Titirangi Road Widening

We oppose the widening of Titirangi Road. The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearing Panel's agreed that the road widening designation 1353 should be removed. Auckland Council have agreed. However Auckland Transport have rejected the decision. This means we have to appeal to the Environment Court to overturn Auckland Transport's rejection and reinstate The Independent Hearing Panel's decision and Auckland Council's recommendation.

We are seeking financial support for the beginning of our appeal to the Environment Court.

Supporting documentation follows:

Presentation to Auckland Hearing Panel:

Presentation to AUPIHP opposing Designation 1453

James Mawson et.el. SN 9313-1:

Speaking time: 9:28

My name is Colin Newby and I am speaking to the submission of James Mawson et. el. I am one of the 174 signatories to the petition opposing the rollover of designation 1453 that was attached to James Mawsons submission. I have no planning, traffic engineering, or legal expertise and speak to this matter as a lay person.

The background to the designation has already been detailed in the submission by Bunnings Ltd. The only additional comment that we would make is that the section of Titirangi Road our submission is concerned with seems to have originated with the

New Lynn Borough Council during the 1970’s. For the purpose of context that needs to be borne in mind, because it’s not unreasonable to argue this was a time when the private car dominated transport planning; and road widening designations

reflected that. By way of contrast, current transport planning reflects a more multi modal approach, that all but rejects the widening of urban roads to accommodate general traffic capacity, and AT’s evidence confirms this policy in respect of Titirangi

Road.

Our submission begins by referencing the section 142 report prepared for the panel by David Wren. We have placed significant reliance on the Panels position on the lapse date issue. Namely, that ‘substantial progress or effort has or is continuing to be made towards giving effect to the designation’.

Section 3 of our submission details our research into what historical efforts have been made to progress the designation. We started with informal enquiry of Auckland Council planning officers who were ex Waitakere City Council. They indicated that

though inherited from the New Lynn Borough Council the widening of Titirangi Road was never on the planning agenda for Waitakere City. We approached Derek Battersby whose service

as a local body Councillor spans the current Whau Local Board, previous Waitakere City Council, and its predecessor the New Lynn Borough Council. When asked about the designation he

responded with “ widening of Titirangi Road will never happen”. Further enquiry by him revealed that acquisition of land for the designation stopped when the New Lynn Borough Council was disestablished in 1989.

So to be clear, of the 174 affected properties, land has been acquired from 15, with the last of these acquisitions occurring in 1989. For AT to now suggest they will acquire property in a reactive manner is somewhat disingenuous given that, with the exception of 2 or 3 properties, the potential for subdivision on Titirangi Road has been exhausted.

We take the view that substantial progress towards giving effect to the designation ceased 26 years ago. That, because opportunities to acquire or vest land as road since 1989 seem not to have been exercised, suggests their was no appetite to

progress the designation by both Waitakere and then Auckland Councils.

Notwithstanding the 26 year pause in property acquisition we do not accept that the Flow Transportation report constitutes recent

substantial effort towards giving effect to the designation. This is because AT’s proposed changes to Titirangi Road that underpin the requirement for the designation fail critical evaluation.

Assuming that if the panel requires reasonable progress towards giving effect to the designation, it follows AT must have a reasonable idea of what works would require utilisation of the designation.

Section 4 of our submission evaluates the cross section for Titirangi Road provided to us by AT. It is attachment 1 to our submission. What that reveals is the existing road corridor would cope with the proposed cross section except for buffered cycle

lanes and street landscaping. That is to say, the designation will only be required if buffered cycle lanes and street trees and landscaping are built. These two elements require a total of 4.5 metres from the northern side and 4.3 metres from the southern side of Titirangi Road. Remove them, and the requirement to take land is significantly reduced around Titirangi Roads intersection with Parker Croydon Roads, and evaporates for the remainder of Titirangi road that we are concerned with. Given that, our focus shifted towards considering the case for cycle infrastructure and landscaped amenity on Titirangi Road.

Sections 5 and 6 of our submission consider this. Specifically, we reviewed the veracity of AT’s compliance with the RMA section 171 test for consideration of: “relevant plans or proposed plans”,

“alternative routes”, and “reasonably necessary for achieving objectives”. The first thing we noticed was that AT’s section 171 evidence makes absolutely no reference to the existing, and planned cycle

infrastructure for the Titirangi Road catchment. This omission is important because the provision for cycle infrastructure underpins the designation.

We argue the assessment should have referenced the legacy Waitakere cycleways plan, existing Auckland Cycle Network plan, and Whau greenways plan, all of which detail integrated cycle infrastructure for the area. Importantly, on road cycle

infrastructure for Titirangi Road does not feature in any of these plans.

In fact, they identify alternative routes to Titirangi Road, and when the works scheduled for completion in 2018, and proposed cycle network projects are taken into account, Titirangi Road

becomes irrelevant to achieving AT’s cycle network objectives.

More over, AT’s email to Derek Battersby of 13 November corroborates our argument, in that it confirms AT’s commitment to existing local cycle network projects. As for the use of Titirangi Road for confident commuter cyclists, that can be discounted on the basis that the Auckland cycle network connector route from Titirangi to New Lynn on Seabrook Ave will, in 2018, become the commuter route to the CBD.

Seabrook Avenues massive 7 metre grassed berms can accommodate both on road and off road cycle facilities, and contrary to AT’s evidence, all without any need for a road widening designation or demolition of any property.

Our view is that a more rigorous application of the section 171 test sees the case for cycle infrastructure on Titirangi Road collapse. What that now leaves us with is a designation that hangs on an

argument for landscape amenity, rather than transport infrastructure. Section 7 of our submission addresses this issue and questions whether the designation can be utilised for landscaping purposes, and whether the existing streetscape is as

barren as AT’s evidence would have you believe.

We argue that 4.5 metres of landscape amenity is excessive, and that a more reasonable proposition is for modest grassed berms that can be accommodated as part of future roading works within the existing road corridor.

We note that AT’s rebuttal arguments across different designations argue that concept plans, such as the cross section we are relying on, can not determine whether designations are amended or removed. AT argue they provide conceptual vision

only, do not involve detailed design work, and are only a first step in long term strategic corridor planning. That in the absence of detailed design work the purpose of a designation reverts to

protection and maintenance of the corridor. Our view is that this is not a valid position to take because it is not unreasonable to ask the question, protection and maintenance for what? Furthermore, it seems at odds with the general thread of David Wrens assessment of designations where he has been unable to recommend they be confirmed. His assessments generally note that, more information about the specific impact on submitters properties with a time frame for property purchases, as being required to arrive at a more considered position. And

finally, the strategic importance of Titirangi Road should not be overstated. It is not a Primary arterial road, nor does it form part of the Public Transport Rapid Connector Network.

So in conclusion, The designation is of significant magnitude and affects a large number of properties. We agree with Bunnings that it has little prospect of utilisation and if allowed to stand, simply creates ongoing uncertainty for property owners. We accept that a designation, of reduced width, is required for

the possibility of safety works 100 metres in each direction of the Croydon/Parker Roads intersection, and would like AT to engage with us on that. But, for the remainder of Titirangi Road that we are concerned with, designation 1453 should lapse because it fails the requirement for reasonable progress, and the works requiring utilisation of the designation do not satisfy section 171 of the

RMA.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our submission.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Z2k_O1YukKY01NTWgzemRvSUU/view?usp=sharing

Panel Recommendation:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-Z2k_O1YukKam9aZzNGbjNpMndSTm5BVmpjdF95bUNoVUxJ

Appeal to Environmental Court:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-Z2k_O1YukKZ1NEd2RMUm5Jdml3bmZSbzg3Slo2eXVycVRv

Presentation to Whau Board:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-Z2k_O1YukKVlc5Q2hudnl6b3M

Public Interest Request to Environmental Court:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-Z2k_O1YukKcUVrd0hxT2hyYms