Andy Foster (right) is a damned fine Wellington City councillor who got my 1 in the last local body elections. He was the top polling candidate in my local (Onslow-Western) ward and the highest-polling candidate of all those who stood for the council in any ward. That’s a fair indication of the regard voters have for him.
It’s therefore somewhat of a surprise to see not just some fellow councillors demanding his resignation over his lodging an appeal against the council decision to put an indoor sports centre right on the congested roundabout at Cobham Drive, but also for Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce boss Charles Finny to be joining in.
Mayor Kerry Prendergast has described Andy Foster’s move as the “ultimate betrayal” that will cost ratepayers dearly. Charles Finny in kneejerk support thunders: “I am fully behind the mayor on this issue and also support the removal of Cr Foster from the council posts he occupies. I agree also that there is an issue over whether Cr Foster should resign from the council.”
This is extraordinary stuff from the chief executive of the chamber of commerce. I know he is one of the mayor’s most ardent cheerleaders but he is not the kingmaker in this city, despite seemingly thinking he is. Do his members support him grandstanding on their behalf in such a way?
The car-crazy councillor John Morrison, who trailed Andy Foster by 1000 votes in my ward and for whom I did not vote, said: “It is a total betrayal and abuse of the councillors, the mayor, our officers and of the democratic process. He should resign immediately.”
Ahem. Elected city councillors are responsible to the residents of the city, not to the chamber of commerce or fellow councillors. Andy Foster is one of the most measured, conscientious councillors we have. Unlike some of his colleagues, who have made a career from attacking just about anything the council does, he is not a grandstander. If he is so concerned about something the council is planning that he will go to the Environment Court over it, then his concerns need listening to, not being shouted down with undemocratic calls for his sacking.
What Andy Foster is concerned about is the decision to build a 12-court indoor sports centre in Cobham Park on busy Cobham Drive at the Troy St roundabout by the airport, rather than adjacent to the “Westpac” stadium by the railway station in the city.
The latter stadium is a fantastic success, not least because of its location that makes it a breeze to travel to by train and bus from everywhere in the region. Siting the indoor centre there would give it the same advantages. Siting it on Cobham Drive will force virtually everyone who uses it to go by car, massively increasing the traffic congestion not just by the roundabout but all through the city, the Basin Reserve, Mt Victoria tunnel and Ruahine St as people drive from all over the region to get to the centre.
The council considered the central site but concluded it would be cheaper to build the indoor centre by Cobham Drive. Independent commissioners Stuart Kinnear, Noreen Barton, Brian Hasell approved the plan in a decision released on January 14 and it is this decision that Andy Foster is taking to court.
He was one of the submitters to the hearing and opposed siting the centre there on the grounds that “the transport access arrangements are contrary to the principles of sustainable management and the Centre would have a traffic impact that would be more than minor as it was located in an area of serious traffic congestion.”
The third-ranked Onslow-Western ward councillor, Jo Coughlan, for whom I plead guilty to voting because I didn’t realise till afterwards that she was an opponent of public transport like John Morrison, said: “If he wants to avoid collective responsibility, then he should resign and pursue his case in the Environment Court as a member of the public.”
This statement shows an appalling lack of understanding of the local body democratic process. “Collective responsibility” is the philosophy that underpins the Westminster parliamentary system of cabinet government, not local bodies. Councils do not operate a cabinet system. Councillors are not bound to support council decisions they disagree with.
Said Andy Foster to the mayor’s other cheerleader, the Dominion Post: “All I want is for councillors to look at it in an open way without any spin being put on it. The media at the moment is taking the line that Kerry says it’s right so it must be right. My plea to you … is to focus on the issue and not whether I get beaten up or not.”
It seems reasonable to me.
- Footnote: Eye of the Fish has an article on this controversy plus pictures and a map of the Cobham Drive plan. Author Maximus writes: “… when your head of Urban Design and Transport committees publicly comes out against it, shouldn’t you at least recognise there is something deeply wrong with the site? Actually, it seems that everyone agrees that the site is flawed, but most seem to be saying, ‘We know its not perfect, but it’s the best of a bad bunch’.”
- Update February 11: In response to my article above, Charles Finny has posted a lengthy account of his and the chamber’s views on this issue.
9 Comments
February 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm
it appears even more an affront as Cr Foster was actually a participant in the consent process, in that he made a private submission during the hearing. Anyone doing so has the right of appeal.
Shrill hysteria disguised as local patriotic jingoism
February 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Thanks for the intelligent comment, Poneke. The first thing that came to mind for me reading this news was the council’s failure with its partisan support for the marine centre. I think we are probably lucky to have our south coast clear of that one. Then, I remembered reading all of the report commissioned by our city council on the V8 race. That report made clear to me that the council should have figured out for itself that the race would have involved ripping up a main road (closing it off for months) and then resealing it after the race, not to mention the unacceptable noise, and waste of petrol.
While not everyone might agree with me regarding these two projects (one resited and the other abandoned) it is surely hard to escape the conclusion our Mayor and her tight group of supporting councillors seem unable to evaluate calmly the pros and cons of a proposal, and make good decisions that are not based on preconceived ideas – such as the one that hold all events are “good for our city’s economy”.
February 10, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I have concerns about the proposed sitting of the indoor stadium at Cobham Drive and the business case sitting behind it. WCC has a bad history of poor business cases and poor project management (Waitangi Park).
Andy Foster should be supported for his actions. There is no such thing as collective responsibility in councils. Each councillor should be representing the public of their ward and providing a voice for them when they have concerns. That is what they are elected for – although one should not forget that many people stand as candidates for the purposes of ego rather than as representatives.
It is poor form by Kerry and Charles, who should apologise publicly.
February 10, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Kerry’s outburst is a very unwelcome piece of bullying – we expect much better of Wellington’s Mayor. I hope that these unwarranted personal attacks strengthen Cr Foster’s resolve, rather than cause him to re-think his opposition to the sports stadium.
February 11, 2009 at 8:16 am
When I first saw the headline in the DomPost I figured it would be one of the usual grandstanding bombthrowers on the council. Then when I saw it was Foster I figured the issue probably has a bit more substance than that.
(That said, I smell mayoralty bid).
I’m an agnostic on the sports centre itself.
But I’m also concerned at the criticism of Foster from other councillors, which seems to boil down to saying he shouldn’t have broken ranks from their club.
That gets my hackles up. It all smells too damn cosy.
February 11, 2009 at 1:49 pm
The calls for resignation were way over the top. “Collective Responsibility” – WTF?
That said, the appeal seems doomed to fail – particularly under the RMA. The resource process asks: “is this an acceptable use of the land?”; not “could this be better/more cheaply done elsewhere”? Simply put, building a sports centre at Cobham drive is okay – so it gets a consent.
Someone seeks a resource consent to build a house in a vacant lot next to my house … I can’t object on the basis it would be better for them to build it in a vacant lot a couple of streets over!
February 11, 2009 at 5:26 pm
So, are all the postings on Dear John the considered views of the Chamber?
February 12, 2009 at 9:50 am
I’m sorry not to have posted this sooner, but as you can imagine we’ve been quite busy at the city council recently.
The following is a reply on the issue of the Indoor Community Sports Centre from Mayor Kerry Prendergast:
I’d like to clarify a few things regarding the Indoor Community Sports Centre debate – and make a few observations.
The proposed Indoor Community Sports Centre (ICSC) will provide a much-needed indoor venue for community sport – for adults and children.
It will provide quality playing and training facilities for netball, basketball, volleyball and around 30 other indoor sports for community members and schools. It will include 12 full-size courts, seating for about 1000 spectators, about 300 carparks, meeting rooms, a reception area, kitchen facilities, storage capacity, public toilets/changing rooms, administration and tournament staging facilities, kiosk and bar facilities, multi-purpose activity space and meeting/workshop/seminar rooms.
The ICSC is not a ‘stadium’ and is not intended to hold functions, events or concerts. It is primarily for ‘hands on’ sports participation rather than for spectators. Under the resource consent granted last month, ‘special events’ (which could attract up to 4000 people) will be limited to two per year and are likely to take the form of banquets for sporting tournaments and the like.
The ICSC is not a regional facility. It is intended primarily to be a venue for Wellington City sportspeople and for local schools.
Wellington sports codes have been asking the Council since 2000 to provide desperately-needed indoor space for netball, basketball and volleyball.
Demand will only increase and if we delay building an indoor sports centre now, it will cost significantly more as time progresses.
Choosing the best site has been a lengthy, comprehensive process involving Council staff and independent experts. After weighing up all the factors, Cobham Park is considered to be by far the best site for a variety of reasons.
Port land and the Stadium concourse are the most high-profile options to have been considered but both would have severely compromised the community use of the ICSC.
Not only would these sites cost more than double what Cobham will, but there would be regular clashes with the Stadium on event days (around 45 days per year, mainly on Saturdays and Sundays) which would limit access to community sport users and take away adjacent car parking. There would also be significant traffic and construction issues.
Both the concourse and Harbour Quays, due to their severely-constrained sites, present major and expensive construction challenges and have no capacity for expansion – whereas the Cobham option could be expanded to 15 courts in future.
The concourse and Harbour Quays sites are also adjacent to Waterloo Quay, the main entrance to the Port of Wellington, and rail links to the port. The traffic implications are considerable – and it is thought a ‘flyover’ or similar form of road ‘grade-separation’ would be necessary to achieve consent for either development – adding up to $30 million to the cost of either option.
Cobham Park has excellent public transport links and our discussions with the sports codes have shown that most people will travel by car when using the centre, wherever it is sited. There is a huge difference between the event-based Westpac Stadium and a community facility for participatory sport. There are different demands on public transport – we all know the Stadium works so well, in terms of public transport, because the crowds turn up en masse just before a big concert or sports match and then leave en masse again at the end. However a community sports centre will generate constant ‘comings and goings’ – and there is little evidence that sportspeople – or parents – are prepared to use public transport to get to their matches. Like it or not, most people aren’t prepared to put children, for example, on buses or trains to get to their sports.
Further, Cobham Park is close to around 40 schools and 14,000 students compared to 21 schools and 8000 students at Harbour Quays.
The council reviewed the Cobham site decision in 2007, and again last year through an independent peer review by Alan Isaac, Paul Collins and David Gray. This backed the Cobham site.
Councillors voted 13-1 late last year to reconfirm the Cobham site as a result. Cr Foster did not attend that meeting.
Costs
ICSC at Cobham Park is expected to cost $46m (based on detailed design).
Harbour Quays – estimated at $120.5m
Stadium concourse – estimated at $96m..
About $3m has been spent on the Cobham project – on everything from architectural and engineering designs to the publicly-notified resource consent process, involving traffic planning, environmental design and a wide range of other consultants’ services and staff wages. About $300,000 has been spent on several reviews of the concourse and Harbour Quays proposals.
Kerry Prendergast
MAYOR
February 20, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Rather than waste time writing afresh, in response to Stephen Matthews, I cut and paste comments from another blog on this site and responding to points made by the mayor.
How can this centre possibly benefit 30 sports codes. The netballers say they want it to replace the Hataitai courts, they say they want it for practices, they say that they want it for competitions. If competitions occur at weekends (school and adult) that’s the weekends available to no-one else. If practices occur during the week, that’s the evenings available to no one else. School teams might practice their netball after school, that’s another period not available to other sports. If schools are using it during school hours, that will probably be in the afternoon 1-pm to 2.30pm.
In the morning it is available but to whom – people who are at work?
So where does the basket ball and volleyballers get a look in??
And what about car parking? 12 courts with say 30 people involved with each court arriving 2 per car, thats 180 cars. Allowing that one set of players are arriving, one set are playing and one set are fininshing their game, thats 180 x 3 which 540 cars. This does not take into account the 1000 spectators, those using the meeting rooms, administration and tournament staging facilities, kiosk and bar facilities, or the multi-purpose activity space and meeting/workshop/seminar rooms. Just how many parks might be required? Oh well, the local resident driveways are there to block.
“Cobham Park is close to around 40 schools and 14,000 students compared to 21 schools and 8000 students at Harbour Quays” And when are they going to use it? Most schools have programmes where sports are in the afternoon. So is the ICSC going to accommodate all 40 schools? What is the relevance of this statement anyway. Scools generally travel by bus if its more than half a mile away.
“Cobham Park has excellent public transport links and our discussions with the sports codes have shown that most people will travel by car when using the centre, wherever it is sited.” Cobham park does not have good public transport its a block away. Anyway if they are goin to travel by car ??????
Come on Kerry get real