Vancouver mourns after a deadly festival tragedy, the Vatican prepares to elect a new Pope, and not all principals are convinced by the Government's teaching mandates.
Opponents keen to overturn the plan to demolish Wellington’s iconic City to Sea bridge claim the council’s processes when making the decision were flawed and it failed to look at practical alternatives.
Work to dismantle the bridge has now been delayed, pending the outcome of the review.
The footbridge, built in 1993 and earthquake-strengthened in 2011, is situated above Jervois Quay, providing a pedestrian link between the city centre and waterfront.
But the council claims it is at risk of collapse or could be compromised in a major earthquake.
It estimated it would cost up to $85 million to strengthen the bridge and the adjacent Capital E building, which are structurally separate, while partial strengthening looked to cost at least $53.3m. Those options were deemed unaffordable by councillors.
Supporters argue the bridge is a Wellington icon, notable for its sculptures of taniwha, birds and fish by Māori artist Paratene Matchitt.
The trust wants the High Court to refer the case back to the council so it can reconsider the bridge’s future.
At the beginning of today’s hearing, Justice Christine Grice acknowledged the public interest in the case and noted it was unusual to have a full public gallery.
The City to Sea Bridge, a pedestrian bridge and public artwork in Wellington. Photo / Mark Mitchell
During proceedings, the counsel representing the trust, Tim Smith, claimed it was clear engineers were keen to explore options other than demolition but weren’t given enough time to workshop alternatives with councillors.
“Council officers failed to allow the creative solution to be developed, despite the numerous advising engineers clearly being keen to develop them,” he said.
Smith referred to correspondence from the weeks leading up to the decision, which he submitted, showed engineers were keen to look at alternatives, including strengthening the bridge. He questioned why these discussions happened so late in the piece.
“We’re a week before D-day and the engineers are coming up with new solutions and the council officers are going, ‘I disagree or don’t understand’, which is obviously not a happy place to be in if you are making an important decision for the city,” he said.
Smith was critical of the council officers’ role in the decision-making process, submitting that they had funnelled information towards demolition and away from other options, such as strengthening.
He cited several assumptions he claimed the council officers made early on in the piece, which drove their decision-making.
This included financial constraints, the bridge’s importance-level classification and the need to strengthen the building to 100% of new building standards, he said.
Smith submitted that too much weight was put on the council officers’ views and not enough decision-making was carried out by the councillors themselves.
The trust was also critical of the council’s decision to classify the bridge as an importance level at IL3 – on a par with hospitals, emergency facilities and key infrastructure.
Instead, they say the bridge should have been classified as IL2, which covers buildings designed for regular occupancy such as homes, sleepouts and business premises.
“A bridge doesn’t lend itself to occupancy,” Smith said, adding that because it was a footbridge, there was advice to suggest it should have been classified as IL2.
In addressing the bridge’s placement on Jervois Quay – a major arterial road – Smith said the quay had a large number of glass and concrete buildings.
Any earthquake strong enough to damage the bridge would similarly impact the buildings and the nearby seawall, he said.
“The problem with Jervois Quay isn’t going to be a collapsed bridge, it’s going to be that the seawall’s gone.”
The trust questioned the public consultation undertaken by the council, claiming it gave the impression that demolition was the only option.
Diana Qui, a lawyer also representing the trust, submitted at the hearing that, given that losing the bridge was at stake, the council’s consultation should have followed best practice, but it fell well short of that.
She said the 30-page consultation document contained a lack of information.
It also stated that doing nothing was not an option and strengthening the bridge wasn’t reasonably practical.
Qui said the council was clear on its intention to demolish the bridge.
At a public meeting held in November last year, one council officer began with a presentation in which he told those present that the bridge would have to be demolished, as the cost of keeping it was too high.
The following month, Kōrau Tūāpapa Environment and Infrastructure Committee chair Tim Brown said in announcing the bridge’s fate that the decision to demolish the bridge was the correct one.
The Save the City to Sea bridge group handed out flyers and hung a banner on the bridge in their protest action. Photo / Catherine Hutton
“The decision ensures public safety and is financially responsible. It was based on comprehensive expert work presented to [the] council by seven engineering companies,” he said.
Yesterday, the Save the City to Sea Bridge group – an informal group established to keep the bridge – hung a banner with the words “Save Me” on it and handed out flyers to people.
The group’s spokesman, Stuart Niven, claimed the council had not done its homework and the bridge’s proposed demolition was expensive and unnecessary.
“We believe that a lot of Wellingtonians have no idea that this important community asset could be lost. It is the only bridge of its type that allows people to avoid six lanes of traffic to get to the waterfront; once it’s gone, there is no guarantee that a similar structure will be built as there’s no funding for it,” he said.
The council will make its submissions tomorrow.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist for 20 years, including at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.
