been a huge amount of design 45

development. They were very sketchy designs when we were putting

Page 6675


this report together. We had no indication of what the spectator stand

might be, we had very limited indication of how the bridge would look,

how high it would be off the ground, you know, if there were baffles

along the side of it or what sort of landscaping there would be.

5

There was a lot of information that subsequently became available as

the design developed.

MS KRUMDIECK: Mr Bennion referred to some of the points in this

document as the New Zealand Historic Places Trust position. Is this 10

how you would describe statements in this document?

MS DANGERFIELD: Well it was certainly our advice at the time. We were

trying to be helpful in presenting areas for NZTA to consider. We

certainly saw adverse effects in some areas but we were also 15

highlighting concerns we had that they may be able to address in

subsequent design development.

MS KRUMDIECK: Now, have you provided expert evidence before in a

Hearing of this nature or in an Environment Court here? 20

MS DANGERFIELD: I have provided Environment Court evidence before.

MS KRUMDIECK: And would it normally be appropriate for you to attach a

Heritage Impact Assessment that was merely consultation and advice 25

two years’ previous to the Hearing?

MS DANGERFIELD: In the past I have usually presented my evidence

without Heritage Assessment attachments. I have summarised or

paraphrased the assessments into my advice in the evidence. 30

MS KRUMDIECK: Thank you. I’d just like to turn now to some questions

my learned friend, Mr Bennion, asked here in regard to the fence. So

this was also in the Heritage Impact Assessment.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, with regard to what, sorry?

MS KRUMDIECK: The fence and the gate so Mr Bennion questioned the

statement in the Heritage Impact Assessment which was at paragraph 8,

that the Trust considered the fence and the gate were significant. 40

If the CS Dempster Gate is moved adjacent to the Reid Gate, in your

opinion how, if at all, would this change the way in which the fence

currently encloses the ground?

45

MS DANGERFIELD: Repeat that please, sorry.

Page 6676


MS KRUMDIECK: Essentially, if the CS Dempster Gate is relocated, what

impact would this have on the fence enclosing the ground?

MS DANGERFIELD: Right. An important thing for the fence is that it’s an 5

enclosure and it goes around an area, and if the CS Dempster Gate gets

shifted, if that happens, then there is, and the building gets built, there

is a loss of some of that fence.

But what the design of the building may do is continue that enclosure 10

of the grounds in its place.

MS KRUMDIECK: Now, Mr Bennion also pointed out initial concerns

expressed by NZHPT and you’ve also just been discussing it with Mr

Milne, that the Northern Gateway Building could sever the visual 15

connection between the Basin and Kent and Cambridge. Can you tell

us how the design could possibly mitigate this?

MS DANGERFIELD: The design of the Northern Gateway Building. The

design of the Northern Gateway, the third area of interest in new 20

structures alongside heritage or within heritage is the design of the

building. How it presents to the outside, especially when it’s in a

historic area where the windows are, what the building does with the

rest of the historic area.

25

So what is important here is that the green is the reason the historic area

is in place. It’s where the cricket gets played, so it’s important that the

building addresses, that’s an architectural term, it’s important that the

building looks out onto the green and makes – and it makes the

connection with the green, and also makes the connection between 30

other people who might be at the ground, so other people in other

stands and on the hills.

[3.00 pm]

35

And so you wouldn’t want blank walls or solid walls, you would want

rooms where you could see out and other people could see that you are

seeing out, as a way of giving that intimacy of people all around the

Basin Reserve, all looking towards what’s happening in the centre,

which is the sort of key thing of an international cricket game. 40

Does that cover it?

MS KRUMDIECK: Just turning briefly to the topic of crèche which you’ve

discussed as well, the documents which we have, particularly I think it 45

Page 6677


is AD4, you have mentioned that moving the crèche was a matter of

last resort.

Could you tell us what you understand by the concept of “a last resort”,

or what you mean by that statement? 5

MS DANGERFIELD: “Last resort”, it’s a last option, it’s when the short term

or medium term or long term outcome for a building or a place is not

tenable in heritage terms. A last resort might imply a rushed saving of a

building, but that is generally not the case, it’s a long and well 10

considered assessment of effects on a place.

And in this particular case, with the crèche, because we’ve got a couple

of relocations in mind here, with the crèche, the prospect of it being

demolished or set in an island with substantial roads either side, meant 15

that its long term outlook as a heritage place (as a Category 1 historic

place) would be diminished.

I see projects on – over 500 places in a year and I have done so for the

last eight years and my experience with those is that, the best outcome 20

for a heritage building is made up of a lot of factors and the context is

one, so that when the context of a building is completely changed and

altered, it makes such a big difference to its heritage values that it starts

to devalue it as a historic place, so a workers cottage in the middle of a

city is quite a different building if it gets shifted to the seaside. It’s the 25

change in the context which means that the heritage values become

diminished.

In this case, the crèche was presented with two options, which were

very hard for it to maintain its heritage values, and then you’re looking 30

at “what can you do to retain as much as possible”, and relocation

presented itself, then the decision is to be made about where should it

be relocated to maximise its heritage values.

On top of that, NZTA then offered or it was – actually I can’t say that it 35

was NZTA that offered – but it came about through the empowering

legislation that there was to be significant work done, the building

would be strengthened, it would be water tight, it would be shifted with

very firm foundations, it would be presented in a way that it could be

used in a strong dry condition, which is one of the best outcomes that 40

you could have, and the lost here, is that it had to shift 30 metres – 20

metres to do that.

Page 6678


[3.05 pm]

MS KRUMDIECK: I just have a couple of more questions, now my learned

friend Mr Milne discussed with you the label that different experts have

attributed to effects, so particularly the adverse effects which you 5

considered were major, and I was wondering if you could explain for

us what effect you consider any mitigation would have in terms of

reducing those major adverse effects.

MS DANGERFIELD: To do - - - 10

MS KRUMDIECK: The whole project.

MS DANGERFIELD: - - - with the whole project? Mitigation.

15

MS KRUMDIECK: Yes, how do you see the mitigation reducing the adverse

effects as you said are to be major?

MS DANGERFIELD: As far as the mitigation of the Basin Bridge on the

Basin Reserve, I see the Northern Gateway Building masking the Basin 20

Bridge.

Having put a Northern Gateway Building into position, the CS

Dempster Gate then become – it becomes a difficult context and the

relocation of those are considered in the same way as I’ve just 25

mentioned. For the crèche, the context of the surrounds for the gates

becomes a matter of deliberation.

The work done to the crèche, although it’s outside of this, it is outside

of this, but as we look at the shifting of the crèche, the work to be done 30

to it made a significant difference in the long term outcome for the

crèche.

MS KRUMDIECK: Okay. Just one final question, a number of documents

have been put in front of us today and the process of consultation with 35

NZHT and NZTAs been discussed, do you see the process of

consultation an evolution that has occurred in this case normal for a

project of this size or standard, unusual?

MS DANGERFIELD: This particular project involves, as you see from the 40

heritage impact assessment, this involves a lot of historic places. This is

by far the largest I have been involved in and consultation from clients,

the building owners, stakeholders, comes in a variety of ways, from

little consultation at the start to lots of consultation at the start.

45

Page 6679


In this case, NZTA have consulted a lot right from the start – it’s not

very good English but you know what I mean.

MS KRUMDIECK: Thank you, Ms Dangerfield, I have no more questions.

5

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Ms Krumdieck.

Mr Baines?

MR BAINES: Right, thank you, Ms Dangerfield, I’ve got a few questions, a 10

couple of very specific ones which I go to first and then a couple of

more general ones.

In your concise summary, at paragraph 12 on page 3, I just want to ask

you about the statement you made here - I want to try and make sure I 15

understand it – you say, “In my opinion the design of a new Northern

Gateway structure at the north end of the Basin Reserve grounds is an

acceptable mitigation to address adverse effects of the bridge on the

Basin Reserve historic area. The reserve management plan that

addresses the heritage values of the grounds, its functionality and 20

integration would assist in the design process.”

I guess what I want to ask you about is, we don’t actually have such

reserve management plan at the moment - - -

25

MS DANGERFIELD: No.

MR BAINES: - - - yet, so I’m wondering how it’s possible, if you like, to

come to the conclusion that that’s - a structure at that north end of the

Basin is acceptable mitigation – I see that it mitigates an effect, as 30

we’ve discussed at length, the effect of moving traffic and the

distraction and so on, but from a heritage perspective, if we haven’t got

a Heritage Management Plan or a Reserve Management Plan, how do

we know that it’s acceptable?

35

[3.10 pm]

MS DANGERFIELD: That is a good question. We have, I mean the

documents that we do have that look at the heritage of the Basin

Reserve are a starting point. So the registration which indicates the 40

values of the Basin Reserve and its features give us a starting point in

making that assessment.

For the most part there are no, most of the projects I look at, there are

no starting documents that give us a say-so, as to whether something is 45

appropriate or not. And we’re having to look at our best practice

Page 6680


guidance that comes through a variety of sources to make that

assessment.

So, we’re looking at the effects of new structure, the proximity of

buildings, the spaces that are important, the other features around the 5

ground, are they affected? Are the views affected? So it’s what I’m

involved in a lot. We’re trying to work out what the effects are and is it

reasonable, given the very little information.

MR BAINES: No, no, it seems to be you are describing how you would go 10

about assessing the effects of a new building somewhere in a heritage

setting and how you would go about determining the acceptability of

that location.

My question is really as much to do with, can we actually make a 15

comment about the acceptability if we don’t have a Reserve

Management Plan that says here is the development, this is how we see

this area developing?

MS DANGERFIELD: I think a Reserve Management Plan would definitely 20

assist and can we make an assessment? I’m relying to some extent on

the Heritage Management Plan that will be done to take the design of

the building further and confirm that.

At the moment there's a sketch design that gives us a broad width, a 25

broad height and sort of a generalised sort of volume of it. And that’s

as much as we can see and determine.

MR BAINES: I suppose I’m thinking that, I mean we heard from the Basin

Reserve Trust people last week and some of the cricket experts. And, 30

while they certainly accepted the value of the proposed Northern

Gateway Building as a mitigating measure, which provided other

benefits as well, should the bridge go ahead, it seemed to me they were

also saying that they hadn’t necessarily decided in the absence of a

bridge that that’s where they would put another building. 35

MS DANGERFIELD: No, that's fair enough.

MR BENNION: And I guess that’s what I’m just trying to understand in

terms of the acceptability of something that it’s not, we don’t know for 40

sure yet, well we haven’t made a decision yet, so we don’t know

whether in fact if the Northern Gateway Building as such is going to be

required.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just follow up on that for a second? Ms Wedde or 45

Mr Cameron, it was originally intended that there would be an outlying

Page 6681


plan provision for this building. I think that’s changed now hasn’t it?

The condition’s now, they’ve deleted that.

MR CAMERON: Yes.

5

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS WEDDE: I think part of the reason for that is the agreement between the

Transport Agency and the City Council and Basin Reserve Trust and

that agreement requires that there’s agreement on the detailed design 10

prior to any construction of the Northern Gateway Building. So that’s

part of the rationale I understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, it’s just a factor, yes. Thank you.

15

MR BAINES: Another little detail and you can probably answer it very

easily, but when you were, I think, answering a question from either Mr

Bennion or Mr Milne. And you were talking about the design of the

bridge and you observed that this bridge doesn’t have a whole lot of

fancy superstructure, you know, it doesn’t have anything above the 20

bridge. Do you remember that?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes I do.

MR BAINES: And you made the observation, you said that's positive for the 25

heritage of the area. And I just wanted to be a little bit, I just wanted to

ask you bluntly, do you actually mean that’s a positive outcome or it’s

less adverse than it would otherwise be?

MS DANGERFIELD: Less adverse than it would otherwise be, yes. 30

MR BAINES: No, I’m not trying to nit-pick, I’m just, because it seems to me

that saying something’s a, you know, a positive heritage outcome,

taken literally would mean something a little different from that.

35

[3.15 pm]

MS DANGERFIELD: It adds a positive amount to the negative.

MR BAINES: It’s a positive design feature. I mean you wouldn’t want 40

something, what you’re saying is you actually agree with the designers’

notion that they didn’t want an iconic bridge, they wanted something

that.

MS DANGERFIELD: That's correct. It doesn’t result in a positive total. 45

Page 6682


MR BAINES: Okay, and you also had some discussion with Mr Bennion

about the idea, and with Mr Milne, about the idea that when, if you

have the bridge and you have the Northern Gateway Building, then

this, the Northern Gateway Building as proposed, one of the aspects of

it that we have been told about quite clearly is that there’s this 5

possibility for the openness at ground level.

Just setting aside the bridge and the project completely, would you,

from a heritage perspective, and this being an important heritage area,

would you actually prefer to see the Basin Reserve more open at 10

ground level in any case? I mean, would that be consistent with good

heritage management?

MS DANGERFIELD: That would be something I think that would come out

in the, in a Reserve Management Plan or a Master Plan for the Basin 15

because, historically, it hasn’t been open for a very long time.

Historically, it’s been fairly closed so that as you go around it, you can't

actually see.

But there might be other reasons why you would have it more open that 20

promote cricket or promote the Basin Reserve and those changes that

do that are not necessarily bad for heritage.

MR BAINES: Right, okay, thank you. No, I think that answers my question

on that. I just now want to turn now to another matter and it’s this. In 25

your concise summary and in your discussion you talked a lot about the

importance of the cricket activities here and how that's very closely

linked in with the heritage of the place.

But how will you factor in non-cricket values or non-cricket stories to 30

your heritage assessment? Because there are non-cricket uses of this

place aren’t there?

MS DANGERFIELD: There are, yes.

35

MR BAINES: And I venture to suggest they have some, in aggregate, they’re

quite substantial non-cricket uses.

MS DANGERFIELD: They are, they are.

40

MR BAINES: So can you give us a sense of how that gets factored in and

whether those values are similarly at risk from a development like this?

MS DANGERFIELD: Right, the other activities that happen, in the past they

have been all sorts of sports. They have been activities of people 45

getting together or passing through, or using the place for walking

Page 6683


through or exercising. There have been exhibitions of one sort or

another here.

There have been events of a different type other than sport, like the

Opera in the Basin event and all of those add to a very solid, first 5

importance as a cricket place. So, I think they certainly do have

relevance, yes.

MR BAINES: Do you give priority to cricket in terms of the uses of the place

do you think from a heritage perspective? 10

MS DANGERFIELD: I think from a heritage perspective, the use of it as a

cricket venue is very, very strong, yes.

MR BAINES: All right, because I know this, you actually, at one stage you 15

pointed to the example of the new nets over there in the corner and I

think we’d been told that prior to the nets being there, that was actually

a little playground, it was a local playground.

MS DANGERFIELD: That’s correct, yes. 20

MR BAINES: So, clearly there’s been a, if you like, a trade-off between the

loss of a playground and an introduction of nets.

MS DANGERFIELD: That's right, yes. 25

MR BAINES: So that’s a. Would that have been an important change?

MS DANGERFIELD: The playground was there to, you know, for events, to

occupy youngsters and the decision was made to take those away and 30

put what were considered much needed nets. And I did not oppose

that. I noticed the difference, yes, but I did not oppose them.

MR BAINES: Right, yes, because we’ve certainly heard from some people

who have said, you know, they remember either growing up here or 35

living here and their children would go and play in the playground.

Okay, no that’s I think, is a useful comment.

I’ve got one more question. And it’s to do with this. You probably, if

you’ve spent any time waiting here listening to others, you will have 40

heard about the grade option.


Page 6684


[3.20 pm]

MR BAINES: Right. And that’s been debated at length in terms of its

transport perspective, now I don’t want to ask you about the transport

perspective, I’ll like to ask you – setting aside transportation – if an at-5

grade option was feasible, how would that option be likely to rate from

a heritage point of view?

MS DANGERFIELD: It’s the closest to what the grounds and it surrounds

have originally been, so in heritage terms it’s going to be a better 10

option from that point of view. It’s the closest to the layout as a

heritage place and its setting, and it means that the mitigations that the

flow on, the Northern Gateway Building, the CS Dempster Gates, all of

that is reconsidered.

15

MR BAINES: Right, okay – no I understand and I put that with a caveat that,

I’m not asking you to think about whether it’s feasible from a traffic

point of view, but if you do accept – if we were to accept that that was

a possibility then you’ve answered me very clearly.

20

Thank you very much for your answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Baines. Mr Collins, is that right?

MR COLLINS: I don’t - - - 25

CHAIRPERSON: Will you be long?

MR COLLINS: Yes, there’s a few – five questions, I’m easy, carry on.

30

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR COLLINS: Let’s go. Right. Hi, can I ask you first, one of your replies to

Ms Krumdieck was about the crèche and you mentioned the advantage,

the benefit you saw in it being strengthened and repaired and so on, and 35

I must say I’m currently strengthening a heritage building in

Christchurch and I’m aware of the cost of doing that sort of thing.

That seems to be a bit similar to what Mr Salmond said about the gates,

because he noted that in the process of moving, the Dempster Gate 40

would be repaired and restored, are those quite important

considerations in your view, do those in effect compensate for moving

those buildings, given that the HPTs official stance is “it’s a last

resort”, is it sufficient to say, because they’re going to be upgraded and

repaired that compensates? 45

Page 6685


MS DANGERFIELD: It’s not the total compensation. Once relocation

becomes the last resort that is taken, I think key to it is where the

relocation is. And in the relocations that I’ve been involved, I’ve had

the benefit of being able to look back and reassess afterwards “how was

it”, you know “what happened”. 5

And the relocation in a site that is still relevant to the building is

extremely important. If it gets relocated to a relevant site and then is

not repaired, it’s not as good as then “being repaired”, the “being

repaired” is a very good extra. 10

And I have a – I mean, a very good example that I think of, each time I

see it, is the flagpole at old St Paul’s in Wellington here, for a range of

reasons, it became impossible to keep the flagpole where it was and the

decision was made to shift it from directly in front of the church at 15

footpath edge, to along a bit at footpath edge. It was not the same

position it had been for over a hundred years, but now looking back at

it, I can say that the heritage values are maintained, we know it’s

shifted, we know there’s a change, but the heritage values and the

repairs done at the time means that its long term outcome is going to be 20

good.

MR COLLINS: And the weight you give to the fact that a building is going to

be upgraded and repaired and so on, would depend on whether it’s at

risk of being just let go, wouldn’t it? 25


MR COLLINS: So in the case of the crèche, it’s in public ownership, the

Dempster Gates are in public ownership, wouldn’t that suggest that 30

they’re not in such a great likelihood of being left to just decay the way

some private buildings are – some private heritage buildings are?

[3.25 pm]

35

MS DANGERFIELD: That is possibly the case.

MR COLLINS: Okay, now the gates and the fence appear to have been

designed together, is that right, the columns on the gates echo the same

decoration. 40

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I think they were built at the same time.

MR COLLINS: Similar time, yes. Does that increase their significance

together, because in some places we’ve seen and discussed separately, 45

Page 6686


there’s the gates and then there’s the fence and, yet, they do seem to be

closely aligned in design terms, the shape.

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I think they are, and that’s why I’m positive

about, if a relocation is necessary, then a relocation besides the Reid 5

Gates seems to me to be appropriate, and I use that in its –

“appropriate” being in is simple term – as I thought about relocation,

when it was first discussed, I thought about possible options around the

grounds, as being lesser alternatives because the function of going in

and out and marking a point on the perimeter, seemed to be an 10

important factor.

MR COLLINS: Yes. Well that’s the only possibilities aren’t they, that the

north and south, you couldn’t possibly go east or west or anywhere

else, there’s no other possibility, if they’re going to be used as entrance 15

gates.

MS DANGERFIELD: That’s, that’s – it was considered that they might

somehow figure on one of the alternative sites, but having this

particular suggestion, certainly seemed positive to me and it far 20

outweighed some relocation elsewhere in the grounds to be a

refreshment stand or a small office or some other function.

MR COLLINS: Yes, clearly. But still better where they are?

25

MS DANGERFIELD: Still better where they are that’s right.

MR COLLINS: Yes, that’s if possible. Okay, moving on now, you’re

summary statement at paragraph 3 says you’ve assessed the proposal

according to principles of the Historic Places Trust Act, the ICOMOS 30

charter and best practice principles, you don’ mention there but I guess

you also considered this document we’ve had today – was it – what we

call, which is the discussion paper number 2 about assessing effects on

historic environment.

35

Was that part of your consideration or are familiar with this?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, that – the best practice principles are part of the

sustainable management of historic heritages series and that forms part

of it too. 40

MR COLLINS: Yes. Just so you didn’t mention it there, but I think you’d

normally refer to and, it seems to have been used by Mr Bowman,

although he referred to it as another way, he called it something else –

and his report seems to summarise some of the pages in here, saying its 45

word for word in places but it’s just parts of these ones.

Page 6687



MR COLLINS: So it seems to be a document that is used, it’s – well what is

the status of it, it’s – it says its “to prove by the Board to help public 5

distribution …” and this is a – second page – “… and comments and

feedback are invited”, so is it sort of a draft work in progress or – this is

2007 though isn’t it, so it’s - - -

MS DANGERFIELD: A number of the documents in the sustainable 10

management series have been revised since. I’m not entirely sure of the

current feedback on this particular paper, but there’s an intention to

continue to keep them up to date, yes.

MR COLLINS: So we should treat this as being HPTs sort of current position 15

on those - - -


MR COLLINS: - - - so just use them and that’s how you approach them. 20

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, yes.

MR COLLINS: Fine. You mentioned in that paragraph that you’ve looked at

the Historic Places Trust Act principles, so I guess that’s the purpose is, 25

isn’t it, the purposes of the Act was set out in that.


MR COLLINS: But the purposes as I recall, are mostly about promoting 30

heritage, and I was surprised in your evidence you didn’t discuss and

promote the heritage places and the structures that had been registered

by the Trust, but you don’t discuss those, and when I first read it I

thought perhaps this is – there’s going to be another document you’re

going to refer to, because you seem to mostly discuss mitigation, do 35

you want to comment on that, why didn’t you feel the need to at least

mention the merits of those items that the Trust has listed – has

registered.

[3.30 pm] 40

MS DANGERFIELD: I certainly could have done so. The Basin Reserve is a

collection of interrelated heritage places and the two registered items

are the - - -

45

MR COLLINS: Pavilion and the - - -

Page 6688


MS DANGERFIELD: Pavilion and the Wakefield - - -

MR COLLINS: Yes, the Wakefield.

5

MS DANGERFIELD: - - - Memorial.

MR COLLINS: Yes.

MS DANGERFIELD: And there are a series of other structures that are old, 10

there’s the grounds man shed, there’s all of these other - - -

MR COLLINS: Yes, I know all the detail.


MR COLLINS: What I’m asking is, why you didn’t feel a need – well put it

another way, when you discussed this in your office, you know, you

presumably colleagues talk about it and you sort of come to a view on

what sort of evidence you should present, did you sort of come to a 20

view that, there’s no need to tell us about those things that the Trust has

decided are important to enough to register and values and why they

were registered and all those things?

MS DANGERFIELD: I certainly could have done so. They were collected 25

together as part of the historic area registration - - -

MR COLLINS: Yes, but it wouldn’t hard to do would it?

MS DANGERFIELD: No. 30

MR COLLINS: No, that’s fine, I’m thinking it again it’s quite apart from the

assessment that had already been done is, what’s been called

“Dangerfield 2”, the registration documents must include a lot of detail

about those things and that would be quite easy to do. 35

MS DANGERFIELD: They do, yes.

MR COLLINS: That’s all right, and I just again I sorted wondered why

you’ve made the evidence you have, is that partly because the, the 40

Trust’s submission says that the Trust supports these applications,

provided certain things are done?


45

Page 6689


MR COLLINS: So did that sort of lead you to the view that your assessment

to us should be basically explaining that or - - -

MS DANGERFIELD: That’s right, yes.

5

MR COLLINS: Were you involved in that in drafting the submission or was

that a privacy matter?

MS DANGERFIELD: I was involved in drafting the submission, yes.

10

MR COLLINS: Right. Why would the Trust want to support this when your

evidence is, and in fact it would be better, for heritage terms to not have

it, be better to not move the gates, to have a, as you replied to Mr

Baines, have a ground level option that was feasible in traffic terms, is

that sort of a desire for the Trust to be – or is this the usual way you do 15

things now, you’re trying to be helpful and, you know, is that the way it

works?

MS DANGERFIELD: We certainly try and be helpful and pragmatic,

presented with an option, we're looking for the best outcome for the 20

buildings or the places or the heritage that is part of, you know, the

subject site.

The support was based on a certain number of conditions that were felt

to be – to allow that support to occur. 25

MR COLLINS: And that would have been sort of partly negotiated that that,

this is – that you – the Trust would support the proposals if these

conditions were met.

30


MR COLLINS: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Collins. 35

MR McMAHON: Good afternoon, Ms Dangerfield, I won’t traverse material

that’s been questioned already, a lot of your evidence focuses on

mitigation and that’s just an observation, you’ve made a comment that

you’re heartened by the fact that if this proposal was approved that 40

there are conditions in place that require further assessment and

certification of design.


45

Page 6690


MR McMAHON: I just wondered if you’re in a – are you in a position to

point out to the Board what you consider to be the key conditions in

that respect?

MS DANGERFIELD: We could go to those - - - 5

MR McMAHON: Well maybe that’s something you could have a think about

over afternoon tea because there’s a couple of questions I have and I

rather know that you are familiar with the condition framework before

putting those questions to you. 10

MS DANGERFIELD: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

15

MR CAMERON: Just in light of Mr Collins’ question regarding the form of

Ms Dangerfield’s evidence and the context of an assessment process, it

may be helpful to ask or for someone to – well, Mr – perhaps Mr

Collins to follow up on that and to ascertain to what extent this witness

was assisted by the Bowman/Salmond assessment process, of course 20

which has been well in advanced of this.

[3.35 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well you can do that, you’re entitled to ask a question 25

of clarification, arising from a Board question.

MR CAMERON: I didn’t want to interrupt unfairly.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, but you do it at the end when we're all finished. 30

MR CAMERON: As your Honour pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And we’ll adjourn – before we adjourn, have we got

the procedures memorandum for tomorrow sorted? 35

MR CAMERON: We have a memorandum which has been prepared and I

understood that had been given to you earlier in the day.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I’ve seen that, yes. 40

MR CAMERON: And have we got it sorted?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

45

Page 6691


MR CAMERON: I think we’ve taken it as far as we can, and I doubt that

we're going to make any further progress – although - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Well perhaps before we commence any cross-examination

on any topic, we should have a meeting in chambers about it tomorrow 5

morning before we start.

MR CAMERON: Yes, sir, I certainly am not - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well - - - 10

MR CAMERON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

15

MR CAMERON: And that’s the tone – I just thought it was important to

know that - - -

CHAIRPERSON: So if the parties haven’t reached agreement on some matters

the Board will make – we will make a direction, one way or the other. 20

MR CAMERON: If it assists, the additional topics over above those which

relate to the statutory and non-statutory documents, are the topics

which are ones which may require some form of direction - - -

25

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well - - -

MR CAMERON: - - - but they’re not topics for example that NZTA would be

pursuing.

30

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well, all of them are ones that we think are planning

matters except for one, and that is the feasibility issue. We can – as I

said in - - -

MR CAMERON: The alternatives issue. 35

CHAIRPERSON: The alternatives issues – thinking of the feasibility reports.

MR CAMERON: Yes.

40

CHAIRPERSON: My mind’s going - - -

MR CAMERON: No, sir, it’s, it’s - - -

CHAIRPERSON: - - - almost becoming like an engineer. 45

Page 6692


MR CAMERON: So don’t become like a planner, sir, that would be a

disaster.

MR McMAHON: So that’s items 2 to 5 on the list, that we think are relevant.

5

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CAMERON: You think they are - - -

MR McMAHON: They are relevant. 10

CHAIRPERSON: They are relevant planning matters, yes.

MR CAMERON: They are relevant, yes.

15

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR McMAHON: Under the heading of “Other General Matters”.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 20

MR CAMERON: Yes, so effectively what you’re saying is that, the issue of

alternatives should be put to one side.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well I mean we’ve had so much evidence on 25

alternatives, where the planners haven’t all been there.

MR CAMERON: I understand - - -

CHAIRPERSON: And it’s been moved on so far that an evaluation on that by 30

anyone is not going to assist us, and because of our timing constraints

we will make a ruling unless we have good reason advanced to the

contrary that it should not be - - -

MR CAMERON: I think that will probably assist everybody. 35

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CAMERON: And in fact that will be - - -

40

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CAMERON: Sorry, no Mr Bennion is saying, Mr Milne will want to be

heard on that.

45

Page 6693


CHAIRPERSON: Well, he can be heard on it, yes, but he’ll have to have

good reason.

MR CAMERON: Yes. For my part I have to say, I had thought that the Board

may not be assisted greatly by the other topics either, given that - - - 5

CHAIRPERSON: Well they are planning matters, yes.

MR CAMERON: They are, although I have to say for my part I’m likely to be

seeking to rely on the direction made at the commencement of the 10

hearing regarding the Browne/Dunn rule.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

MR CAMERON: In other words I may just seek to rely on the evidence as 15

filed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that’s fine, that’s fine.

MR CAMERON: And I – so I’m flagging now - - - 20

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well yes you may well find that by asking questions is

not going to be of assistance to you, so - - -

MR CAMERON: Well, sir, I just thought if I flagged that now - - - 25

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CAMERON: - - - that was an issue which – that’s a matter which other

parties might want to consider, and indeed it might assist the Board as 30

well.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I’m not – yes, I’m not saying that, if you don’t ask the

questions – the planners on any of those issues you lose your right to

address them in your closing, no. 35

MR CAMERON: I thought though it was best to flag the basis on which I

would be proceeding on that basis, if indeed - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that’s quite understandable. 40

MR CAMERON: Yes, thank you, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

45

REGISTRAR: Please stand for members of the Board.

Page 6694


ADJOURNED [3.39 pm]

RESUMED [4.33 pm]

5

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now.

MR McMAHON: I have some questions for Ms Dangerfield. Ms Dangerfield,

have you had a chance to read for yourself that suite of conditions?

10

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I have.

MR McMAHON: Good. So my question to you was, firstly in a general

sense, what gives you particular confidence that there’s a regime in

place that’s robust enough to deal with your view that further design of 15

the Gateway Building and the bridge for that matter can further

mitigate any effects of the proposal?

MS DANGERFIELD: I would expect the heritage management plan to

include the effects on the Basin Reserve and that it takes the full size of 20

the Basin Reserve and its component parts into account in their final

design of the new Gateway Building and the transfer if it occurs of the

C S Dempster Gate to the other side and associated changes with that.

[4.35 pm] 25

So I would anticipate that the heritage management plan should cover

anticipated effects on the Basin Reserve as a whole and the gates in

particular.

30

MR McMAHON: Does it concern you that that there’s not even a draft of the

heritage management plan at this point or is that to be expected?

MS DANGERFIELD: I have had experience with another or another two and

if they are written perhaps in part by a heritage professional who has 35

experience in writing heritage management plans the experience I’ve

had so far is positive. There is also the feedback that I have given

along the way which has been taken on board well.

MR McMAHON: I note that condition DC34 does require the requiring 40

authority to prepare the plan in consultation with the Basin Reserve

Trust and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, but ultimately the

certification of that plan is reserved to the Wellington City Council I

think.

45

Page 6695


MS DANGERFIELD: Yes I would like to think that advice that we give in

the process is taken into account.

MR McMAHON: Okay. You don’t have a concern with the Wellington City

Council being the ultimate determination body in respect to that plan? 5

MS DANGERFIELD: I have a general concern. I have no basis at the

moment for thinking that it will not be a positive result.

MR McMAHON: I guess what I’m wanting to know is whether you think 10

there’s sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure that the

Wellington City if this project is approved makes the right decision on

the heritage management plan.

MS DANGERFIELD: I would like to think that Heritage New Zealand would 15

be in a position to support the proposed heritage management plan and

support or approve would be a good development to further ensure that

heritage effects are kept to a minimum.

MR McMAHON: Okay, changing the topic slightly, in the early days of this 20

hearing we heard a lot about the urban design and landscape framework

or urban and landscape design framework which underpins a future

urban design and landscape plan. And I think that’s covered by

condition 31.

25

I may have missed it, but I haven’t seen any link between urban design

framework and the plan and the heritage management plan. Assuming

I’m right and I may be wrong, would such a link be important in your

view or are the two plans something that should be prepared

separately? 30

MS DANGERFIELD: Certainly a link is worthwhile. I would expect to have

input into the heritage management plan and be present in case needed

for discussions on the urban and landscape design plan. I’m

anticipating that our planner will have a greater input into that. 35

MR McMAHON: Okay. And just finally the Northern Gateway Building

which you identify as the major mitigation of this project is something

that requires certification from the Wellington City Council as opposed

to an outline think process. I note that the building has to be designed 40

by appropriately qualified persons appointed after consultation with the

Council and the Historic Places Trust. What confidence would the

Board have on the appointment of qualified persons and who will

decide that?

45

MS DANGERFIELD: That is an area of concern.

Page 6696


[4.40 pm]

MR McMAHON: What would happen if there couldn’t be agreement between

the parties as to what constitutes an appropriately qualified person. I 5

couldn’t see any resolution condition in here and again I may have

missed it as to what happens where the parties can’t agree on who the

panel should be comprised by.

MS DANGERFIELD: That is an area of concern, yes. 10

MR McMAHON: I mean maybe these are questions for the Trust’s planner,

but I just wanted to get a feeling for your confidence in the condition

framework.

15

MS DANGERFIELD: I’m relying on the heritage management plan and the

good faith in putting that into effect and having a plan that does look at

the heritage and minimises the effects and maximises the advantages to

that heritage. I am relying on that and it is an area of uncertainty.

20

MR McMAHON: Thank you. And just finally. Whilst there’s been a lot of

discussion around the Northern Gateway Building as a mitigation

matter I don’t see any discussion by you, in fact any of the heritage

witnesses, on the building under the bridge that’s proposed. Can the

Board take it from that that building under the bridge is neutral in terms 25

of heritage values or is it positive or negative, or don’t you have a view

on it?

MS DANGERFIELD: I briefly passed by that building indicating that it does

reflect an original outline of the built form at that corner, although it 30

does not actually follow that built form edge. It reminisces if you like

of what that built form might be. It does not in my view impact greatly

on the Basin Reserve. If it had followed the form of the other buildings

that were there beforehand it would more closely align with the original

shape of buildings at that point. 35

MR McMAHON: Thank you. That’s all the questions I have for you.

Through you, sir, could I just make a comment on – this is a comment

for Ms Wedde and Mr Cameron. Your planners helpfully provided a 40

functional diagram of the relationship between the management plans

and I think I requested that early on. What would be particularly useful

is to see a flow chart as to how these plans might develop in time in

relation to each other.

45

Page 6697


For example what’s the timing difference between production of the

urban and landscape design plan and the heritage management plan?

Do they occur sequentially or at the same time. The vetoes and flows

and that sort of thing. That would be I think a very good way for the

Board to get their head around what’s covered in a multitude of 5

conditions in here. And I - - -

MR CAMERON: That would be a good topic, yes, sir.

MR McMAHON: And it might be of assistance for the last session on 10

conditions.

MR CAMERON: I appreciate that.

CHAIRPERSON: It’s also very important too because most of them have a 20 15

day time period and if they all come out on the same day no one’s got

time to consider them.

MR McMAHON: Yes, thank you, sir.

20

MR CAMERON: Perhaps that could be something that could also be

considered tomorrow in a preliminary way. Just in terms of how best

to approach that issue for the following hot tubbing exercise.

MR McMAHON: Yes, well, there’s two issues there. One is how does it 25

work as contemplated in the conditions? And secondly, is that the best

way?

CHAIRPERSON: Probably Mr Daysh would be the person to – because he’s

got the intimate knowledge of it. 30

MR CAMERON: That’s very helpful, thank you. I did have a question to

follow up with this witness on this topic. Is this a suitable time?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes it is, because I have no questions. 35

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CAMERON [4.44 pm]

MR CAMERON: Have you had an opportunity to have a look at condition 35,

Ms Dangerfield? 40

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I have. I’ll just turn to it.

MR BAINES: 35?

45

Page 6698


MR CAMERON: 35. That condition sets out the purpose of the management

plan and what it must include or address.


5

[4.45 pm]

MR CAMERON: Are you satisfied that the purpose is sufficient from your

perspective? In other words, that the matters that you are concerned to

ensure are addressed within such a document, having regard to this 10

particular project and these particular circumstances, are you satisfied

that this purpose is sufficient? And if you would like to review that

overnight, please say so and we can come back to it, because it is an

important point and I don’t want this to be one that is glossed over.

15

MS DANGERFIELD: I looked at this condition in depth at the time and I was

confident that, were all of these matters to be looked at, everything in

my view, concerning historic built heritage should be covered.

MR CAMERON: Given that answer and your use of should, would you like 20

overnight to consider whether there is anything else that you would like

to consider for inclusion. I appreciate that this has been a document that

has been the subject of extensive consultation. But I don’t want this to

be, as I said, a matter that is glossed over. The Board needs to have

confidence that this process is going to work and address the relevant 25

matters. Would that assist you, or are you content to leave it as is?

MS DANGERFIELD: I’m content to leave it as it is. I realise I have added

that it would be good to be a little firmer in the support approval

process, if that was possible. But I feel confident that all of the work 30

that could be done in all of the reports and plans and in the preparation,

summarise down into very few words here, would be what you would

expect and what I would be looking for. When looked at it in

preparation, sometime ago, there was nothing I could find that I could

add. 35

MR CAMERON: That’s very helpful, thank you. And I will discuss with your

counsel and planner as well to the extent that that might assist some

form of condition relevant to the review and effectively unlocking any

disagreement and if you have any concern about that can you please 40

consider that as well, please.

I have one further question, and that was one that I raised just

immediately before we adjourned for afternoon tea, and that was, in the

preparation of your evidence did you have regard to the assessment of 45

heritage values that had been carried out by Mr Bowman and peer

Page 6699


reviewed by Mr Salmond, and did you consider that to be sufficient

from the point of view of informing the Board of the heritage values of

this location or project area?

MS DANGERFIELD: Yes, I certainly thought that there was a lot of 5

information that was available through the documents that both Mr

Salmond and Mr Bowman had prepared and, although I’m not sure that

I’ve seen all of the reports that either of them might have prepared, the

information about the places was reasonably comprehensive and Mr

Bowman had sourced our documents to provide it. 10

MR CAMERON: Yes. I think that answers the question. Thank you. I have no

further matters arising.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that and I have no questions Ms Dangerfield. 15

MS DANGERFIELD: Excellent.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your assistance.

20

MS DANGERFIELD: Thanks very much.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [4.48 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: Now we have Mr Kelly. Sorry, Mr Kelly, you have been 25

waiting patiently in the wings. We’ll get Mr Kelly sworn and it’s not

worthwhile starting cross examination. Perhaps he can read his

summary for us, because we haven’t read that. So, Mr Bennion, if you

could get him sworn in before we start cross examination.

30

Mr Kelly, we’ve just had a conference about tomorrow. We were going

to have tomorrow and Thursday for the contemporaneous witnessing of

the planners.

[4.50 pm] 35

We’ve been having a discussion in Chambers about that and it may be

that rather than have them conference by way of evidence, they would

conference on their own with some clear directions as to what is

required of them and that may take possibly an hour in the morning. 40

MR CAMERON: It will probably take the morning.

DISCUSSON

45

Page 6700


<MICHAEL KELLY, sworn [4.51 pm]

<EXAMINATION BY MR BENNION [4.51 pm]

MR BENNION: Your full name is Michael Peter Kelly. 5

MR KELLY: It is.

MR BENNION: And you’re a Historian Heritage Consultant, been working

on heritage conservation since 1983. 10

MR KELLY: Yes.

MR BENNION: You produced two Statements of Evidence, one dated 16

December 2013 that is 52 pages and then a shorter rebuttal statement 15

21 January 2014 for the Board.

MR KELLY: Yes.

MR BENNION: And you took part in Expert Witness Conferencing on 20

heritage and signed the Statement of 10 December 2013 on heritage.

And you’ve got a short summary for the Board.

MR KELLY: I have.

25

MR BENNION: In your summary I think you make some small amendments

to your evidence.

MR KELLY: Yes.

30

MR BENNION: Would you just do that as you read it through. But, you

confirm that this is your evidence for the Board to the best of your

knowledge and ability.

MR KELLY: Yes. 35

MR BENNION: Now, if you could just read your summary. Thank you.

MR KELLY: Can I ask a question? Do you want me to read this out to the

end and then progress after that? 40

CHAIRPERSON: We’ll adjourn tonight and then you’ll come back for cross

examination tomorrow.

MR BENNION: Thank you. 45

Page 6701


MR KELLY: 1. History and Significance. The history of the Basin Reserve in

its environs is well chronicled and understood at least in general terms.

It is covered thoroughly in Don Neely and Joseph Romanos, The Basin,

and described at some length in my evidence in the Heritage New

Zealand Historic Area Registration, my chapter in the book, 5

Heartlands, and many other sources. Gaps in the understanding of the

history of places outside the ground have been filled by research

undertaken in association with the background work on the Basin

Bridge Proposal or as part of this hearing.

10

The significance of the area is properly acknowledged by all parties.

The focus of attention is appropriately on the Basin Reserve, despite

the fact that the bridge itself is outside the grounds. The expert

witnesses and heritage all agree that the Basin Reserve is an area of

very great significance. It is, quite simply, one of Wellington’s most 15

historic places. There are many other places in the immediate vicinity

that are also of considerable heritage value and these have been

appropriately identified and acknowledged, including the National War

Memorial, Mt Cook Police Station, Army General Headquarters, Home

of Compassion Crèche, Government House, Gates and Gatehouse, Mt 20

Victoria character area and various houses bordering Ellice, Dufferin,

Rugby and Sussex Streets.

Amongst the many heritage values attached to this area, there are, I

think, three specific aspects of the Basin Reserve that are worthy of 25

special mention.

[4.55 pm]

The first of these is the Basin Reserve’s importance to cricket. The 30

sport was the ground’s raison d'être and 146 years later it is still the

ground’s preeminent use. Cricket is now more synonymous with the

ground than ever because the many other uses the ground was put to

have over time disappeared or relocated to other venues. The Basin

Reserve itself is also probably better known now than at any time in its 35

history because of the international expansion of the game of cricket

and the role of television and the internet in broadcasting and

promoting the game. The Basin Reserve is a ground where

extraordinary events have taken place. Yet another occurred at the

ground just a couple of months ago when Brendon McCullum produced 40

what was arguably the greatest single batting feat by a New Zealander

in test cricket history.

Secondly, the Basin Reserve has had a remarkable history. Even

excluding cricket. It was the city’s de facto events centre in the days 45

before other options, such as internal venues and other grounds,

Page 6702


eventually took over many of its functions. Most major events of

consequence took place in the Basin Reserve. In that sense the ground

is truly special. No other place in the city can come close to matching

its combined longevity and extraordinary social value.

5

Finally, the ground occupies a remarkable site. It may seem a strange

observation to make, given the decades of debate about the challenges

it poses it poses to traffic movement. However, it is one of the grounds

major virtues.

10

Every city that has developed organically, whether from a plan or not,

has quirks or unusual features that grow out of the juncture between the

cultural and the natural. In this case, the genesis was an opportunistic

attempt by the city’s early cricketers to acquire the Basin Reserve after

the 1855 earthquake ended its unlikely future as an inner harbour. That 15

the city’s expansion south and east and the later construction of the Mt

Victoria tunnel right next door put the Basin Reserve amidst major

traffic spines is clearly also an historical reality.

The grounds location and the opportunities and impositions that flow 20

from that are part of its heritage value. And despite, being at nearly the

lowest point in the immediate landscape, the ground remains in a

largely open and unencumbered setting. A Basin, if you like, that

allows it to be seen as the landmark it has always been.

25

Impacts on Heritage Values.

There was near unanimity amongst the heritage experts that the bridge

will have a major adverse effect on heritage values. However, there is

not complete agreement on the wider effects of the proposal. My 30

submission notes various impacts on heritage values, some more

significant than others.

One factor is inescapable, there is no gain for heritage arising out of

this proposal. There are specific impacts on heritage fabric. 35

Within the ground there is a loss of part of the north side of the 1917

fence, the removal and relocation of the CS Dempster Gate and the

consequent rearrangement of the entrance at the southern end.

40

Outside the ground, among other visitors, there is the loss of 28 Ellice

Street and the relocation of the Home of Compassion Crèche, although

the latter is outside the purview of this hearing. Can I just say that I

understand, of course, that it has come up in discussions in the hearing,

so I may have that wrong, and I am happy to be corrected. 45

Page 6703


On a bigger scale, is the bid to mitigate the impact of the bridge

through what is otherwise known as the Northern Gateway Building.

This structure is proposed to screen activities on the ground from the

bridge and traffic. If the structure is to be 65 metres long, which is what

I understand Cricket Wellington Basin Reserve Trust want, then this 5

will be a major intrusion of the ground and will greatly increase the

overall effects of the bridge proposal.

As I state in my submission, this may, or may not, offer sufficient

mitigation to allow the playing of first class and international cricket, 10

but cricket is but one heritage matter to be addressed, albeit an

important one.

The introduction of this huge structure will block views out of the

ground at the north east and greatly alter the nature and ambience of the 15

ground. It is my submission that any assessment of the proposal should

examine the combined impact on heritage values of the bridge in the

mitigation and that impact is extensive.

The principal matters are the adverse effects of the bridge and 20

mitigation on the historical setting of the ground including views close

by and from a variety of vantage points. The change to the immediate

environment, including introduction of two very large structures into an

area where historically there have been very few structures of any size,

and the interruption of traditional patterns of movement and interaction 25

in the landscape.

Of particular importance in this regard are the square around the Basin

Reserve and the Canal Reserve. Both of these important and historic

townscape elements will be greatly undermined by the construction of 30

the bridge. There remains an opportunity to return the active edge of

the square, but this will never be possible if the bridge is built.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to the scale and nature of the

proposal. In my opinion, the construction of the bridge alongside the 35

northern end of the Basin Reserve and the screen cum pavilion inside

the ground, will be on such a scale and so unsympathetically located

that heritage values will be significantly and adversely affected.

[5.00 pm] 40

That was mentioned before but I would like to draw the Board’s

attention to an error in my Evidence in Chief and Rebuttal Evidence. I

stated in paragraph 10.10 of my Evidence in Chief that the objectives

of the Basin Reserve Trust included in its Deed dated 2005, not 2002, 45

as I stated, an objective to preserve and enhance the significant and

Page 6704


recognised heritage value of the Basin Reserve. This objective comes

from the Trust’s annual statement of intent, not the Deed, which

contains only five objectives, none of which refer to heritage. I

repeated this error in paragraph 4.3 of my Rebuttal Evidence.

5

In my partial defence, the Statement of Intent, the most recent one

being 2013/14 described the nine objectives as being taken from the

Trust Deed, as agreed between the City Council and the Basin Reserve

Trust.

10

The matter of clarification that was mentioned before was regards the

expert conferencing Joint Witness Statement. I wish to draw the

Board’s attention to a minor clarification of item 14 in the above

document. It reads, a new Northern Gateway structure within the

grounds would be acceptable depending on its location and design and 15

in the context of the preparation of a Master Plan and Reserve

Management Plan that addresses the heritage issues of the ground. My

understanding of the conferencing agreement is that the use of the term,

Northern Gateway in this context is not meant to imply that a structure

with this name and on the location currently under discussion would be 20

acceptable. Rather it refers to a general building in a location within the

boundaries of the Basin Reserve.

CHAIRPERSON: Any supplementary questions?

25

MR BENNION: Mr Kelly, just one thing before you leave. I note in paragraph

1.4 of your Evidence in Chief you say, my professional involvement in

the Basin Reserve began in 1999, when I prepared the Historic Area

Registration Proposal for the Basin Reserve for the New Zealand

Historic Places Trust. So, that’s at 1.4 of your evidence. So, you are the 30

person who went and assessed the ground for the purposes of the

Historic Places Trust registration and does that mean you are the

author, or you put together the document that’s attached to Ms

Rickard’s evidence?

35

MR KELLY: I prepared the proposal. The proposal was edited and modified

by expert staff at the Trust. So I would have to check between the two

versions to know precisely how much change was effected by Trust

staff, but the final document is a combination of the input of various

people. 40

MR BENNION: Thank you, Sir, that’s all I have.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. Thank you very much, Mr Kelly. At

least we have got that little bit out of the way and we’ve got you in the 45

Page 6705


witness stand, so you’re just about out of the starting blocks. We’ll

have to call you back tomorrow morning for that, I’m sorry.

MR KELLY: That’s okay.

5

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Could someone make sure Mr Foot is advised

that he may be needed tomorrow sometime, because I think he is

expecting not to be called until next week sometime? And we’ll

adjourn until half past nine tomorrow morning.

10

MATTER ADJOURNED AT 5.03 PM UNTIL

WEDNESDAY, 14 MAY 2014

Date post:	15-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	8 times
Download:	0 times

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF INQUIRY Basin Bridge ... · transcript of proceedings board of...

Documents