Basin Bridge Project
Social Impact Assessment
TECHNICAL REPORT 14
Basin Bridge Project
Social Impact Assessment
Technical Report 14
Prepared By
Wendy Turvey
Principal: Environmental Services
Marilyn Ford
Graduate Resource Environmental Planner
Reviewed By
Rebekah Pokura-Ward
Principal: Planning and Environmental
Management
Approved for
Release By
© Opus International Consultants Ltd 2012
Opus International Consultants Ltd
Environmental Training Centre
138 Hutt Park Road, Gracefield
PO Box 30 845, Lower Hutt 5040
New Zealand
Telephone:
Facsimile:
+64 4 587 0694
+64 4 587 0608
Date:
Reference:
Status:
June 2013
5c156.00
FINAL B1
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Contents
1
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 3
2
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Qualifications and Experience....................................................................................... 6
2.2 Purpose and Scope of Report ....................................................................................... 6
2.3 Assumptions and Exclusions in this Assessment .......................................................... 6
3
Project Description .............................................................................................................. 8
4
Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Literature Review and Information Sources ................................................................ 16
4.2 Community of Interest ................................................................................................. 17
4.3 SIA Process and Framework ...................................................................................... 17
4.4 Social Impact Assessment Criteria.............................................................................. 18
4.5 Adopted Framework ................................................................................................... 19
4.6 Stages for Impact Assessment ................................................................................... 20
4.7 Information sources and data collection ...................................................................... 20
4.8 Rating of Effects ......................................................................................................... 21
5
Statutory and Policy Context ............................................................................................ 22
5.1 Statutory and Non-statutory Document Review .......................................................... 22
5.2 Wellington Region....................................................................................................... 22
5.3 Wellington City Council ............................................................................................... 25
5.4 Summary .................................................................................................................... 30
6
Existing Social Environment (base assessment) ............................................................ 31
6.1 Overview..................................................................................................................... 31
6.2 Demographic Profile ................................................................................................... 33
6.3 Physical environment .................................................................................................. 34
6.4 Land-use..................................................................................................................... 35
6.5 Travel Patterns and Community Linkages................................................................... 35
6.6 Community Facilities ................................................................................................... 39
6.7 Summary .................................................................................................................... 46
7
Review of Relevant Technical Reports............................................................................. 47
7.1 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design........................................................ 47
7.2 Assessment of Noise Effects ...................................................................................... 48
7.3 Townscape and Visual Assessment............................................................................ 50
7.4 Ground Vibration Assessment .................................................................................... 51
7.5 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 52
7.6 Assessment of Economic Effects ................................................................................ 53
7.7 Heritage Values and Effects........................................................................................ 54
7.8 Archaeology................................................................................................................ 55
5C1617.00
June 2013
i
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
Ngati Toa Rangatira Statement of Cultural Association............................................... 55
Cultural Impact Report ................................................................................................ 56
Assessment of Urban Design Effects .......................................................................... 56
Assessment of Traffic and Transportation Effects ....................................................... 57
Summary .................................................................................................................... 59
8
Summary of Community Engagement ............................................................................. 60
8.1 Overview..................................................................................................................... 60
8.2 2011 Community and Stakeholder Engagement ......................................................... 60
8.3 2011 Community Workshops ...................................................................................... 61
8.4 2011 Community and Stakeholder Feedback ............................................................. 61
8.5 Key Stakeholder Meetings and Further Consultation (2012-2013) .............................. 64
9
Assessment of Effects ...................................................................................................... 69
9.1 Overview..................................................................................................................... 69
9.2 Way of Life.................................................................................................................. 71
9.3 Well-being................................................................................................................... 75
9.4 Environment and Amenity ........................................................................................... 78
9.5 Community ................................................................................................................. 82
9.6 Summary of Effects .................................................................................................... 89
10
Proposed Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 94
11
Future Work........................................................................................................................ 99
12
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................... 100
12.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 100
12.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 100
Appendix 14.A: Literature Review .......................................................................................... 101
Appendix 14.B: Basin Reserve Demographic Profile of Local Study Area .......................... 108
5C1617.00
June 2013
ii
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
1
Executive Summary
Purpose of report
This Social Impact Assessment identifies and assesses the social effects that may
arise as a result of the Basin Bridge Project (the Project), in order to inform the
Notices of Requirement and Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE). The scope
of this assessment includes:







an international literature review and development of an assessment framework
based on international best practice,
an assessment of the relevant statutory and non-statutory documents to provide
the regulatory and policy context for the Project,
identification of a social study area and demographic profile as an assessment
baseline to evaluate the existing social environment,
a review of other specialist inputs to the Project though a ‘social lens’,
a review of feedback from the general consultation process as well as from
targeted, social impact specific interviews to ensure that social concerns of the
community have been considered,
identification and assessment of the social effects of the Project against the
framework, and
identification of appropriate mitigation, avoidance or remedial strategies.
The SIA is part of a wider suite of technical assessments informing the AEE. Results
from these assessments are relied on, and where appropriate, assessed from a
social perspective.
Methodology
For the purposes of this study, potential effects of the Project have been assessed
against a social framework. This framework is informed by a literature review of
international and NZ best practice, and is based on the requirements of NZTA’s
PSF/13 principles and the International Association of Impact Assessment
framework, which has been adapted to fit the project. The framework for this project
considers the following impact areas:
Way of Life:
 Impacts on accessibility, connectivity, patterns of living and mobility
 Changes to ways of walking & cycling and changes to public transport
Well Being:
 Changes to wellbeing
 Health and safety
Environment and Amenity:
 Noise, dust, amenity and landscape
Community:
 Impact on people’s property and neighbourhoods
 Impacts on schools
 Impacts on community areas and sites
5C1617.00
June 2013
3
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment


Impacts on community plans and aspirations
Impacts on and accessibility to commercial areas
The base IAIA process was selected as:
 It is an internationally accepted process for social impact assessment;
 The process and criteria have been used extensively in New Zealand for large
infrastructure projects and has been proven to be a robust methodology;
 It is likely that NZTA, in due course, will formally adopt modified IAIA principles
as best practice for NZTA projects; and
 The process is flexible enough to be adapted to New Zealand circumstances and
is able to incorporate NZTA’s PSF/13 principles.
This assessment was informed by; site visits and observations, a range of public
consultation, analysis of a demographic profile and existing social environment, and a
review of conclusions drawn from other specialist technical assessments, through the
‘social lens’.
Summary of effects
Overall, the positive social effects of the Project on peoples’ lives are assessed as:








Reduction in traffic congestion saves time and improves safety for both regional
and local travellers and positive quality of life effects
Improved health, safety and connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists both for
local and regional trips helps maintain cohesive communities
Provision of dedicated bus lanes improving access and reducing delays for bus
commuters enables faster and less stressful journeys
An overall improvement in safety for students being dropped at schools both in
terms of crossing points, and safer stopping points for cars and buses
Improved access to community facilities or at a minimum no change in standard
of accessibility ensures essential community infrastructure is retained
Consideration of the needs of the disabled through the provision of appropriate
ramps and other measures in the areas around the Bridge and Basin Reserve
A strong emphasis on well-designed spaces to improve urban amenity linking
from the Basin Reserve to Memorial Park increasing enjoyment of the
environment
Overall improved quality of the urban environment particularly for parts of the
north and south transport spine through a reduction in traffic.
The potential negative social effects of the Project are assessed as:





Visual and amenity effects of the Bridge effects peoples’ perception of their
amenity and community
Perceived personal safety issues on and around the Bridge
Construction effects from noise, dust, vibration, lighting and glare on health and
wellbeing
Operational effects from the road such as noise, dust and glare on health and
wellbeing
Reduced accessibility to essential community infrastructure during construction
5C1617.00
June 2013
4
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment


Traffic delays during construction can increase journey times and impact on
peoples’ way of life on a day to day basis
Localised effects on business particularly during construction.
It is further recommended that a sound communication and engagement strategy is
implemented, particularly during the construction phase to ensure that the community
and stakeholders are actively engaged and informed about the construction
programme. A monitoring regime is recommended to ensure effects from noise or
reduction in air quality are monitored and responded to if necessary during
construction.
This assessment concludes that potential adverse social effects as a result of this
Project are able to be avoided, remedied or mitigated through a range of
recommended mitigation measures detailed in this assessment, or the effects are of
a magnitude that does not adversely alter the existing environment.
5C1617.00
June 2013
5
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
2
Introduction
2.1
Qualifications and Experience
The author holds a BSc in Town and Regional Planning from the University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa and is employed by Opus International
Consultants as Principal – Environmental Services. The author has 26 years planning
experience in the areas of strategic policy, consenting and social impact assessment, with
18 years experience in New Zealand, employed in local government and consultancy.
The author has prepared or reviewed numerous social impact assessments during her time
in New Zealand mainly for large roading and wastewater infrastructure projects. She has
also had extensive involvement in the development of social impact assessments for
prisons, youth justice facilities and rehabilitation centres.
2.2
Purpose and Scope of Report
The purpose of this Social Impact Assessment is to identify and assess the social effects
that may arise as a result of the Basin Bridge Project (the Project), in order to inform the
Notices of Requirement and Assessment of Environmental Effects. The assessment
includes:







an international literature review and development of an assessment framework based
on international best practice,
an assessment of the relevant statutory and non-statutory documents to provide the
regulatory and policy context for the Project,
identification of a social study area and demographic profile as an assessment baseline
to evaluate the existing social environment,
a review of other specialist inputs to the Project though a ‘social lens’,
a review of feedback from the general consultation process as well as from targeted,
social impact specific interviews to ensure that social concerns of the community have
been considered,
an identification and assessment of the social effects of the Project against the
framework, and
identification of appropriate mitigation, avoidance or remedial strategies.
The SIA is part of a wider suite of technical assessments informing the AEE. Results from
these assessments are relied on, and where appropriate, assessed from a social
perspective.
For the purpose of the report the term “Project Team” means the multidisciplinary team
engaged on the project including the social impact assessment team. The term “Social
Project Team” means the social impact assessment team.
2.3
Assumptions and Exclusions in this Assessment
The following specific exclusions and assumptions apply to this report:

All assessments are based on the details of the Project as available at the time of writing
this report.
5C1617.00
June 2013
6
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment





Alternatives to the proposed alignment route have been considered as part of an ongoing assessment and are therefore not re-evaluated here.
Social impacts on individual properties are identified but the effects on property value
have not been addressed as these are part of a separate process under the Public
Works Act 1981. The majority of the land required to construct and operate the Project is
in crown ownership (administered by the NZTA).
Economic impacts are examined solely from a social perspective in terms of whether the
project has effects on local businesses and communities. An assessment of economic
effects is contained in Technical Report 17.
Impacts affecting Maori culture values have been addressed separately through
consultation with iwi and are detailed in the Cultural Impact Assessment report
(Technical Report 15), and the Ngati Toa Rangatira statement of cultural association
(Technical Report 16). The findings of these reports are relied on.
The approach to health impacts is detailed in the Methodology section below.
5C1617.00
June 2013
7
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
3
Project Description
The Project proposes to construct, operate and maintain new transport infrastructure for
State Highway 1 at the Basin Reserve. A key component of the proposal is a multi-modal
bridge that connects Paterson Street with Buckle Street. The bridge will provide a two lane
one-way carriageway for SH1 westbound road users and includes a shared walking and
cycling path on its northern side.
Proposed at-grade road improvements include changes to Dufferin Street and sections of
Paterson Street, Rugby Street (including the intersection with Adelaide Road), Sussex
Street, Buckle Street (SH1), Taranaki Street, Vivian Street (SH1), Pirie Street, Cambridge
Terrace, Kent Terrace (SH1), Ellice Street and Hania Street. The overall road layout is
shown diagrammatically on Figure 14.1 below.
Figure 14.1: Project Area showing the proposed roading layout and land to be
designated
The Project also provides urban design and landscape treatments. These include new
landscaped open space areas, a new building under the bridge, a new entrance and
Northern Gateway Building to the Basin Reserve, an improved streetscape entrance to
Government House and adjacent schools, a revised car park for St Joseph's Church,
dedicated bus lanes and bus stops around the Basin Reserve, as well as new walking and
cycling paths.
Proposed landscaping and urban design treatments include low level plantings, raingardens, trees, terracing, architectural bridge design including sculptured piers, furniture and
paving. These measures aim to contribute to the overall integration of the proposed bridge
structure into the surrounding urban environment.
5C1617.00
June 2013
8
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Transport Improvements
The Project proposes a grade-separated route (the bridge element) for SH1 westbound
traffic on the northern side of the Basin Reserve. As a result, SH1 traffic will be removed
from the local road network around the eastern, southern and western sides of the Basin
Reserve.
The bridge soffit will be up to 7.3m above the ground surface and the top of the guard rail will
up to 10.5m high above the ground. The bridge is approximately 263m long or 320m long if
abutments are included. It will be supported by six sets of piers (2 are double piers) and six
smaller diameter piers to support the western end of the shared pedestrian and cycleway.
The bridge has a minimum width of approximately 11.3m and a maximum width of
approximately 16.7m. There are 2 bridge joins, one at each end.
The Project proposes changes to the SH1 westbound route, the SH1 eastbound route, and
other roads on the network where they connect with SH1, including clearways on the eastern
part of SH1 Vivian Street (from Tory Street to Cambridge Terrace). These propose to
improve the efficient and safe movement of traffic (including buses), pedestrians and cyclists
through intersections and provide entry and exit points for SH1. Supplementary works on
the existing local road network are also proposed to be undertaken to take advantage of the
additional capacity created by the SH1 improvements.
The Project proposes new pedestrian and cycling routes throughout the Project area as well
as improvements to existing infrastructure. The majority of the works to improve the walking
and cycling routes are located on the north side of the Basin Reserve and connect with
Mount Victoria, Mount Victoria Tunnel and schools on Dufferin Street. These improvements
will also connect with the National War Memorial Park which is currently under construction
and also with potential future duplication of Mount Victoria Tunnel.
A reduction in state highway traffic on the roads around the Basin Reserve allows for more
efficient northbound and southbound movements from Kent and Cambridge Terrace to
Adelaide Road. Accordingly, new dedicated bus lanes are proposed to provide for better
public transport movements around the Basin Reserve.
The key traffic flows around the Basin Reserve following the implementation of the proposed
Project are shown in Figure 14.2 below and described thereafter.
5C1617.00
June 2013
9
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Figure 14.2 Proposed traffic directions for the Project
5C1617.00
June 2013
10
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
The package of transportation improvements proposed by the Project are summarised below
and followed by a brief description of the works:
SH1 westbound (from Mount Victoria Tunnel to Buckle Street)



The Bridge - new direct link from Paterson Street to Buckle Street via a bridge;
Buckle Street three laning - provision of third lane along Buckle Street between Sussex
Street (including minor modifications to Sussex Street) and Taranaki Street to improve
capacity and accommodate the two lanes from the Bridge; and,
Taranaki Street improvements – modifications to the layout of Taranaki Street and
Buckle Street intersection to accommodate the three laning of Buckle Street and to
increase capacity.
SH1 eastbound (from Vivian Street – Kent Terrace - Mount Victoria Tunnel)


SH1 Eastbound re-alignment - realignment of SH1 eastbound between Hania Street and
Brougham Street; and
Vivian Street and Pirie Street Improvements – as part of the modifications to the
intersection of Pirie Street and Kent / Cambridge Terrace and Vivian Street, clearways
on Vivian Street are proposed. The combination of improvements increases the
capacity of the intersection for all traffic movements including public transport.
Improvements to roads around the Basin Reserve





Paterson Street / Dufferin Street intersection – modifications to the layout of Paterson
Street/Dufferin Street and change in priority at the signals to provide a significant
increase in priority to Dufferin Street (south bound traffic from Kent Terrace/ Ellice
Street);
Adelaide Road / Rugby Street intersection – reducing through lanes along Rugby Street
from 3 lanes to 1 and allowing Adelaide Road traffic and Rugby Street traffic to flow at
the same time. Pedestrian and cycling crossings will be via on-demand signals. Two
lanes for access into Adelaide Road would remain with one operating as a bus lane;
Ellice Street link – new road link from Ellice Street to Dufferin Street/Paterson Street
intersection (a similar vehicular movement can currently be made between Ellice Street
and Dufferin Street). A new shared pathway for pedestrians and cyclists would be
provided adjacent to this link to facilitate movements between the Mount Victoria suburb,
the schools on Dufferin Street, and further south toward Adelaide Road;
Dufferin Street improvements – works to modify the layout of the road space and bus
drop off zones on Dufferin Street and Rugby Street on the south east corner of the Basin
Reserve and to improve vehicular access to Government House; and
Basin Reserve Gateway – treatment to Buckle Street where it meets Kent/Cambridge
Terraces, and retains an entry point to the re-aligned SH1 eastbound.
Walking, Cycling, Public Transport (throughout the Project Area)


Walking and cycling path on bridge – new walking and cycling path on the bridge
between Paterson Street and Buckle Street / NWM Park;
Existing pedestrian and cycle routes – existing at-grade pathways are retained or
enhanced and additional and alternative routes are provided. Additional and improved
pedestrian and cycling access would be provided in the landscaped area on the corner
of Cambridge Terrace and Buckle Street and between Brougham Street and Kent
5C1617.00
June 2013
11
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment


Terrace. These routes link to the proposed pedestrian and cyclist facilities proposed
through NWM Park;
Public Transport - new dedicated bus lanes are proposed on Ellice Street, Dufferin
Street and Buckle Street, and the southbound bus stop is proposed to be relocated from
Adelaide Road onto Rugby Street; and
Public Transport - existing priority for buses from Kent Terrace onto Ellice Street is
retained.
For further detail on the proposed transport improvements refer to Volume 3: Technical
Report 4: Assessment of Transportation Effects of these documents. Details of the road
design layouts are shown in Volume 5: Plan and Drawing Set.
Urban Design and Landscape
Proposed urban design and landscape treatments to areas outside of the road carriageway
form part of the Project works. The development of the proposed Project design has been
iterative, responsive and collaborative. As such, it has been developed through an Urban
Landscape and Design Framework (refer to Volume 3: Technical Report 2) to address the
specific urban design principles for the Project. The Project proposes treatments to areas
adjacent to the road network that would assist with the integration of the proposed bridge
into the surrounding urban context.
Six zones and elements for the Project area have been identified within which character and
zone specific principles for those areas have been developed to define the design intent and
to provide a framework for post RMA consenting detailed design development. The zones
are shown on Figure 14.3 below.
5C1617.00
June 2013
12
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Figure 14.3 Urban and landscape zones for proposed works outside of the traffic
lanes
These are briefly described for the urban and landscape zones below:
Zone 1 Cambridge/Buckle Bridge Interface Zone - proposed landscape treatments to land
between Cambridge Terrace and the NWM Park, which includes rain gardens and wetland
plantings for stormwater treatment. This landscape area has been designed as a
continuation of NWM Park. The terracing in the NWM Park starts from Kent and Cambridge
Terraces and are reflective of the cultural heritage of the area, as cultivation terraces.
Wetland planting reflects the former Waitangi Lagoon which is now the Basin. The
landscaping also provides an interface with the curtilage of the newly relocated Home of
Compassion Crèche (former)1.
1
The Home of Compassion Crèche (former) is being relocated as part of the National War Memorial
Park project and those works are approved by the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu)
Empowering Act (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2012/0076/latest/DLM4680415.html). The
Crèche is a listed heritage building in the Wellington City District Plan and as part of its relocation a
new dedicated access and car parking facility from Tory Street would be provided.
5C1617.00
June 2013
13
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Zone 2 Kent/Cambridge Basin Gateway: proposed landscaping between Kent/Cambridge
Terrace responds to tangata whenua values in relation to the proposed historical wetland
ecology and provides a safe and enlarged public access and gathering area relative to the
Basin Reserve entrance. The proposed landscape aims to facilitate gathering and includes
reconfigured pedestrian crossings, bus stops and Basin Reserve entrance.
Element 2.1 Entrance to the Basin Reserve – proposes a combination of planting
(pohutukawa trees) and a new Northern Gateway Building on the northern boundary within
the Basin Reserve. The combination of new Northern Gateway Building and pohutukawa
trees screen the bridge from general views from within the Basin Reserve. The new
Northern Gateway Building is designed to specifically remove potential views of traffic on the
bridge from the views of batsmen (facing bowlers from the north). The new Northern
Gateway Building) would provide space for player facilities and includes a wider entrance for
visitors to the Basin Reserve that is aligned with the new entrance plaza located between
Kent and Cambridge Terrace.
The new Northern Gateway Building will be up to 65m long and up to 11.2m high and
includes a screen that covers the gap between the new building and the RA Vance Stand.
This option is preferred by the Basin Reserve Trust. Alternative mitigation proposals
entailing a 45m long structure and a 55m long structure and consequent increases in
proposed tree planting have also been considered and are assessed within this report.
Zone 3 Kent/Ellice Integrated building zone – proposes a new building under the proposed
bridge at the corner of Kent Terrace and Ellice Street which would be made available for
commercial use. It is intended to re-establish the historical built / street edge in this location
and the building helps incorporate the bridge into the built urban environment. A green
screen is proposed to be located above the new building to provide a level of screening for
the adjacent apartment building and assist to visually integrate the bridge with the buildings
at this corner.
Zone 4 Paterson/ Ellice/Dufferin Interface zone – proposes to continue ground landscape
linking from across Kent/Cambridge Terraces and additional tree planting around the Basin
Reserve’s outer square.
The Project proposes works within St Joseph’s Church property using land that is currently
used for car parking. Thus, the Project proposes to remove the existing building at 28 Ellice
Street and to adjust the existing carpark and provide landscape improvements for the
Church within the remaining space. All of these works are located on land owned by the
Church.
Zone 5 Dufferin/Rugby Streets, Schools/Church/Government House Interface zone which
serves as a vehicular and pedestrian access area serving key adjacent land uses of the
schools and Government House. Proposed works include the re-allocation of space in the
roading corridor, layout modification and urban design and landscape treatments.
Zone 6 The Bridge Element – the horizontal alignment of the Bridge has retained a close
reference to the historic street pattern (the Te Aro Grid) to strengthen and define the Basin
square. The vertical alignment has utilised underlying landform to achieve grade separation
between north-south and east west routes. The width of the bridge has been kept to a
minimum that meets safe traffic design standards for a 50km/h road. Abutments are
5C1617.00
June 2013
14
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
integrated and grounded in the form and material of the landscaping. Lighting on the bridge
seeks to minimise glare and spill onto surrounding areas and integrates with the bridge form
and with the adjacent NWM Park. Architectural lighting is provided underneath the bridge
and across the landscape, highlighting forms, surfaces and textures of the superstructure,
undercroft, piers, abutments and landscape. The combination of treatments and design
promote the perception of the bridge being an elevated street rather than motorway flyover.
The Project will result in a number of transport benefits for the State highway network and
the local road network (including public transport and walking and cycling) as well as new
buildings, structures and landscape treatments for the Basin Reserve area.
Related Projects
The Project forms part of the Tunnel to Tunnel package of works that in combination would
improve traffic and transportation between the Terrace Tunnel and Mount Victoria Tunnel.
The Tunnel to Tunnel package also comprises:
Undergrounding of Buckle Street as part of the National War Memorial Park project by
the Ministry of Culture and Heritage. This project is currently under construction and
expected to be completed by the end of 2014.
Other NZTA studies of SH1 sections that are also being considered or are being progressed
concurrently within Wellington:

Duplication of Mount Victoria Tunnel (construction planned for 2017/18).
Duplication of the Terrace Tunnel (subject to feasibility investigation in 2013/14).
Roading improvements along Cobham Drive and Ruahine Streets (construction planned
for 2017/18).
While there are linkages between these projects, each one is complex and entails significant
use of resource. As a consequence each is being progressed separately while maintaining
the appropriate design standards and specifications in order to achieve the NZTAs strategic
objectives for the RoNS.



5C1617.00
June 2013
15
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
4
Methodology
4.1
Literature Review and Information Sources
A literature review of international and local best practice focusing on the social impacts of
road development on people and communities has been undertaken. The literature review
has provided guidance on the process to be adopted for this project. The full literature review
is contained as Appendix 14.A to this report.
The International Association of Impact Assessment2 (IAIA) processes and criteria and as
discussed above have been applied in this assessment and further modified and informed to
incorporate NZTA Social and Environmental Management Professional Services Guide
(PSG/13)3 principles.
The base IAIA process was selected as:




It is an internationally accepted process for social impact assessment;
The process and criteria have been used extensively in New Zealand for large
infrastructure projects and has been proven to be a robust methodology;
It is likely that NZTA, in due course, will formally adopt modified IAIA principles as best
practice for NZTA projects; and
The process is flexible enough to be adapted to New Zealand circumstances and is able
to incorporate NZTA’s PSF/13 principles.
The demographic analysis includes many of the elements identified in Australian
Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) principles (see Appendix 14.A, ‘International
SIA Practices’), and Canadian considerations (under the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act) are included in the social assessment framework, where categories largely
overlap with categories of social effect identified by Forkenbrock and Weisbrod (2001), and
in local examples of SIA practice (Western Ring Route – Waterview Connection, Nelson
Arterial Traffic Study).
Other elements which informed inclusions in the framework for assessment included
international experience, social and environmental impact assessments prepared for other
roading projects in NZ and the wider policy environment within which the project exists.
The Draft NZTA Social Impact Assessment Standard4 has also been taken into account in
the assessment framework, although this document is still under review. This SIA is
substantially in accord with the draft standard, with approaches to political systems, culture
and health being scaled to a degree considered appropriate for this Project.
2
www.iaia.org/
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/state-highway-professional-services-contract-proforma-manual/guidelines/psg.html
4
Quigley, R, and Fitzgerald, G. (2012). Standard for social impact assessment of state highway projects. Wellington: NZ
Transport Agency
3
5C1617.00
June 2013
16
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
4.2
Community of Interest
The community of interest for the purposes of this Social Impact Assessment has been
informed by a number of sources. During public consultation, a number of interested parties
self-selected as the wider community of interest due to their participation in open days, or
through providing feedback in survey or email form. These parties were then treated as
stakeholders in the Project and their feedback has informed the analysis throughout the
process.
The community of interest has been further informed by a demographic analysis of a wider
geographic study area5, which identifies social and community infrastructure and facilities
within the study area, particularly those close to the Project alignment.
The demographic study area was selected in order to analyse the characteristics of
residents and communities within the catchment which was most likely to experience effects
as a result of the Project.
Input from the wider community of interest was then sought through further engagement with
identified community groups, and the general public. This included: feedback provided to
the social Project team, face-to-face interviews, and open day discussions and feedback.
Further information can be found in the demographic profile in Appendix 14.B of this
assessment, and in the summary of community engagement in Section 8 of this document
and in the Consultation Report6).
Definition of Affected Community
The following definitions have been adopted for the purposes of this assessment:



Directly Affected – those properties with land that is crossed by the designation;
Neighbours – those not directly affected but adjacent to the designation and affected by
proximity (local);
Wider Community of Interest – all those with an interest in the Project either at regional
or national level (including advocacy groups and regulatory stakeholders such as
Wellington City Council).
This terminology has been used in the assessment to differentiate the potential effects.
4.3
SIA Process and Framework
The process and framework used for this SIA is based on that of the IAIA. The IAIA7
describes social impact as:
“Analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences,
both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and
any social change processes invoked by those interventions”.
5
Based on Statistics New Zealand Meshblocks.
NZTA, Wellington Northern Corridor: Cobham Drive to Buckle Street Transport Improvements. Community Engagement
Summary Report, March 2012
7
www.iaia.org/
6
5C1617.00
June 2013
17
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
The IAIA notes that an SIA can be undertaken in a variety of contexts and for different
purposes but “[i]ts primary purpose is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable
biophysical and human environment”.
The IAIA process in this assessment is further informed by:
Local best practice outcomes, for example a study by MWH8 on the social effects of four
options for the Nelson Arterial routes (See Appendix 14.A)
NZTA requirements contained in PSG/13 Guidelines and NZTA Minimum Standard Z/19
Social and Environmental Management and carried through the Scheme Assessment
process into this report in support of the Notice of Requirement
Demographic analysis of present population and expected change, ethnic and racial
diversity, and influxes and outflows of temporary residents (mainly university students
from Victoria and Massey University), patterns of employment, the size and level of
activity of voluntary associations, religious organizations and interests groups, the
availability of housing and community and essential services. This information is
contained in Appendix 14.B to this report.



This SIA is undertaken within the background context of 10 years of previous studies
including the Meritec (2000) Scheme Assessment Report for Basin Reserve, the Ngauranga
to Airport Corridor Plan (now incorporated into the Wellington Regional Land Transport
Programme (RLTP) and the Opus Basin Reserve Improvement Investigation Project (20092010). The various options and proposals that have been explored have been widely
publicised over the years with the most comprehensive consultation feedback obtained from
key stakeholders and the community during the July and August 2011 consultation process.
This SIA is therefore a part of an integrated and defined process that has drawn on a variety
of inputs including stakeholder and community consultation and technical specialist
assessments which have informed the assessment and recommended mitigation measures.
4.4
Social Impact Assessment Criteria
The IAIA states that a way of conceptualising social impacts is as changes to one or more of
the following:






8
People’s way of life – that is, how they live, work, play and interact with one another on a
day-to-day basis;
Their culture – that is, their shared beliefs, customs, values and language or dialect;
Their community – its cohesion, stability, character, services and facilities;
Their political systems – the extent to which people are able to participate in decisions
that affect their lives, the level of democratisation that is taking place, and the resources
provided for this purpose;
Their environment – the quality of the air and water people use; the availability and
quality of the food they eat; the level of hazard or risk, dust and noise they are exposed
to; the adequacy of sanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over
resources;
Their health and wellbeing – health is a state of complete physical, mental, social and
spiritual wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity;
MWH, October 2010 – “Nelson Arterial Traffic Study Assessment of the social effects of the four selected options”
5C1617.00
June 2013
18
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment


Their personal and property rights – particularly whether people are economically
affected, or experience personal disadvantage which may include a violation of their civil
liberties; and
Their fears and aspirations – their perceptions about their safety, their fears about the
future of their community, and their aspirations for their future and the future of their
children.
The NZTA PSF/13 standard and PSG/13 guidelines provide a framework for incorporating
social and environmental considerations into State highway project planning.
4.5
Adopted Framework
The IAIA Framework is well recognised internationally and provides a sound framework for
assessing social impacts. It has been recently used on a New Zealand RoNs project
(Waterview Connection), and can be adapted to incorporate key aspects of the NZTA
PSG/13 guidelines.
The relevant aspects of the IAIA framework have been considered for the Project. Cultural
effects, however, are only partially addressed as a separate Cultural Impact Assessment
report on tangata whenua values has been prepared. It was considered by the social impact
team that reliance on the Cultural Impact Assessment was the most culturally safe and
appropriate approach. Other cultural effects are considered in the Heritage and
Archaeological assessments.
Health and spiritual wellbeing have been considered both through the cultural impact
assessment and through targeted consultation with spiritual groups e.g. St Joseph’s Church.
Health impacts are considered with respect to improvement of walking and cycling facilities
encouraging physical exercise.
Using the relevant categories of the IAIA framework, combined with the requirements of the
PSF/13, the following framework has been established for assessing the potential social and
community impacts that may result from the project:
Way of Life:


Impacts on accessibility, connectivity, patterns of living and mobility
Changes to ways of walking & cycling and changes to public transport
Well Being:


Changes to wellbeing
Health and safety
Environment and Amenity:

Noise, dust, amenity and landscape
Community:





Impact on people’s property and neighbourhoods
Impacts on schools
Impacts on community areas and sites
Impacts on community plans and aspirations
Impacts on and accessibility to commercial areas
5C1617.00
June 2013
19
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
This framework is considered suitable to ensure that social effects relevant to the Project are
considered.
4.6
Stages for Impact Assessment
There are four potential stages where social impacts can occur during a project:




Pre-application and planning;
Construction;
Operation; and
Closure/decommission (not relevant).
This assessment considers social impacts during the pre-application/planning, construction
and operation phases of the Project.
4.7
Information sources and data collection
Potential social and community effects were identified from a number of sources, which were
compiled and assessed against the above framework. Information sources for this SIA
included general project consultation, as well as consultation specifically on social and
community issues with targeted groups. These information sources were:



Site visits, carried out in order to understand the nature and extent of the study area, to
develop and refine the community of interest, and to gain an understanding of how the
community may be affected by the proposal.
An initial walk and drive around the surrounding communities to become familiar with
community, recreational and educational facilities within the area, location of residences
and movement paths.
Review of previous documentation and reports relevant to the Project to bring the
knowledge gained from the field work into perspective, including o
o
o







Scheme Assessment Report for Basin Reserve plus supporting reports including
issues and options analysis
NZTA Community Engagement and Summary Report March 2012
NZTA records of public consultation via survey and relevant stakeholder meetings.
Statutory and non-statutory documents described in Section 5 below.
2006 Census data (Statistics New Zealand) contained in Appendix 14.B including data
from the Deprivation Index (NZDep2006, University of Otago).
Attendance of various workshops attended by the specialists to examine and analyse
options, refine AEE scope and to discuss mitigation measures across the project.
Attendance of a workshop with relevant specialists and representatives of NZ Historic
Places Trust and Wellington City Council including the Community Services Manager.
Observation of the potentially impacted communities by walking, driving and cycling
through the area at different times of the day and week to obtain an understanding of
community processes (e.g. visiting the various schools at both the beginning and end of
the school day).
Contact with various organisations and review of websites to determine what community
activities were taking place and where they were located.
Conducted face-to-face meetings targeted at groups considered to be vulnerable, such
as schools, churches and the most directly affected landowners.
5C1617.00
June 2013
20
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment


Conducted face-to-face meetings with Regional Public Health on health perceptions and
potential effects.
Attendance at public open days to present the detailed Project design and discuss
effects.
In addition to the above the SIA team have either met with groups and individuals or have
requested other specialists in meetings with groups and individuals to ask specific SIA
questions, aimed at finding out about potential effects under the different categories of the
assessment framework (described above in 4.3). Information from these sources was then
fed back to the SIA team, and helped inform the social effects assessment of the Project.
Feedback arising from community engagement is summarised in section 8 of this report.
4.8
Rating of Effects
In the assessment of effects, each effect has been given an overall rating. The rating is
designed to provide direction to the project team as to the magnitude of the effect and the
degree of mitigation required. For some effects, mitigation has already been implicitly
applied by ‘avoidance of effects’ through the route selection process or through design
elements at earlier stages in the Project. For other effects, specific mitigation measures have
been recommended by the environmental specialists including the social specialist. The
rating takes into account these mitigation measures which are already included in the
Project. In some cases, no additional mitigation will be necessary, however in others
additional measures may be considered necessary from a social perspective.
A nine-point scale has been applied in assessing social effects, consistent with the scale
applied in the Scheme Assessment Report. The ratings applied to the effects are:
Substantial Significant Moderate
positive
positive
positive
Minor
positive
InMinor
significant negative
Moderate Significant Severe
negative negative negative
In applying the overall rating of the effects, consideration was given to: the length of duration
of the effect (construction / operational / both), who is affected (directly affected / neighbours
/ wider community), the likelihood of occurrence (high / medium / low), and the severity of
the impact (high / medium / low), and the importance of the affected feature (local / regional /
national).
5C1617.00
June 2013
21
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
5
Statutory and Policy Context
5.1
Statutory and Non-statutory Document Review
There are a number of statutory and non-statutory plans and policies prepared that provide
high-level context for the proposal. The summaries below describe strategies and policies
relevant to this social assessment, and how the Project responds to these, from a social
perspective.
National policy documents are outlined in the full Assessment of Environmental Effects
(AEE) and are therefore not included here.
5.2
Wellington Region
Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region (RPS)
The Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region (RPS) includes community
outcomes which reflect those in the Greater Wellington 10 Year Plan (2009-2019).
Objectives and policies relevant to the Basin Reserve project include ‘Natural hazards’ and
‘Regional form, design and function’, particularly issue 1 – ‘Poor quality urban design’:
“Poor quality urban design can adversely affect public health, social equity, land
values, the vibrancy of local centres and economies, and the provision of, and access
to, civic services. It can also increase the use of non-renewable resources and
vehicle emissions in the region.”
The RPS adapts the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol9 to provide ‘Regional Urban
Design Principles’ under headings: context; character; choice; connections; creativity;
custodianship and; collaboration.
Urban design principals relate to a number of different elements of social impact, including
amenity and environment, way of life, and health and safety. From a social perspective, the
Project has responded to this by the iterative consideration of the context and visual impact
of the Project and connectivity in developing the final design.
Greater Wellington Long Term Plan 2012-2022 (LTP)
The Greater Wellington Regional Council Long Term Plan 2012-2022 introduces a focus on
emergency management; announcing the formation of a Civil Defence Emergency
Management Group in partnership with the region’s district and city councils, and it also
places a focus on emphasising economic growth. The LTP includes five community
outcomes:
Strong economy – ‘A thriving and diverse economy supported by high quality
infrastructure that retains and grows businesses and employment.’
Connected community – ‘People are able to move around the region efficiently and
our communications networks are effective and accessible.’
9
Wellington Regional Council, Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington region, April 2013
(p.183).
5C1617.00
June 2013
22
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Resilient community – ‘A community that plans for the future, adapts to change and
is prepared for emergencies.’
Healthy environment – ‘An environment with clean air, fresh water, healthy soils
and diverse ecosystems that supports community needs.’
Quality of Life – ‘An engaged community that takes pride in our region, values our
urban and rural landscapes, and enjoys our amenities and choice of lifestyles.’
All five of the community outcomes in the LTP are relevant to the Project from a social
perspective. From a social perspective, the Project responds to the first three outcomes
through the provision of quality infrastructure, including connections for public transport,
walking and cycling routes. The outcomes, ‘Healthy environment’ and ‘Quality of Life’ relate
closely to the framework that has been used in this assessment of social effects. From a
social perspective, the Project responds to these outcomes through the provision of new
public spaces and landscape design10.
Wellington Regional Strategy (2012) (WRS)
The aim of the Wellington Regional Strategy (WRS) 11 is to:
“…build a resilient, diverse economy – one that retains and creates jobs (especially
high value jobs), supports the growth of high value companies and improves the
region’s position in relation to the national GDP and national employment.”
The WRS 2012 proposes six focus areas 12in achieving this aim:

Focus area 1: commercialisation of innovation
With a focus on business-led innovation, this involves supporting successful
businesses to innovate and champion a vibrant and supportive business
environment.

Focus area 2: Investment mechanisms for growth
This is about attracting international investment, making more of existing investment
networks (such as angel investment networks) and ensuring businesses are in a
position to realise investment opportunities.

Focus area 3: Building world-class infrastructure
Regional economic prosperity is heavily dependent on the region’s level of
connectedness and resilience at local, national and international levels. This is in turn
dependent on the quality of our foundation infrastructure and transport systems.

Focus area 4: Attracting business, investment and talent to the region
This focus area is about having a targeted approach to attracting businesses,
potential investors, skilled migrants and students to the region.
10
For detail on the landscape design, refer to the Urban Design and Landscape Framework,
Technical Report 2.
11
Wellington Regional Council, Wellington Regional Strategy 2012, p. 6.
12
Wellington Regional Council, Wellington Regional Strategy 2012, p.7.
5C1617.00
June 2013
23
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment

Focus area 5: Education and workforce development to service regional economy
needs
This focus area is about building on existing connections and initiatives to grow the
region’s skills and education base, and ensure the region’s specific skills needs are
met.

Focus area 6: Open for business
Being open for business is about councils delivering business services with a “can
do” attitude and facilitating a business environment where smart, innovative firms can
flourish
Focus Area 313 in particular includes “Building resilience in our roads, railways and regional
airports”. From a social perspective, the Project responds to this through future-proofing key
transport infrastructure for the local environment, and for the wider Wellington region.
Anticipated benefits to the local community, and to the wider community of interest include
improved travel time reliability and reduced trip time (refer to the Assessment of Economic
Effects for details14)
Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-2040
This strategy is prepared to comply with the requirements of the Land Transport
Management Act 2003 and in support of the New Zealand Transport Strategy 2008. It sets
out the long term aims of the region with regard to transport infrastructure, modes and
maintenance. Key outcomes15 for the strategy are:







Increased peak period public transport mode share
Increased mode share for pedestrians and cyclists
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions
Reduced severe road congestion
Improved regional road safety
Improved land use and transport integration
Improved regional freight efficiency.
Issues identified throughout the strategy include community identified barriers to cycling;
severance of communities; accessibility to mobility impaired and aged residents; and the
need to improve both public transport and road capacity.
From a social perspective, the Project responds to this through the inclusion of new
infrastructure for active transportation modes, and upgrades to existing infrastructure such
as crossing facilities.
Wellington Regional Walking Plan 2008 and Wellington Regional Cycling Plan
2008
These Plans identify a range of actions and initiatives to achieve the outcomes for walking
and cycling set out in the Regional Land Transport Strategy. While the outcomes and
13
Wellington Regional Council, Wellington Regional Strategy 2012, p.12
Technical Report 17 – Economic Impact Assessment
15
Wellington Regional Council, Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-2040, September
2010 (p.ii).
14
5C1617.00
June 2013
24
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
objectives of the respective plans predate the more recent 2010 Regional Land Transport
Strategy, several of their key actions are on-going. Relevant actions for the pedestrian16 and
cycle17 network are:




Improve the Pedestrian Network and Cycling Network – including reviews in light of best
practice guidelines
Provide for Pedestrians and Cyclists in Land Development – including advocacy for
pedestrian and cyclist priority and accessibility in significant developments
Encourage Walking to School
Facilitate Information Sharing – including community engagement and opportunities for
feedback on local network issues
From a social perspective, the Project responds to this by retaining and improving existing
walking and cycling networks around the Basin Reserve, and through the consideration of
alternative transport modes in community engagement during the design process18.
5.3
Wellington City Council
Wellington City Long Term Plan 2012-2022
Wellington City Council (WCC) has recently adopted a new Long Term Plan for 2012 to
2022. The LTP reflects the council vision document ‘Towards 2040’, using its four key areas
as community outcomes:




Connected City
Dynamic Central City
Eco-City
People Centred City
Wellington 2040
Wellington 2040 is Wellington City Council City Strategy, providing the strategic vision for the
city and is intended as a ‘front end’ to the Long Term Plan. The strategy’s key aims are
focussed in four areas: People centred city, Connected city, Eco-city and, Dynamic city.
The key elements of the strategy which are relevant to the Project are that the future
Wellington is able to support efficient infrastructure, as well as growing the unique identities
of Wellington suburbs. Wellington 2040 also includes nine project ideas19 to support the
delivery of the strategy, and the Project responds in particular to the ‘Capital Precincts’ idea,
by integrating open spaces with the National War Memorial Park. The Project also responds
to the ‘Cross Valley Links’ idea by providing cycling and pedestrian connections across the
Kent/Cambridge Terrace valley north of the Basin Reserve.
Wellington City Recreation Strategy (2003)
The Recreation Strategy establishes a vision for sport recreation and leisure opportunities
within Wellington. These activities contribute to the health and well-being of the city by:
16
Wellington Regional Council, Wellington Regional Walking Plan 2008, (pp.4-7)
Wellington Regional Council, Wellington Regional Cycling Plan 2008, (pp.6,7,9)
18
Refer to section 8.4 of this report for more detail.
19
http://www.wgtn2040.govt.nz/making-it-happen/central-city-framework/nine-project-ideas
17
5C1617.00
June 2013
25
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment



Enhancing individual health and well-being;
Increasing social cohesion and people's sense of belonging; and
Attracting visitors and creating jobs which increase expenditure.
An objective relevant to the Project is to improve accessibility for all citizens to sport,
recreation and leisure activities. Actions required to achieve this include improving nonmotorised transport options (cycling and walking) for people to commute to and from work,
school and recreation and sport venues. Improvements to pedestrian and cycle facilities
within the area including access to Basin Reserve and other community facilities, planned as
part of this Project, are therefore, from a social perspective, also in support of this council
Strategy.
Wellington City Community Facilities Policy (2010)
Community facilities are categorised in this policy as both physical buildings as well as focal
points in the community where people can come together. The primary objective of this
policy is that everyone in Wellington should have the opportunity to use community facilities.
A key tenet is that of reasonable access. That is, providing facilities that are located and
designed in a way that maximises access. These are facilities that are easy to get to, get in
and around particularly for people with disabilities and that people feel welcome to use.
From a social perspective, the Project responds to this policy through improving connections
to and around the Basin Reserve20.
Wellington City Urban Development Strategy (2006)
The Urban Development Strategy (UDS) was developed to ensure that the future growth of
the City will reinforce the physical and spatial characteristics that make Wellington unique.
The UDS contains a number of long-term outcomes21 that direct urban development in the
City over the next 10 years:






More liveable: Wellington will be a great place to be, offering a variety of places to live,
work and play within a high quality public environment.
More sustainable: Wellington’s urban form will support an efficient and sustainable use
of our rural and natural resources and promote prosperity and social well-being over the
long term.
Better connected: Wellington will be easy to get around, pedestrian-friendly and offer
quality transport choices on a highly interconnected public transport and street system.
More prosperous: Wellington’s urban form, and flexible approach to land use planning in
the central city, centres and industrial areas, will contribute to economic growth and
prosperity.
More compact: Wellington will have a contained urban form, with intensification in
appropriate areas and mixed land-use, structured around a vibrant central city, key
suburban centres and major transport corridors.
Safer: Wellington will be a safe place to be, with well-designed buildings, spaces and
connections between them.
20
For detail on community facilities in the Project area, refer to section 6.6 of this report.
Wellington City Council, Urban Development Framework: Directing growth and delivering quality.
July 2006, pp6-8.
21
5C1617.00
June 2013
26
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment

Stronger sense of place: Wellington will be a memorable, beautiful city, celebrating and
building on its sense-of-place, capital city status, distinctive landform and landmarks,
defining features, heritage and high quality buildings and spaces.
The UDS includes a Growth Spine concept that identifies the area south of the Basin
Reserve as an area of intensification, public transport investment, roading investment and
employment growth. Assuming they are effective in their purpose, the improvements offered
through the Project will support the above outcomes.
Public Space Design Policy (2010)
This policy gives direction to the Council for the design, delivery and management of public
spaces. Public spaces are defined as streets, lanes, intersections, parks, promenades and
squares. It includes among its key objectives22:




To enhance Wellington’s sense of place
To improve accessibility for all
To enhance the city’s night-time environment and
To ensure that public spaces incorporate high-quality design
These objectives reflect key objectives in the Wellington City Urban Development Strategy
and the Wellington Regional Strategy, and relate to elements of the assessment framework
used in this assessment, namely; Way of Life (accessibility, connectivity, patterns of living
and mobility), Wellbeing (health and safety) and Environment and Amenity (amenity and
landscape). From a social perspective, the Project responds to these objectives through a
number of design principles related to the form and appearance of the bridge structure, as
well as access and usability of the streets, overpass and open spaces by pedestrians and
cyclists23.
Wellington City Transport Strategy (2006) (TS)
The Transport Strategy (TS) was developed with the intention of setting out a clear transport
map for the future development of the City’s transport system. The TS does not include
specific projects or budgetary details, but rather provides overarching long-term outcomes.
The outcomes24 that will guide the development of the City’s transport system over the next
10years include:





More liveable: Wellington will be easy to get around, pedestrian-friendly and offer quality
transport choices.
More prosperous: Wellington will have a coherent and efficient transport system that
aids economic development.
More sustainable: Wellington will minimise the environmental effects of transport and
support the environmental strategy.
Better connected: Wellington will have a highly interconnected public transport, road and
street system that supports its urban development and social strategies.
Healthier: Wellington’s transport system will contribute to healthy communities and
social interaction.
22
Wellington City Council, Public Space Design Policy, December 2009. pp5-20.
For further details refer to the assessment of effects in section 9 of this assessment.
24
Wellington City Council, Wellington City Transport Strategy, 2006 (pp.6-7).
23
5C1617.00
June 2013
27
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment

Safer: Wellington will seek to improve the safety and security of its citizens as they move
around the city and region.
As with the Regional Land Transport Strategy, from a social perspective, the project
responds to this through its provision of infrastructure and facilities such as dedicated cycle
lanes and signalised crossings to encourage pedestrian and cycling modes, and improve
overall safety.
Adelaide Road Framework (2008) (ARF)
The Adelaide Road Framework (ARF) provides a long-term vision for the future development
of the Adelaide Road area. The ARF covers the Adelaide Road Growth Area, as well as
taking into consideration the wider land-use and transportation influences including the
Wellington Hospital, Massey University, Basin Reserve, and SH1.
The long-term vision for Adelaide Road set out in the ARF is, “A high quality mixed-use area
that is a more vibrant, attractive, better connected, accessible and safer place which meets
the needs of all people living in, working in, and using the area”. The ARF’s vision is based
around five key areas:





Open space (green and blue networks).
Social and community (places and spaces for people).
Movement networks (roads, footpaths/walkways, cycle ways, public transport routes).
Heritage and character (buildings and area).
Mixes of uses (residential, employment, services and institutions).
From a social perspective, the Project responds to this policy by improving linkages between
green spaces, and has taken care to minimise any effects to heritage buildings. The Project
is also expected to improve traffic flows, provide more room for dedicated public transport
and enhance the environment for walking and cycling.
Centres Policy (2008) (CP)
The Centres Policy (CP) provides a framework for the development and management of
Wellington’s centres. The CP considers in an integrated way the varied roles of the centres
across Wellington and the way these centres contribute to the Growth Spine concept of
development – where centres are connected by a high quality transport corridor. The overall
intent of the CP is to maintain and strengthen existing and future planned centres.
The CP contains a number of objectives. The most relevant objectives to this assessment
include:



Objective 2 – To maintain and strengthen the central city as the primary centre within the
city and region for shopping, employment, city-living, culture and entertainment, tourism
and major events, and ensure that development in other locations does not compromise
this role.
Objective 3 – To strengthen the multi-functional nature of centres, including their role as
social and community foci, public transport hubs, places where people live and work,
and centres for entertainment, recreation and local services.
Objective 7 – To improve the urban design quality of all centres and build on their sense
of place.
5C1617.00
June 2013
28
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
The Basin Reserve improvements have the opportunity to contribute to the achievement of
this policy through the improved and enhanced access between neighbouring suburbs
including Newtown, Adelaide Road and the central business district.
Wellington City Council Walking & Cycling Policies (2008)
The Wellington City Council Cycling Policy (Cycling Policy) and the Wellington City Council
Walking Policy (Walking Policy) were released in November 2008. Both policies form part of
the overall transport planning for Wellington as set out in the Transport Strategy 2006.
The Cycling Policy25 focuses on developing a framework to improve cycling infrastructure,
safety and convenience. Key objectives that have particular relevance to this assessment
include:



To improve cycle safety throughout Wellington.
To improve the convenience of cycling in Wellington.
To improve the experience of cycle trips to and from the central area.
Each of these objectives are supported by a number of policies that highlight the Council’s
position on achieving the objectives. The most relevant policies26 include:
Every opportunity to make the city as safe as possible for cyclists must be explored.
Every opportunity must be taken to make improvements to the cycle network to make
the routes safer and more convenient.
The Walking Policy’s27 key objectives that have particular relevance to the Basin Reserve
improvements include:





To promote the benefits of walking so that more people walk.
To improve pedestrian safety throughout the city.
To increase the number of commuter trips taken by foot to and from the Central Area.
Each of these objectives are also supported by a number of policies that highlight the
Council’s position on achieving the objectives. The most relevant policies28 include:



Every opportunity should be taken to ensure the pedestrian network is accessible to all
users where practicable.
Every opportunity to make the city as safe as possible for pedestrians must be explored.
Explore every opportunity to make the walking routes from areas within 25 minutes
potential walk from the central area as interconnected as possible for pedestrians.
An important element of the project is providing for walking and cycling through inclusions
such as the separated pedestrian and cycle-way on the bridge itself, and improved paths
and crossing facilities around the Basin Reserve. From a social perspective, enabling safe
walking and cycling is a positive effect of the Project.
25
Wellington City Council, Wellington City Council Cycling Policy, 2008 (p.4)
Wellington City Council, Wellington City Council Cycling Policy, 2008 (pp.5,12)
27
Wellington City Council, Wellington City Council Walking Policy, 2008 (p.3)
28
Wellington City Council, Wellington City Council Walking Policy, 2008 (pp.4,8,15)
26
5C1617.00
June 2013
29
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
5.4
Summary
With regard to the relevant social considerations of this assessment, overall the Project is
aligned with the relevant policy context. It provides key transportation infrastructure to
support the future transport network, and ensures long term access between the Wellington
City and Wellington Airport, as well supporting the local connectivity and provision for
multiple transport modes. The Project also takes into account planned future growth
aspirations for the city, and incorporates design principles to ensure that the design
responds to its physical and cultural context.
5C1617.00
June 2013
30
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
6
Existing Social Environment (base assessment)
6.1
Overview
This section describes the existing environment around the Project area, providing a
baseline for assessment. It includes land-uses, a community profile, description of key
community facilities and travel patterns in the area.
The starting point for this analysis is the demographic profile of the local area. The
demographic profile describes the existing environment and assists in the identification of
potential community groups which may be affected by the Project, particularly those which
are not in direct proximity to the Project, but which may take a particular interest in it, such
as community groups defined as ‘neighbours’ or ‘wider community’ in the assessment of
effects.
For the purposes of this assessment, a study area has been defined to reflect the
neighbourhoods and communities most likely to be affected by the Project (see figure 14.4
below). The geographic boundaries of the demographic study area are wider than the
Project area as the Basin Reserve is a regionally important sporting and recreational facility,
as well as a key transport hub. Boundaries for the demographic study area have been
largely selected to follow natural boundaries around the area: the waterfront to the north; the
town belt to the east, parks and areas of low residential population to the south; parks, town
belt and motorway to the west. As the immediate Project area has a low resident population,
the selection of these boundaries was to ensure that connections between areas of higher
residential population, and community facilities – including the Basin Reserve itself – were
considered. A full demographic profile is provided in Appendix 14.B.
This section then describes community infrastructure and resources within the demographic
study area which have the potential to be affected by the Project, this including facilities
which were identified by submitters and stakeholders in consultation.
Feedback from the community and stakeholder consultation provides further context about
the existing environment and collectively, these sources provide insight into the local study
area and people’s:



Attitudes, expectations and aspirations
Wellbeing
Culture and local communities
As the wider community of interest extends beyond the demographic study area, information
on potential effects has been sourced through general community engagement and further,
targeted consultation, as well as information gathered from other specialist reports (see
sections 7 and 8).
5C1617.00
June 2013
31
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Figure 14.4 Location of demographic study area within Wellington City
5C1617.00
June 2013
32
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
6.2
Demographic Profile
A demographic profile has been prepared (refer to Appendix 14.B) as an input to inform the
existing environment and assist in the identification of potential community groups which
may be affected by the Project, particularly those which are not in direct proximity to the
Project.
While the study area for the Project falls within central Wellington and shares many of its
characteristics, there are several demographic elements which differ from the wider
Wellington City context. In particular the study area is projected to experience higher
population growth than Wellington City, its population is young, highly mobile and with a mix
of high and low incomes in neighbouring areas. It also has a higher uptake of walking and
cycling as a main means of transport than the city as a whole. The following summary
outlines some of the key demographic features of the study area. A full demographic
illustration of the area is provided in Appendix 14.B.
The usually resident population for the study area represents approximately 19% of the
population of Wellington City. Population growth in the study area was greater than
Wellington City in general between both 1996-2011 (10.5% compared with 4%) and 20012006 (16% compared with 9%). Statistics New Zealand29 estimates a projected growth of
approximately 49% for the study area, compared with approximately 29% for Wellington City
between 2006 and 2031.
There is likely to be a relationship between the proximity of the study area to Victoria and
Massey Universities, as the study area is largely composed of young adults. Roughly
twenty-one percent of residents in the study area were aged between 20-24 years old. Most
residents were aged between 15 and 34 years, and there was a lower number of residents in
all other age ranges than Wellington City.
While the ethnic composition of the study area follows roughly the same proportions of each
ethnic group as Wellington City, it has slightly higher numbers on non-European ethnicities.
Over half of residents in the study area identify as belonging to European ethnic groups
(61.1%). The second largest group is Asian ethnicity (14.5%) followed by Maori, Pacific
Peoples and MELAA30 ethnic groups.
Around 88% of residents in the study area speak English compared with 92% in Wellington
City generally, and there are also higher number of speakers of Maori, Samoan and ‘other’
languages than in the wider Wellington area. While non-English speakers include children
too young to have any developed language skills, the demographic profile of the study area
suggests a higher number of migrants, as it has fewer residents aged 0-4 years than
Wellington City.
Fewer residents within the study area were born in New Zealand (62%) than in Wellington
City (72%), and of the non-NZ born residents in the study area, 57% arrived nine years ago
or less, while in Wellington City this was 46%.
29
30
‘Medium’ growth projections based on 2006 Census data. Refer to Appendix 14.B for further detail.
Middle-Eastern, Latin American, African ethnicity,
5C1617.00
June 2013
33
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
There is more than twice the number of non-family multi-person households (31%) in the
study area than in Wellington City (25%), suggesting flatting situations. The study area also
had a higher number of one person households (31%) than in Wellington City (25%) and a
lower occupancy rate of 2.3 compared with 2.6 in Wellington City. Sixty-three percent of
dwellings within the study area were classed as flats/townhouses or apartments.
The population of the study area is more mobile than the wider Wellington area, almost half
the population (42.8%) within the study area have lived in their usual residence for less than
a year, and 28.2% have lived in their usual residence for 1-4 years. Twenty-three percent of
residents own or part own their dwelling in the study area, compared with 47% in Wellington
City. Of the properties that are rented, the majority are rented from a private landlord (72%)
although over 20% of tenants rent accommodation from public housing providers like
Housing New Zealand.
Employment status figures were similar for both the study area and Wellington City, however
the study area had 1% more unemployed residents, and 4% fewer full-time employed
residents than Wellington City.
The median household income for the study area was $6,200 lower than Wellington City,
while weekly rents were $31 higher in the study area. Although the study area had a higher
number of single-person households than Wellington City, one or several members of a
household (children for example) may contribute no income.
The study area had a high number of residents in both the top income band (23%) and in the
bottom income band (15%), a greater mix of socio-economic status than in Wellington City.
While lower deprivation areas tended to be towards the north-east of the study area, and the
area closest to the Basin Reserve had the highest level of deprivation, the study area also
had a mix of deprivation levels, particularly along Adelaide Road where high and low
deprivation meshblocks were immediately adjacent to one another.
Wellington City Council is planning for development within the study area as part of their
Adelaide Road Framework (2008). This extends to Buckle Street, Sussex Street, Rugby
Street and its intersection with Adelaide Road. The Framework is intended to revitalise and
develop the Adelaide Road area, and align with WCC’s Urban Development Strategy (2006).
It is intended to enable intensive residential development along its length, having
implications for future commuter volumes, traffic, pedestrian movements and demand for
public transport in the area.
6.3
Physical environment
The physical environment of the Project area is described in the AEE (refer to 6.1.1 in Part A
of the AEE). The Project area is described as:
… located at the low point in a valley between the Mount Cook minor ridgeline to the west
and the major Mount Victoria ridgeline to the east. Further to the west is the major ridgeline
of Brooklyn/ Kelburn.
The major ridgelines (Mount Victoria and Brooklyn/Kelburn) provide a strong sense of
enclosure to the Project Area and shape the distant skyline views to the east and west. The
5C1617.00
June 2013
34
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
minor ridgeline of Mount Cook is accentuated by the Carillion and its green setting merging
into the elevated grounds of the Former National Museum.
The Town Belt is located on the higher land of Mount Victoria and has a strong visual
presence providing a prominent green backdrop to many City views (including from within
the Project Area).
The Visual Assessment31 includes a baseline assessment to outline elements which are
important to the visual amenity of the Basin Reserve environment. These elements include:
the Basin Reserve and the Town Belt
sense of openness and views toward the Basin from major streets intersecting at the
Basin Reserve
the distinctive ring of pohutukawa trees defining the Basin Reserve’s edges
different ‘interface’ conditions along the length of the Project area
other open spaces such as the War Memorial grounds and Memorial Park;
Kent/Cambridge Terraces planted median; the open space environment of Government
House and nearby school grounds





The Visual Assessment baseline assessment also finds that the area around the Basin
Reserve has increasingly become a vehicle oriented environment and the poor quality of
some of the existing footpaths, degrades the visual experience of pedestrians moving
through the area.
6.4
Land-use
There are a variety of land-uses in the Basin Reserve’s immediate environment. These
include business/commercial, residential and institutional land uses, as well as regionally
significant community facilities.
The Basin Reserve is south-east of the Wellington CBD, and is both a sporting facility,
recreational reserve and the centre of a key transport hub facilitating local road users and
SH1 users in north-south and east-west directions.
Facilities near the Basin Reserve reflect its eclectic mix of land-uses. Within 200 metres of
the Basin are accommodation providers, fast-food restaurants, a medical centre, commercial
services and residential dwellings. The wider study area encompasses part of the CBD to
the north, which is a centre for employment as well as industrial, commercial, institutional
and retail services. The town centre in Newtown to the south of the study area provides
neighbourhood shops, second-hand stores, supermarkets and food stores and restaurants.
Adelaide Road, which connects the Basin Reserve with Newtown is a main corridor for the
area and provides a range of commercial, light industrial and retail facilities. It is also the
location of a Community Probation Centre for the Department of Corrections, and Wellington
Hospital, a key regional facility for Wellington, and much of the southern North Island.
6.5
Travel Patterns and Community Linkages
As indicated in the Census data above, there is a high uptake of active transport modes
within the study area, and a lower rate of car ownership. While there are high numbers of
31
Technical Report 10: Assessment of Visual Effects.
5C1617.00
June 2013
35
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
pedestrians travelling to work, the local schools and universities are also key destinations for
walkers. Major events at the Basin Reserve such as concerts or international cricket
matches cause particular spikes in numbers of pedestrians travelling to the venue. Events
such as Wellington Carols by Candlelight can attract around 7,000 visitors, and the sports
ground has a capacity of 11,60032 for spectators.
Motor-vehicles
While there are higher numbers of pedestrians and cyclists within the study area than in
Wellington City generally, the number of commuters travelling to work by motor vehicle was
only slightly less, 31% travelling as a driver or passenger in a car, truck or van, and 34%
walking, jogging or cycling to work on census day (refer to 6.2, and Appendix 14.B). As well
as serving local access to and from work, school, recreation, the Basin Reserve is a
regionally important transport hub. Many commuters living outside of the study area travel
through it as State Highway 1 travels around the north-eastern corner of the Basin Reserve
in an eastern direction (towards Wellington International Airport), and around the south and
western sides of the Basin heading west (coming from the airport).
Public Transport
The Basin Reserve is at the intersection of two key transportation spines serving the eastern
suburbs and the airport to the east, and the hospital and Newtown to the south. It is also a
fare stage, and as result a key area for passengers either starting their journey by bus, or
disembarking to continue on foot. Dedicated school buses serve the schools along Dufferin
and Austin Streets, but many students also use public bus services33. There are competing
demands on the Project area from different transport users; this includes motorists on State
Highway 1, local traffic in east-west and north-south directions, and higher percentages of
pedestrians and cyclists within the demographic study area than the wider Wellington City.
Pedestrians
The wider Project team carried out a study of pedestrian activity around the Basin Reserve
to better understand pedestrian movements and behaviour in March and April 201234. The
team made the following observations based on the survey:





The strongest desire line is north-south.
There are frequent pedestrian movements along Tasman and Tory Streets
More pedestrians walk on the eastern side of the Basin (via Rugby, Dufferin and Ellice
Streets) compared to the western side (Rugby and Sussex Streets)
A large number of pedestrians use the Adelaide Road/Rugby Street and Paterson
Street/Dufferin Street intersections
Few pedestrian movements head to Buckle Street.
32
http://www.cricketwellington.co.nz/
Refer to sections 6.6.2, and 8.5 of this assessment.
34
Refer to Appendix 4.4, Technical Report 4: Assessment of Traffic and Transportation Effects
33
5C1617.00
June 2013
36
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Data visualisations from Statistics New Zealand based on Census 2006 data35 show
numbers of commuters travelling to work on foot on census day. This shows a snapshot of
the volume of active transport users, travelling from meshblocks around the Project area.
Figure 14.5 Pedestrian movements through the study area36
Figure 14.5 above shows the volume of pedestrian commuters by their start and end points
(note that this does not show the actual route travelled). The dark red lines show 100 or
more commuters travelling to work on foot (on census day); these movements are from
meshblocks to the north, east, south and west of the CBD. The bright red lines show smaller
numbers of commuters (see the key above) moving throughout the CBD. Of particular
interest are the lines coming from meshblocks to the south of the Basin Reserve. This
indicates the potential number of pedestrians travelling past the Basin Reserve into the CBD,
and the importance of the Basin Reserve and its surrounds as a pedestrian through-route.
Cyclists
Data visualisations from Statistics New Zealand based on Census 2006 data37 show
numbers of commuters cycling to work on census day. This shows a snapshot of the
volume of active transport users, travelling from meshblocks around the Project area.
35
Commuter view 2006, Statistics New Zealand.
Commuter View 2006, Statistics New Zealand.
37
Commuter view 2006, Statistics New Zealand.
36
5C1617.00
June 2013
37
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Figure 14. 6 Cyclist movements through the study area:38
While the numbers of cyclists coming from the study area are smaller than those for
pedestrians, figure 14.6 above shows that cyclists predominantly travel in the same northsouth direction past the Basin as pedestrians, although trips originate further away and some
to the east of the study area. Dedicated facilities for cyclists through the area are not
integrated. A section of cycle lane exists on the southeast corner of Rugby Street and
Adelaide Road, and cyclists share pathways through the Basin Reserve and through the Mt
Victoria Tunnel, however, cyclists are incorporated with motor-vehicle traffic on the road
elsewhere. Controlled ‘Toucan’ crossings, which enable cyclists to ride across at pedestrian
cross signals can be found on the Rugby Street/ Adelaide Road intersection and the
northern side of the Buckle Street/Tory Street crossing.
Summary
Provision of safe cycling and walking environments is important to the community as
evidenced in the feedback provided in submissions. Active modes are popular within the
study area, and although key points of crossing and routes taken may vary with the
development of road alignments and open spaces through the area, direction of foot traffic
still needs to be accommodated. The Project provides an opportunity to improve pedestrian
and cycling facilities through the study area, as well as improving transport linkages for
public transport and private motor vehicle journeys into and out of the CBD, to and from the
airport, and linking with SH1 to the north.
38
Commuter View 2006, Statistics New Zealand.
5C1617.00
June 2013
38
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
6.6
Community Facilities
This section describes key social and community facilities in the study area, and the
potential for social effects as a result of the Project. Discussions are based on observations
of the facilities in the Project area39, engagement with community groups40 and other
technical assessments. A full assessment of social effects is included in section 9. These
facilities are discussed in groups according to the type of facility they provide; religious
centres, educational facilities, reserves and recreational facilities, medical and institutional,
and other community facilities. A map of social and community facilities in close proximity to
the Project area can be found in the Plan and Drawing set in Volume 5 of these
documents41.
6.6.1 Religious Centres affected by the Project
Within the study area, potential impacts will primarily be on religious centres which are in the
immediate environment of the Basin Reserve, particularly St Joseph’s Church on Ellice
Street. The church is losing several carparks as a result of the Project, and replacement
carparks are to be provided in an alternative location, which addresses the safety and
accessibility of church-goers. It will also have improved pedestrian access, with a direct link
to the shared footpath / cycle lane on the bridge structure, and general improvements to the
pedestrian environment in the Ellice / Dufferin Street area. St Mark’s Anglican Church on
Dufferin Street may be affected by local road and bus lanes changes and general
accessibility to the church during construction. Vehicle access from Ellice and Brougham
Streets appears to be unaffected.
Other religious centres within the study area have been identified by the social impact team
as religious centres with the potential to experience effects as a result of changes to the
local transport environment (these effects are summarised in Table 14.1 below). Effects
may be positive, due to reduction in traffic volumes and improved safety for pedestrians and
cyclists in the area. There is the potential for slight accessibility changes to centres on
Hania Street, due the removal of right-turn access into Hania Street from the Ellice Street
end42. The full assessment of social effects is in section 9 of this assessment.
Table 14.1: Religious Centres
Centre
Location
St Mark’s Anglican
Church
11 Dufferin
Street
St Joseph’s Church
& social services
42 Ellice Street
Potential Effects
Indirect effects from local road and bus lanes
changes and changes to the number of vehicles in
this location. May result in improvements in general
accessibility to the church.
There will be land required from the existing parking
area of the Church. Vehicle access points appear
unaffected and safety has been considered to
address risks of conflicts with vehicles on Paterson
Street.
39
Refer to the Plan and Drawing Set in Volume 5 of these documents.
Refer to section 8 of this assessment.
41
Plan and Drawing Set, Volume 5, Sheet 3H.01.
42
Refer to Figure 14.2 and the Project Description in section 3.
40
5C1617.00
June 2013
39
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
The Street City
Church
Greek Orthodox
Church and
Community Centre
Seventh Day
Adventist Church
9 Hania Street
3 Hania Street
There is no direct impact but accessibility may
change slightly with the removal of the right turn into
Hania Street from Ellice Street.
27 Tasman
Street
There may be improvements in general
accessibility.
6.6.2 Educational Facilities affected by the Project
There are four schools within close proximity to the Basin Reserve, and a range of
educational facilities ranging from crèches and pre-schools to universities. Closest to the
Basin Reserve are St Mark’s Church School, Wellington College and Wellington East Girls
College, while Mt Cook School is close to works proposed along Buckle Street.
St Mark’s Church School
St Mark’s Church School is a private school on Dufferin Street which provides a co-ed full
primary school (up to year 8) with a school roll of 298 students. It is a decile 10 school and
includes a pre-school onsite (a decile 10 rating means that there is a low level of deprivation
at the school, while decile 1 indicates a high rating. Refer to the demographic study in
Appendix 14.B for more information.)
The school has a wide catchment and few pupils walk or cycle to school. Students are
predominantly passengers in private motor vehicles, or catch school bus services which are
shared with other local schools43.
Currently there is a dedicated bus lane, separated from the short-term car parks alongside
the school gates, which parents use as drop-off and pick-up spaces. Parents of students
also use the St Joseph’s Church carpark before and after school bell times to park and walk
with their children to and from school.
Changes to local street arrangements may affect drop-off and pick-up areas for school
buses and parents transporting students to and from the school, which has the potential to
affect the safety of pupils before and after school. The future design for the current drop-off
area on Dufferin Street has been re-designed in cooperation with the school, and will
segregate the pick-up / drop-off area from through traffic (refer to section 8.4, Key
Stakeholder Meetings for more information).
Wellington College
Wellington College is a single-sex state school on Dufferin Street, catering for boys in years
9- 15. It has a roll of 1,527 students and is a decile 10 school.
The demographic of the school is changing over time, with more students coming from (in
zone) apartments in town, and walking to school. Students dropped off at school by private
motor car are primarily dropped off on the corner of Dufferin Street in the morning, however
43
Meeting at St Mark’s Church School, 27 August, 2012.
5C1617.00
June 2013
40
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
most pupils come to school by bus44. Some senior students also drive private motor
vehicles including motorcycles and motor scooters. The school has 14 buses, taking about
40 students each. Buses drop pupils off in the morning at the school gates on Dufferin
Street, and collect students from inside the school grounds, exiting onto Paterson Street in
the afternoon and turning left to go around the Basin Reserve.
As with St Mark’s Church School, there will be changes to the school bus drop-off area
outside the school gate, changes to this space have been re-designed in discussion with the
school. Traffic safety measures will need to be considered during construction to enable
buses to exit onto Paterson Street.
Wellington East Girls College
Wellington East Girls College is a single-sex state school on Austin Street, catering for girls
in years 9- 15. It has a roll of 980 students and is a decile 8 school. Currently students are
dropped off on Austin Street in the morning, and collected from Ellice Street in the
afternoons. Existing school bus services are not expected to be affected by the Project as a
link road will be included between Ellice Street and Patterson Street.
The wider project team45 discussed a number of alternative options with school
representatives, relevant bus companies, and Wellington City Council, and incorporated their
preferences into the final project design.
Mt Cook School
Mt Cook School is a full primary state school on Tory Street. It caters for students up to year
8. It has a roll of 187 students, and is a decile 5 school. There is also a pre-school on-site.
The school has a local catchment, and over half the pupils live locally in Mt Cook 46. Some
pupils come from the Adelaide Road area, and a few from the CBD side of the school. Most
pupils walk or ‘scoot’ to school, the main directions of travel (to school) are:



crossing Taranaki Street (west to east) and then (north) over Buckle Street.
crossing Tasman Street (east to west) and then (north) over Buckle Street.
coming from Adelaide road, crossing (north) over Buckle Street and then (east to west)
over Tory Street.
For the pupils who are driven to school, parents drop off students at the school gates on
Tory Street, or at National War Memorial on Buckle Street (changes to this access as part of
the Memorial Park project are separate to this Project). Direct impacts as a result of the
Project are not expected, although there will be indirect changes to the walking and cycling
environment for pupils coming from Adelaide Road, such as widening of the footpath on the
south side of Buckle Street, and improvements to the pedestrian crossing at the intersection
of Adelaide Road and Rugby Street. Potential social effects for Mt Cook School are
discussed further in section 9 of this assessment.
44
Meeting at Wellington College, 29 August, 2012
Implications for accessibility were discussed with transport specialists, and the social project team
reviewed minutes of meeting (did not attend meeting) with Wellington East Girls College (22 May,
2012).
46
Meeting at Mt Cook School, 29 August, 2012.
45
5C1617.00
June 2013
41
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Wellington High School
Wellington High School on Taranaki Street is further away from the Project site, but will
experience changes in traffic patterns and volumes as a result of the project. The school is
a co-ed state high school for students in years 9-15, and has a roll of 1,053 students. It is
decile 9 and also provides a community education centre, drawing students from across the
Wellington region. Based on the location of the school, and the details of the Project
design47 there are not expected to be any direct effects as a result of the Project.
Summary
There are many schools within the demographic study area, and many within close proximity
to the Project itself. Changes to the configuration of local roads and accessibility as a result
of the Project have the potential to reach the wider community, particularly given the wide
catchment of schools such as St Marks Church School.
Most of the above schools draw their students from a wide geographic area, which implies
that public transport and private cars will make a large portion of trips to and from school.
The exception is Mt Cook School, where active forms of transport such as walking and
scootering (non-motorised) are the main modes used.
Safety considerations and
accessibility around entrances for the local schools are important, particularly for schools
such as St Marks Church School which includes a pre-school. The provision of adequate
access and pick-up and drop-off facilities for both parents of students and school buses has
been raised as issues in submissions on the Project. These are primarily issues for the
schools mentioned above, although there are a number of other schools in the wider area.
Changes in public transport routes, location of bus stops and traffic volumes pose indirect
effects to these schools. Further discussion of these issues with respective schools can be
found in Section 8 of this report.
The social impact team has identified further educational facilities with the potential to
experience effects as a result of the Project. This list of schools, pre-schools and
educational facilities, and the potential for direct effects to these educational facilities is
summarised below. As with Wellington High School, these will not experience direct
impacts, but may experience some changes in their traffic environments generally in terms
of vehicle movements, public transport routes and road safety. The full assessment of social
effects is in section 9 of this assessment.
Table 14.2: Other schools and educational facilities
Community
Location
facility
Te Kainganui Early
Education
64 Tasman Street
Early Years Tory
139 Tory Street
Street
I-Kids
54/56 Cambridge
Terrace
Potential Effects
No direct effects are expected.
No direct effects are expected.
Clearway proposed to Vivian Street during
peak hours may affect access to Cambridge
47
For further information refer to section 3 of this report, or to the Plan and Drawing Set in Volume 5
of these documents.
5C1617.00
June 2013
42
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
75-79 Kent Terrace
Clyde Quay School
Moriah college
Te Aro School
27 Elizabeth Street,
Mount Victoria
Terrace location, Construction effects may be
experienced at Kent Terrace location.
No direct effects but possible changes in
accessibility due to changes in the local traffic
environment, including Hania Street.
No direct impacts but there may be some
changes to the local traffic environment in
terms of traffic flows along Buckle Street.
80 Webb Street
360 the Terrace, Te
Aro
St Annes School
14 Daniell Street,
No direct impacts are expected, but changes
Newtown
in the general traffic environment may improve
Newtown School
Mein Street, Newtown
accessibility of public transport routes and
South Wellington
30 Waripori Street,
road safety.
Intermediate School Newtown
Central Regional
46 Russell Terrace,
Health School
Newtown
Berhampore School 105 Britomart Street,
Berhampore
6.6.3 Reserves and Recreational Facilities affected by the Project
The Basin Reserve is a local facility, but also has regional and national importance and is
used for national and international cricket fixtures and recreational events such as the daynight music concert Summerset. It is also a key green space for residents in neighbouring
suburbs and is used as a through route for pedestrians and commuters (between the hours
of 6am and 9pm48) travelling in predominantly north and south directions.
The project will have a visual impact on the Basin Reserve itself, and an impact on the
accessibility of this facility to the local community. Improvements in the traffic environment
due to a reduction in the vehicle movements on the south and west sides of the Basin
Reserve will benefit local access. This will include the passive users as well as those
attending organised events. Potential impacts on the recreational experience of visiting the
Basin Reserve are addressed in the assessment of effects in section 9 of this assessment.
There are also a number of facilities within the study area, to be considered in terms of
social impacts. For the majority of these, there are unlikely to be any direct effects from the
Project due to their distance from the Project site, although they may be indirectly affected
by changes in the local traffic environment. This potentially may result in improvements in
general accessibility and safety. While a number of submissions (during the consultation
undertaken in 2011, see section 8 below) referred to the Town Belt, this was in regard to
elements beyond the scope of this Project, and beyond the study area, which extends only
as far as the Western portal to the Mount Victoria tunnel.
The facilities below have been identified by the social impact team as recreational facilities
with the potential to experience effects as a result of the Project. The potential effects to
parks and reserves as a result of the Project area are summarised in Table 14.3 below.
Other sporting and recreational facilities in the table below will not experience any direct
impacts, but may be indirectly affected by changes in the traffic numbers, or local road
configuration. The full assessment of social effects is in section 9 of this assessment.
48
Refer to Technical Report 11: Assessment of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design,
p.24)
5C1617.00
June 2013
43
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Table 14.3: Other parks and reserves
Community facility
Basketball/tennis courts,
Location
44 Tasman Street
Potential Effects
No direct impacts but there may be some
changes to the local traffic environment in
terms of traffic flows along Buckle Street.
Nairn Street Park
Top of Nairn & No direct effects are expected.
Thompson Streets,
Mount Cook
Prince of Wales Park
Salisbury Terrace, No direct effects are expected.
Mount Cook
Rugby
League
Park Hanson
Street, No direct effects are expected.
(home ground of the Newtown
Hurricanes rugby team)
Alexandra Road Play Area Mount Victoria
No direct effects are expected to Elizabeth
Elizabeth Street Play Area
Street, or Alexandra Street.
Pirie Street Play Area
Carrara Park Play Area
Newtown
No direct effects are expected.
Constable Street Housing
Play Area
Constable Street Play
Area
Hanson Street Play Area
Newtown Park Play Area
Vice Regal Play Area
Palmer Street Play Area
Te Aro
No direct impacts are expected. There
Waitangi Park Play Area
may be some changes to the local traffic
environment for Palmer Street in terms of
traffic flows along Buckle Street.
6.6.4 Other community facilities affected by the Project
The National War Memorial on Buckle Street is of national significance, and featured
strongly in public submissions. The planned National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) is
outside the scope of this Project. While the extent of the project area (refer to Figure 14.3)
does not extend to the site of the National War Memorial, the Project will link with the park
through the improvements planned to the north-east corner of the Project area. The Project
is not expected to have any adverse effects to visitors of the National War Memorial Park (or
the Memorial), but will offer improvements in accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists
moving in an east-west direction towards the Carillon49.
The former Home of Compassion Crèche is a part of the Catholic heritage of the area, and is
of particular relevance to the Catholic community. This building is outside the scope of the
Project, however the Project design includes landscaping elements at the corner of
Cambridge Terrace and Buckle Street which will link the building with Cambridge Terrace
and the Basin Reserve context.
49
For details on the Project design refer to the Plan and Drawing Set in Volume 5 of these
documents, and Technical Report 3:Urban Landscape and Design Framework
5C1617.00
June 2013
44
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
The potential for direct social effects to other community facilities are summarised in the
table below. The full social effect assessment can be found in section 9 of this assessment.
Table 14.4: Other community facilities
Community
Location
facility
Croatian Cultural 32 Hania Street.
Society
Korean
Association
New Zealand
Government
House
of
Colonial Cottage
Museum
Toi Poneke Arts
Centre
Massey University
Residential
Complex
26 Barker Street
1 Rugby Street
68 Nairn Street
61-69
AbelTasman Street
Sussex Street
Potential Effects
There is no direct impact but accessibility may
change slightly with the removal of the right turn into
Hania Street from Ellice Street.
No direct impact but changes in the traffic numbers.
May result in improvements in general accessibility.
Although the project is close to Government House
gates, there does not appear to be any direct impact
as it relates mainly to local road and bus lanes
changes. There will be changes to the local traffic
environment. May result in improvements in general
accessibility to and from Government House. The
project will also improve connectivity to the National
War Memorial and planned Memorial Park.
No direct effects are expected.
No direct effects are expected.
No direct impact but changes in the traffic numbers.
May result in improvements in general accessibility.
(NB – this building will not continue to be a student
residence for Massey University beyond 2012.)
6.6.5 Medical and Institutional facilities
There are a number of medical and institutional facilities within the study area, most notably
Wellington Hospital on Riddiford Street, which needs to be accessible to people with
reduced mobility, as well as public transport, private vehicles and emergency service
vehicles. While all the facilities in the area need to be accessible to the local and regional
community, there are not expected to be any direct impacts from the Project on them. Table
14.5 below summarises the facilities identified by the social impact team as medical and
institutional facilities with the potential to be affected by the Project. For the full assessment
of social effects refer to section 9 of this assessment.
Table 14.5: Medical and Institutional Facilities
Community
Location
facility
Child Adolescent 21 Hania Street
& Family Service
Specialist
Maternal
Mental
Potential Effects
There is no direct impact but accessibility may
change slightly with the removal of the right turn into
Hania Street from Ellice Street.
5C1617.00
June 2013
45
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Health
ACE House
111 Brougham
Street
Wellington
Accident
and
Urgent
Medical
Centre
Defence Purposes
(including Military
Training/Administr
ation/Logistics/Sup
port facility)
Community
Probation Centre
17
Road
Wellington
Hospital
Riddiford Street
Newtown
6.7
Adelaide
No direct impacts are expected as a result of the
project. There may be changes to the local traffic
environment.
No direct impact but there may be changes in the
local traffic numbers. Overall there may result in
improvements in general accessibility to the centre.
Buckle Street
No impacts are expected as a result of the project.
Girton Terrace
No impacts are expected as a result of the project.
There may be changes to the local traffic
environment.
No direct impacts are expected. Changes to local
traffic movements may affect those commuting to the
hospital, but improvements in travel times and
accessibility are expected to improve, particularly in
north-south directions.
Summary
The project area comprises a mix of land uses with some regionally significant community
facilities located within a geographically confined area. It is also characterised by a
concentration of schools as well as residential land uses. Of particular note is that there are
almost 4,000 students attending schools within close proximity of the Basin Reserve.
In terms of comparison with Wellington City, the study area has lower rates of home
ownership, lower incomes and rates of employment as well as higher numbers of people
aged 15 – 29. The most significant difference is the higher number of residents in the study
area who walk or cycle as their primary mode of transport.
As well as being a major vehicle transport route, there are high pedestrian and cycle
movements but limited facilities in terms of crossing points and cycle lanes. Furthermore
there are major bus routes through the project area and congested locations for school dropoffs and pickups for school buses.
Mt Cook School, St Mark’s Church School and Wellington East Girls College were all
submitters on the proposal during the feedback period, due to their proximity to the Basin
Reserve and the proposed works; they have the most potential to experience effects from
the Project. Potential effects to nearby schools, residents and other specialist groups are
discussed further in section 8.4: Key Stakeholder Meetings and Further Consultation.
Assessments of the social effects as a result of changes to the existing environment are
discussed in section 9 of this assessment.
5C1617.00
June 2013
46
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
7
Review of Relevant Technical Reports
This section takes into consideration elements which are covered in greater detail in other
technical assessments and provides an assessment through a ‘social lens’. Technical
recommendations and mitigations presented in the reports below are relied on, however in
some cases additional mitigation, or remedial actions are recommended to address the
effects from a social perspective. Note that the full assessment of social effects is provided
at section 9 of this assessment.
7.1
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
A report on Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)50 was prepared in
order to examine the extent to which the Project will have effects on perceived, and actual
pedestrian safety and security around the project area. This involved an assessment of:




baseline safety and security conditions in the Project area;
any effects of the Project on existing safety and security concerns;
any additional safety and security effects introduced by the Project;
recommendations for improvements to safety and security within the Project scope
Issues identified were rated as high, marginal, low, or improved by the Project. One area
rated as marginal risk was the traffic island between the pedestrian crossing on Kent Terrace
and Cambridge Terrace, as the view of the footpath heading towards the Basin Reserve was
overgrown and the pathway did not line up with the Basin entrance.
CPTED recommendations made early in the design process have already influenced design
options in order to:



reduce the potential for future tagging and vandalism,
eliminate outdoor rooms and improve pedestrian sight-lines, and
activate the edge of the Basin Reserve and improve amenity lighting.
In assessing the current environment, the assessment finds that the existing levels of
reported crime in the area are lower than those of the city generally, but that there were a
number of safety and security concerns among the community expressed during public
consultation (note that community consultation carried out by the Project team, and the
issues raised are covered in more detail in Section 8 of this report). The main finding of the
assessment was that – at worst – the Project is expected to make the existing environment
no less safe, and – at best – the Project is expected to contribute to safer spaces for
pedestrian movements around the Basin Reserve. The implementation of CPTED principles
is expected to have a “significant net positive effect on the Project”51.
The CPTED report includes the following as positive effects of the project:




50
51
Improved actual and perceived quality of the environment;
Reduced signs of antisocial behaviour;
Safe movements and connections for pedestrians around the Basin Reserve;
Clear and legible spaces for pedestrians;
Technical Report 11: Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, 20 July, 2012.
Technical Report 11: Assessment of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, 9.2.1, p.50.
5C1617.00
June 2013
47
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Activation of edges, lighting improvements and the removal of isolating spaces.

A potential negative effect of the Project identified in the CPTED assessment is that antisocial behaviour may occur in the new carpark to the west of the former Home of
Compassion crèche after hours. It proposes mitigating measures such as appropriate
lighting and locking the carpark after hours to address this.
In addition the assessment recommends that CPTED principles are incorporated into the
construction plan, and that they continue to be applied throughout the remaining design
stages of the Project.
From a social perspective, the CPTED report reinforces the importance of perceived safety
and security of pedestrians and residents moving around the Project area. The CPTED
recommendations are supported by this assessment.
7.2
Assessment of Noise Effects
The Noise Assessment52 assesses the road-traffic noise effects of proposed changes to the
State highway network and associated changes to the local road network in the area of the
Basin Reserve, and noise effects related to Project construction.
The Noise Assessment methodology mainly follows the New Zealand Standard for
Acoustics – Road Traffic Noise – new and altered roads NZS 6806:2010 but considers the
potential for effects using guidance from both NZS 6806:2010 and the NZTA Noise
Guidelines.
Existing road-traffic noise environment
Understanding of the existing road-traffic noise environment is based on noise modelling and
measurements53. This establishes that road-traffic noise levels are already high at adjacent
buildings and open-air spaces in the area. However, in some places there is close spacing of
multiple buildings that creates quieter areas sheltered from road-traffic noise.
Locations receiving the highest level of noise in this environment are the Paterson Street
entrance to the Mt Victoria Tunnel, and on Rugby, Sussex and Buckle Streets between
Adelaide Road and Tory Street.
Do-nothing noise scenario (without the Basin Bridge Project)
This includes traffic forecasts for 2021, and assumes that the planned undergrounding of
SH1 westbound in front of the National War Memorial, and the associated National War
Memorial Park (Pukeahu) is already in place.
Do-minimum noise scenario (with the Basin Bridge Project)
The do-minimum noise environment is described as the environment after the Project is
delivered, and without any noise-specific mitigation additional to that already embedded in
the Project design. The design of the Project has been an iterative process. Within that
process, opportunities have been taken to minimise noise as far as is practicable by
52
53
Technical Report 5: Assessment of Noise Effects.
For details refer to 5.2, Technical Report 5: Assessment of Noise Effects.
5C1617.00
June 2013
48
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
incorporating noise reduction features in the do-minimum Project design, for example the
selection of road surfacing. The scenario is modelled with traffic forecast for 2021.
Comparing the do-nothing noise scenario and the do-minimum noise scenario, modelling
shows that the Project will cause noise levels to increase discernibly at only two locations,
first, where the proposed bridge meets the at grade level of the road on Buckle Street, and,
secondly, where the link from Kent Terrace to Paterson Street is moved to accommodate the
bridge abutment (this has a corresponding discernible noise level decrease near the
Paterson Street/Dufferin Street intersection).
The Project results in reductions in noise along Sussex Street and Rugby Street as
compared with the ‘Do-nothing scenario (without Basin Bridge Project)’.
Effects of Project on noise environment
Overall the report concludes that the scale of noise effects as a result of the Project is very
small. In many instances this is an increase or decrease of less than 1 dB, and is seldom
more than 2 dB. Small increases in noise levels are unlikely to be perceptible by occupants
of neighbouring buildings. Any negative effects are found to be less than minor. Positive
effects within the Project area are also found to be minor or less than minor. The
assessment recommends conditions around the level of performance of road surfaces, and
construction of bridge joints as these features could further alter the operational noise of the
Project.
The recommendations of the Noise Assessment with regard to road traffic noise are
supported from a social perspective.
Construction Noise
The Noise Assessment provides an overview of construction noise effects separate to the
long term operational modelling outlined above.
New Zealand Standard NZS 6803: 1999 for Acoustics – Construction noise will be used for
assessing and managing the construction noise. With respect to construction, reasonable
noise levels need to allow construction to occur in an efficient manner but protect the
adjacent community from high levels of noise, especially when activities such as sleep are
required and expected.
The assessment emphasises the need for a flexible approach in scheduling works in order to
minimise disturbance of neighbours and residents in the area, for example construction near
schools may be preferable outside school hours, and works near residential properties may
be preferable during normal working hours.
The Noise Assessment proposes a set of construction noise limits, with some differences in
noise levels across times and days of the week. For most of the Project construction, the
proposed construction noise levels can be met. There are specific construction activities that
may be noisier. The Project document set contains a proposed Construction Noise and
Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) which shall be completed by the Project constructor.
The Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan should set out how the noise
effects of the more noisy activities will be managed, for example good communication with
affected properties and confining those activities to times that have less impact.
5C1617.00
June 2013
49
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
The assessment concludes that recommended construction noise levels can be met for most
of the Project construction, and that construction noise impacts are expected to be no more
than minor, provided the appropriate Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan is
developed and implemented.
From a social perspective the findings of the Noise Assessment are accepted. During
consultation in 2011 (see ‘Key Stakeholder Meetings’ in section 8) concern about noise from
joins on the bridges was expressed and it is noted that the quality of communication with
residents and neighbours about construction activity is key to minimising the social effect of
noise effects, particularly during construction. This is further discussed in , a review of the
proposed suite of management plans by the SIA team is recommended.
7.3
Townscape and Visual Assessment
The Townscape and Visual Assessment[1] assesses the townscape and visual effects of the
Project as part of the overall AEE. It assesses that both the bridge structure and the
expansion of the traffic corridor will result in substantial changes to the character and visual
experience of the Project area and its surroundings, including:







effects on the character of the landform and existing vegetation;
effects relating to the ‘degree of fit’ of the bridge structure to the existing street pattern;
effects of the expanded traffic corridor and bridge structure on street/open space
character and visual amenity of adjacent areas;
effects on the character of the built context;
effects on the spatial context of the Basin Reserve and associated views;
effects on the visual experience of; the Basin Reserve audience, pedestrians/cyclists,
motorists, Town Belt users and occupants of neighbouring buildings; and
effects during construction.
The assessment finds that the main adverse townscape/visual effects relate to changes in
the spatial structure of the area and associated impact on views, while effects on landform
and vegetation character will be low. The assessment also finds that the Bridge and the
Northern Gateway Building, (particularly the 65m option) will have an adverse effect on the
spatial context and open space character of the Basin Reserve. The townscape and visual
effects will be largely contained within a 500m radius of the Basin Reserve and will be most
pronounced in the areas to the north and east of the bridge, including in the vicinity of
Kent/Cambridge Terraces and the area around Ellice/Dufferin/Paterson Streets.
While the significance of the townscape/visual effects is expected to vary from audience to
audience, the assessment concludes that for the majority, the townscape/visual effects will
be experienced in a dynamic way and will vary with distance and viewpoint location. While
the Bridge will remain a prominent structure and the effects on spatial structure and views
cannot be avoided, the townscape/visual effects as experienced by these audiences in
motion can be softened and reduced by the proposed mitigation measures. The
assessment finds that for the residents/occupiers of a relatively small number of properties in
the immediate vicinity of the bridge, the adverse visual effects will be of much greater
[1]
Technical Report 10: Assessment of Townscape and Visual Effects.
5C1617.00
June 2013
50
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
significance and for some of them the effects will be high due to their proximity to the Bridge
and limited mitigation opportunities.
Townscape and visual effects are mitigated through a range of measures, falling within
either an ‘Integrated’ approach to mitigation, or the ‘Relationship/integration of the Project to
its context’. Elements of the ‘Integrated’ approach to mitigation include:
The design of both built structures and landscape treatments aims to reduce visual
effects and maximise integration between the Project and its context.
The complementary design of the built elements of the Project and the landscape
elements, and their consistent design quality is expected to enhance the visual
experience of the area.
The ‘use’ of built elements, such as the new building under the bridge the proposed
Northern Gateway Building, have been designed to assist mitigation, while also
contributing to the visual integrity of the townscape setting.



Elements of the relationship/integration of the Project to its context include:
The physical/design of the Bridge reduces the perception of its visual bulk as much as
practicable, while adding the desired sense of human scale and visual rhythm.
The landscape work provides a consistent ‘soft’ context for the bridge while building on
and connecting with existing landscape features such as; existing Basin Reserve trees,
Memorial Park, Kent/Cambridge Terrace median. Proposed landscape treatments
which also aim to address visual effects on ‘private’ views include:
 the green screen to the south of the Grandstand Apartments,
 the greening of the abutments,
 the new landscape work along the Cambridge Terrace/Buckle Street corner, and
 the landscape work within the Ellice Street carpark.


The Townscape and Visual Assessment recommends that the design detail is consistent
with the design intention in the Plan and Drawing Set, and consistent with the ULDF Detailed
Design Considerations.
Overall, the assessment concludes that while not all of the townscape/visual effects can be
mitigated or mitigated to the same extent, the Project, has optimised mitigation/integration
opportunities within its ‘site boundaries’ and reduced the adverse effects of the bridge as
much as practicable. In some cases considerable improvements to aspects of the existing
setting have been made. The findings and recommendations of the Townscape and Visual
Assessment are accepted from a social perspective.
7.4
Ground Vibration Assessment
The Assessment of Ground Vibration Effects from Construction and Operation (Vibration
Assessment)54 assesses ground-borne vibrations as a result of the Project construction, and
from traffic once the Project is operational.
Overall the Report finds that existing vibration levels are acceptable for human comfort as
the largest measured peak particle velocities due to traffic-induced vibration for all testing
sites fall between the threshold for perception (0.3 mm/s) and the threshold that will likely
54
Technical Report 8: Assessment of Ground Vibration Effects from Construction and Operation
5C1617.00
June 2013
51
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
cause complaint (1.0 mm/s) within a residential environment55 (the Vibration Assessment
notes that the largest peak particle velocities represent rare occurrences). Vibration levels
from passing traffic did not approach a level at which they could cause damage to a
structure.
Once operational, as long as maintenance of the road is kept to current standards (i.e. the
surface is kept smooth), the same speed limits apply, and separation distances between
buildings and the realigned road are at least 4m the Vibration Assessment does not expect
any differences to traffic-induced vibration as a result of the Project.
During construction, the Vibration Assessment finds that piling activity will cause ground
vibration, which may cause short-term disturbance to occupants of nearby buildings.
Buildings identified as being particularly close to vibration activities are 15 and 21 Ellice
Street, and Grandstand Apartments.
The Vibration Assessment recommends that with vibration management methods which are
included in the draft Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP), effects
may be mitigated. These methods include: providing advance notice of vibration-generating
activity to affected parties, the selection of appropriate equipment and construction methods,
and monitoring of resulting vibrations. Specific recommendations are made for the selection
of equipment to be used in piling associated with the foundations for two new buildings (the
building at the corner of Ellice Street and Kent Terrace, and the new structure at the
entrance to the Basin Reserve), and associated with the bridge piers (refer to the Vibration
Assessment for details).
From a social perspective, the conclusions and recommendations of the Vibration
Assessment are accepted, including recommendations for on-going communication with
neighbouring residents and businesses.
7.5
Air Quality
The air quality assessment56 assesses the effects of the Project on local air quality including
dust emissions during construction and vehicle emissions from traffic flows once the Project
is operational. Assessments are made against National Air Quality Standards, Ambient Air
Quality Guidelines, WHO Guidelines, and Greater Wellington Regional Council’s air quality
indicator criteria.
Operational air emissions
The assessment concludes that air quality after the Project is complete will be acceptable
within applicable standards and guidelines.
The assessment found that the effect of the Project (the ‘with Project’ scenario is modelled
for the year 2021, refer to the air quality assessment for further information) on air quality is
variable; slight increases in effects are expected in some locations, and decreases in effects
55
Technical Report 8: Assessment of Ground Vibration Effects from Construction and Operation,
p.29.
56
Technical Report 6: Assessment of Effects of the Basin Reserve Transportation Improvements on
the Local Air Quality: Final Design
5C1617.00
June 2013
52
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
in others. Overall the assessment concluded that increases in air quality effects would not
exceed applicable guidelines:
“all contaminants will remain within the same air quality category in 2021 as they are
today, and concentrations at affected sites will be well within the standards and
guideline thresholds.57
No specific mitigation is proposed for operational air quality effects, as emissions are not
expected to exceed relevant air quality guidelines.
Construction air emissions
The principal issue for air quality during construction is the potential for dust emissions to air.
This can have an effect on human health and plant life close to the earthworks, and deposits
may cause a nuisance on roads and at neighbouring buildings. The scale of earthworks for
the Project is relatively small and is confined to specific areas.
The assessment proposes that dust emissions be controlled by a range of mitigation
measures that will be outlined in the Construction Air Quality Management Plan (CAQMP).
A dust monitoring programme is also proposed, to include regular visual monitoring and
response to complaints from the public and regulatory authorities. The assessment
concludes that with the use of appropriate controls, adverse effects on air quality during
construction can be adequately avoided or mitigated.
From a social perspective, the conclusions and recommended management with regard to
air quality are accepted.
7.6
Assessment of Economic Effects
The Assessment of Economic Effects58 examines the economic effects of the Project,
including a cost benefit analysis, wider economic benefits and redistributive effects. It
explicitly excludes property values, as these are intangible from an economic perspective.
Among its key points, the assessment finds that:





Reduced passing motorised trade may affect a small number of businesses but is
unlikely and can be minimised by mitigation measures such as appropriate signage.
Potential business redistributive effects as a result of the Project are not assessed to be
significant enough to affect public amenity values.
Improvements in regional accessibility are expected to increase the level of business
activity within the city.
Improvements in regional accessibility are expected to increase the attractiveness of the
city and region for business and residential development.
There is the potential for negative effects for specific local businesses during
construction.
From a social perspective, continued access to commercial areas contributes to social and
community wellbeing, and is one of the categories in the IAIA framework used in this
57
Technical Report 6: Assessment of Effects of the Basin Reserve Transportation Improvements on
the Local Air Quality: Final Design, p.29
58
Technical Report No. 17, 27 March, 2012.
5C1617.00
June 2013
53
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
assessment. The findings of the Assessment of Economic Effects are supported, noting that
it is important that continued access to commercial areas throughout the construction phase
is provided for in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) in Volume 4 of the
lodgement documents.
7.7
Heritage Values and Effects
The Assessment of Built Heritage Effects59 provides an assessment of the potential effects
of the Basin Bridge Project on built heritage and the values associated with this. The
assessment finds that there are three structures which have statutory recognition within the
Project area; the Basin Reserve Pavilion Grandstand and the William Wakefield Memorial
(both within the Basin Reserve itself), and the former Home of Compassion Crèche. The
Basin Reserve itself is a heritage area registered by NZHPT. In addition, there are 25
buildings with evident heritage values identified in the assessment which are outside the
Project area. The assessment also notes that there are heritage values associated with the
gates of Government House.
Effects on the Basin Reserve are largely due to the modification of significant views to and
from built heritage, modification of the setting of the Government House entry gates and of
the setting of the Mount Victoria Residential Character Area. The assessment also identifies
effects from the modification of the wider setting of the Basin Reserve Historic Area (and
associated structures: the Basin Reserve Pavilion Grandstand, William Wakefield Memorial
and the C.S. Dempster and J.R. Reid Gates).
Relocation of the C.S. Dempster Gate as a result of the Northern Gateway Building is also
identified. The assessment finds that the proposed relocation is acceptable in heritage
terms as the gates will still serve their original purpose, and the commemorative role of the
C.S. Dempster and J.R. Reid Gates will be preserved.
Note that while the former Home of Compassion crèche will be relocated as part of the
National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Project (refer to ‘Related Projects’ in section 3) the
Heritage Assessment considers heritage effects on the building in its new location.
The assessment acknowledges a number of mitigation measures proposed as part of the
Project, including: landscaping and planting to screen the Bridge and reduce its visual
impact; the design of the Bridge itself to minimise visual impact, and improve the
identification of the entrance to the Basin Reserve and; inclusion of a new building
underneath the Bridge to restore the built edge of the corner of Ellice Street and Kent
Terrace, and the Northern Gateway building which will enable continuing access to the
public. Improvements and landscaping will also maintain historical connections with the
relocated former Home of Compassion crèche.
The assessment finds that while the relocation of the Dempster Gate may be seen as having
potentially negative effects, these are visual rather than heritage effects. With regard to the
Northern Gateway Building, the assessment concludes that the 45m structure effectively
mitigates any distractions to playing cricketers as a result of the Project, but buildings of
greater length have the potential to have an effect on sightlines into the Basin Reserve.
59
Technical Report 12: Assessment of Effects on Built Heritage, September 2012.
5C1617.00
June 2013
54
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
The overall conclusion of the assessment is that the Project has an adverse effect on
heritage values, as a result of intrusion into views of or from heritage places.
The conclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Assessment are accepted from a
social perspective.
7.8
Archaeology
The Assessment of Archaeological Effects60 identifies issues and effects and outlines
potential mitigation related to archaeological resources within the Project area. It excludes
heritage buildings within the area which are covered in the Built Heritage report.
The report finds that there is high potential for archaeological sites to be affected by
proposed works within the footprint of works for the Project. It identifies a high potential for
archaeological sites and resources within the Project area, and that physical works
associated with the project have the potential to have a significant impact on this resource.
The report identifies Mount Cook sites associated with early European housing and
commercial activities dating from the 1860s, and the old stream course and wetland area
that became the Basin Reserve as having potential archaeological value.
The report identifies opportunities to mitigate the impact of the Project through obtaining
archaeological information about the area and the opportunity to enhance understanding
about the area. The assessment also finds that the potential to recover and record
information prior to any earthworks and construction associated with the Basin Reserve
Project commencing is a positive effect of the Project.
The conclusions of the Assessment of Archaeological Effects are accepted from a social
perspective. This opportunity for archaeological investigations as a result of the Project is
also considered to be a social benefit; as this work can be undertaken and communicated to
local community groups including schools.
7.9
Ngati Toa Rangatira Statement of Cultural Association
The Ngati Toa Rangatira Statement of Cultural Association61 with the Basin Reserve Area
outlines Ngati Toa claims to customary rights from the south-west North Island to the upper
South Island generally, and to the Project area specifically. These rights are in respect of
raupatu (conquest) and ahi kaa (continuous association or ‘keeping the home fires burning’),
and the document describes historical issues of alienation from lands and the exercise of
customary rights. The report identifies two sites of contemporary interest to the iwi, as well
as one historic site of cultural significance within the vicinity of the Basin Reserve. It is
important to the iwi as current kaitiaki of the area that any further disturbance to this historic
site is minimised, and that the Accidental Discovery Protocol is employed in general during
construction works. With regard to contemporary interests, the report identifies the
importance of maintained and enhanced access to community facilities, particularly medical
facilities in the Newtown area. Ngati Toa’s interests (including: sites of cultural significance,
ecological impacts, contemporary relationships with the area and the Town Belt) should be
60
Technical Report 13: Assessment of Archaeological Effects
Technical Report 16: Ngati Toa Rangatira Statement of Cultural Association with the Basin Reserve
Area
61
5C1617.00
June 2013
55
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
taken into account by the Project in the preparation of any construction or communication
management plans.
The conclusions and recommendations of the Statement of Cultural Association are
accepted from a social perspective.
7.10
Cultural Impact Report
The Cultural Impact Report (CIR)62 looks at potential Maori cultural effects as a result of the
Project. It concludes that there are several Maori sites of significance within the Project
area, which have had an influence on the area although they are largely unaffected by the
Project. These sites include a hauwai cultivation site at the edge of the Basin Reserve and
up to Wellington College, and Te Akatarewa Pa site above the Mount Victoria Tunnel and
Wellington College.
Potential issues raised in the report are possible construction effects such as sedimentation
and discharges to water. These should be managed through resource consent conditions
and management plans. While known sites of cultural importance are unlikely to be
disturbed by the Project, there is the possibility of discovery of Maori archaeological material
along the route. The CIR notes that this can be addressed through the establishment of
accidental discovery protocols in such situations.
The assessment also expresses the importance to iwi that consideration is given to
indigenous fish passage in underground streams throughout the Project area. The authors
also assert their role in arranging appropriate cultural blessings before work commences.
The conclusions and recommendations of the Cultural Impact Report are accepted from a
social perspective.
7.11
Assessment of Urban Design Effects
The Assessment of Urban Design Effects63 assesses the urban design effects of the Project
against the regional plan, district plan and the Urban Landscape and Design Framework64.
This assessment outlines the potential effects of the Project on urban form and function
within Wellington City and the wider context, and considers effects (summarised below)
under the following three components; Land Use and Urban Structure Effects, Amenity
values, and Accessibility.
Land Use and Urban Structure Effects
The assessment finds that the Project improves the urban structure which will encourage
land use development on Buckle Street, Kent and Cambridge Terraces and the Basin
Reserve Gateway. In addition, it finds that support for the growth spine concept and CBD
accessibility is consistent with Objective 22 of the RPS. Overall, the Project is assessed to
have significant positive urban structure and land use effects.
62
Raukura Consultants, ‘Technical Report 15; Assessment of Effects – Cultural’, August, 2012.
Technical Report 9, ‘Assessment of Effects: Urban Design’, June 2013.
64
Technical Report 3, ‘Urban and Landscape Design Framework’.
63
5C1617.00
June 2013
56
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Effects on Amenity values
The assessment finds that the Project will have positive and negative effects on amenity
within the Project area. Benefits are expected at Dufferin Street as a result of reduced traffic
and an improved drop-off zone for schools. Further, the proposed open space (which will
function as an extension of the NWM Park) combined with the entrance Plaza to the Basin
Reserve, is expected to bind the area together and assist in mitigating the effects of the
bridge. The assessment also finds that at Ellice and Paterson Street there are negative
amenity effects, as a result of the bridge structure, and that there are few mitigation
opportunities to provide open space and integrate the bridge into the environment. Overall,
given the positive effects on Kent and Cambridge amenity effects of the Project are rated as
being moderate negative.
Effects on Accessibility
The assessment finds that the Project offers moderate positive benefits in terms of
accessibility as a result of traffic reductions on local roads, retention of existing routes and
the addition of the shared path on the bridge.
Overall Urban Design Assessment
The assessment also finds that the substantial urban structure benefits of the new park area
on the corner of Cambridge Terrace and Buckle Street, which will read as a continuation of
the NWM Park, will mitigate the bridge’s negative amenity effects.
With regard to the proposed Northern Gateway Building, the assessment finds that the 55
metre long building option is preferred from an urban design perspective as it appropriately
balances the need to provide visual screening for users of the Basin Reserve with the need
to prevent blockage of views into the Basin Reserve from Kent/Cambridge Terrace.
However, it is considered that due to the other significant urban design benefits of the
Project, a proposal including the 65 metre option can be supported
Overall, the assessment concludes that the moderate negative amenity effects of the Project
are outweighed by the urban structure/land use, and accessibility benefits.
The findings of the Assessment of Urban Design Effects are accepted from a social
perspective.
7.12
Assessment of Traffic and Transportation Effects
The Assessment of Traffic and Transportation Effects65 provides an integrated transport
assessment of the potential effects of the Project.
The transport assessment concludes that the Project is expected to:



65
provide significant transport infrastructure forming a key link in the Wellington Northern
Corridor;
remove the existing conflict at the Dufferin/Paterson and Adelaide/Rugby intersections;
significantly reduce at grade State highway traffic;
Technical Report 4: Assessment of Traffic and Transportation Effects
5C1617.00
June 2013
57
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment




improve the provision of pedestrian and cycle facilities including infrastructure such as
the shared bridge from Paterson Street to Buckle Street and connecting north and south
bound links into existing facilities;
provide public transport facilities in the form of bus lanes, bus priority and improved bus
stop facilities, contributing to significant improvements to current operation, and
facilitating future provision;
significantly improve journey times on State Highway 1 (SH1) and local roads in the
area;
improve journey time variability.
The assessment has also identified likely negative effects. These effects and mitigation
measures recommended in the assessment are below.
Access from Mt Victoria will be restricted as part of the Project (from Hania and Ellice
Streets). Proposed mitigation of this effect is the upgrade of the Pirie St intersection. With
this mitigation in place accessibility for Mt Victoria residents will be improved, and safety
concerns regarding the current configuration of Hania and Ellice Streets will be removed.
There will be a net loss of 16 parking spaces within the Project area, and loss of 21 spaces
during peak times due to the introduction of a clearway on Vivian Street between Cambridge
Terrace and Tory Street. Where there is low utilisation of parking, this effect is considered
insignificant and no mitigation is proposed. In areas where utilisation is high, such as Pirie
and Ellice Streets, provision has been provision made to replicate parking.
The assessment finds that there will be negative effects on the transport network during the
construction period. The assessment proposed to mitigate these effects through the
development of an appropriate staging and sequencing plan, traffic management plans and
construction programming. All potential construction traffic and transportation effects are
also to be managed through the implementation of a Construction Transport Management
Plan (CTMP), supported by a number of Site Specific Traffic Management Plans (SSTMPs).
Specific mitigation measures included in the assessment are that:



the network capacity service level will be maintained at a level which is considered
acceptable to transport users
works will be programmed during periods of low activity such as during school holidays,
other mitigation such as variable message signs, publicity and alternative transport
facilities will be used.
Overall, the transport assessment concludes that the Project and identified mitigation
measures will be consistent with the Project Objectives and significantly contribute to the
improvement in transport provision for Wellington and the local network.
From a social perspective the findings of the transport assessment are supported, noting
that targeted communication with key stakeholders in close proximity to the site of the
Project and ACE House is recommended prior to the construction period.
5C1617.00
June 2013
58
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
7.13
Summary
Expected construction effects have been included in the assessment of effects in Section 9
below, along with proposed mitigation measures, however these may also be addressed in
the Construction Management Plan.
The large majority of operational issues raised in the other technical reports above are able
to be mitigated through inclusions in the overall Project design, or have largely been
resolved throughout the planning and design stages of the Project. In some cases mitigation
cannot be designed into the Project, and there remains a need for on-going communication
with potentially affected parties. This is the case with regards to potential disturbance during
construction as a result of dust emissions to air, as well as the effects of construction noise
and vibration on neighbouring residents and community facilities. On-going management
and protocols will also need to be employed throughout the project to ensure that negative
impacts on the archaeological, cultural and historic value of the Project area do not occur.
The future work that may be required is detailed in Section 11 below.
5C1617.00
June 2013
59
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
8
Summary of Community Engagement
8.1
Overview
The process and outcomes of community and stakeholder engagement is an important input
to the SIA, providing primary information about community values, aspirations and concerns
relating to their community and potential impacts from the Project. As the author of this
assessment was engaged in the Project in 2012, information to inform the SIA has been
sourced from the summary reports on the feedback from this engagement66, reviewing
feedback forms and responses submitted by the public during consultation (outlined in 8.2,
8.3 and 8.4 below) and discussions with the previous social impact assessor. Direct
engagement with community groups and residents was carried out to inform the SIA from
2012-2013 (outlined below in 8.5). These interviews were undertaken by either the author or
her associate.
8.2
2011 Community and Stakeholder Engagement
The initial project consultation was carried out in 2011, in concert with other projects in the
Tunnel to Tunnel package (refer to Project Description in section 3 of this assessment). A
variety of methods were used to consult with stakeholders and the community over an eight
week period from 2 July until 26 August 2011. These included:







A series of open days, stakeholder workshops and meetings
Information Centre at the Basin Reserve open every weekday from 2 July until 26
August 2011 with a late night on Thursday
A detailed website which included all the related technical reports and a printable
version of a freepost feedback form
Community engagement brochure with detailed information on the options and a
freepost feedback form
Dedicated free phone number and email address which was widely publicised
Awareness was promoted via newspapers, radio, billboards and adverts on the back of
buses
A community engagement brochure was delivered to more than 70,000 Wellington
households. On July 2011 the brochure was also included in the local Wellingtonian
newspaper with a circulation of approximately 70,000.
The public engagement process including individual and group meetings and workshops
generated a wide range of comments on a variety of topics. The vast majority, however,
related to:



the visual and amenity effects of a bridge,
the potential for creating unsafe spaces in and around bridges, and
the potential for the bridge to create barriers to the flow of people.
Information from the 2011 engagement has been used extensively to inform the SIA,
alongside targeted interviews with parties deemed to either be vulnerable or directly affected
(refer to 8.5 below). For further information on the 2011 community engagement, refer to the
Consultation Summary Report, Technical Report 3.
66
Refer to the Consultation Summary Report, Technical Report 3.
5C1617.00
June 2013
60
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
8.3
2011 Community Workshops
This section outlines the discussions held during the 2011 community workshop which have
informed this SIA. For a full summary of the workshop, refer to ‘Community Workshop
Feedback, Mt Victoria to Buckle Street’, 30 August 2011.
A community workshop was held for stakeholders west of the Mt Victoria Tunnel in late July,
2011. The purpose of this workshop was provide information about the Project and get
feedback from the participants on their views. At this stage of the Project, the workshop was
gaining feedback on the area from Cobham Drive to Buckle Street. However, as the scope of
the Project only extends as far west as the Mount Victoria Tunnel, issues relevant to the
immediate Project area only are presented in this assessment. The structure of the day
included presentations, and rotating table discussions of six different topics in the morning,
and five different topics in the afternoon session. Of these, feedback on the bridge
outcomes, walking and cycling outcomes and local roading outcomes are most pertinent to
the final project design.
Bridge outcome discussions addressed:
Aesthetics and urban design, such as public artwork and artwork on the bridge columns
and edge.
Safety and security, such as lighting and minimising anti-social activity, and provision of
shelter for pedestrians.
Health and safety, including design measures to minimise noise and lighting/glare
effects.



Walking and cycling discussions addressed the provision of separate facilities for
pedestrians; around the Basin Reserve, on the Bridge and through the Mount Victoria tunnel,
and a shared space/pedestrian priority area at junction of Ellice and Dufferin streets.
Local street outcomes discussions addressed a range of issues, many of these again related
to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in and around the area, an issue related to these
concerns was the removal of left-turn slip lanes around the Basin Reserve in order to make it
easier for pedestrians to cross the road. Concerns were also raised about provision of
carparking – specifically on Kent Terrace – and enforcement. Bus priority lanes and signals
were mentioned, as was the need for drop-off areas around nearby schools, and for taxis at
the Basin Reserve itself.
8.4
2011 Community and Stakeholder Feedback
Community engagement feedback brochures were used to seek feedback on specific issues
related to the location of a bridge past the Basin Reserve, and provision for active transport
modes during July-August 201167. While many respondents provided direct answers to the
questions asked, the open-ended nature of the questions meant that many respondents also
provided their opinions on wider social and community issues relevant to the Project.
Questions asked in the consultation included:
67
Refer to the Consultation Summary Report, Technical Report 3.
5C1617.00
June 2013
61
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment




What’s important to you about where we should locate the bridge around the Basin
Reserve?
What do you like or dislike about locating the bridge near the Basin Reserve?
What do you like or dislike about locating the bridge farther away from the Basin
Reserve?
How important is it to you that we add a pedestrian and cycling facility to the bridge?
Details of public submissions concerned with social and community impacts are summarised
below. Information has been sourced directly from the feedback forms provided during the
engagement period, and from the summary report68. These have been grouped according to
the main themes of the SIA framework for this assessment.
Way of Life
Potential severance and loss of connectivity was specifically identified by a number of
submitters. This included: dividing Te Aro from the Basin Reserve, Mt Cook and Newtown;
the movement of traffic to get across and around the Basin; and severing the city between
Mt Victoria/Courtney Place, Cambridge/Kent Terrace Precinct and areas beyond.
Submissions also observed the potential severance from Mount Victoria, creating a ‘land
island’ around the Basin and Grandstand Apartments, and increasing the footprint of the
road. Comments on the Bridge included that:
“it will visually drive a massive no-man's-land like divide, that only a motorway can
do, across this part of the city”
“The imposition of a large and imposing flyover or bridge north of the Basin Reserve
will create a significant visual and physical barrier between the City and the southern
suburbs.”
Submissions on the impacts to traffic were both positive and negative, observing the
potential to:


increase traffic congestion on local roads and around the Basin, and
improve access and traffic flow to the Airport.
Local schools and community groups and residents were concerned about the flow-on
effects of the Bridge, and roading changes on their neighbourhood networks, while other
submitters expressed a desire for reduction in congestion along the airport route;
“I would like to see options other than bridges, I'm also concerned this new route will
just move congestion to another part of town.”
“Commuters will save petrol, lots of time, no more sitting in traffic twice daily for an
hour’s drive from the airport to the Basin, as it is currently during peak times.”
Well-being
Questions explicitly about pedestrian and cycling provisions were included in the
consultation. The importance of providing safe and accessible provision for walkers and
cyclists was emphasised by many submitters.
68
Refer to the Consultation Summary Report, Technical Report 3.
5C1617.00
June 2013
62
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Some submitters saw the proposal as an opportunity for improved pedestrian and cyclist
safety, making comments such as “[d]edicated cycle paths need to be built, even separate
from pedestrians”, and “It is extremely important that any new structures have both
pedestrian and *safe* cycling capacity.”
A submission from Regional Public Health emphasised the importance of providing for active
transport modes, and their associated health benefits. The submission observes the
importance of design elements, CPTED, suicide barriers and linkages with the wider
pedestrian and cycling network, as well as avoiding further exclusion of ‘transport
disadvantaged’ by failing to consider alternative modes.
Submitters were also concerned about the potential health impacts of increased traffic noise
and air emissions on residents in the area. The submission from the Grandstand apartment
body complex noted a number of factors:
“some residents will be more disadvantaged than others by: closer proximity to the
bridge; pollutant emissions closer to their windows (fresh air intakes); greater impact
of traffic noise with percussion and echo noise that arises from vehicles travelling
over a bridge; Light pollution; bridge lighting at a higher grade bringing increased
brightness of lights from bridge lighting and vehicle lights closer to our bedrooms and
living areas which is difficult to black out, hence causing sub optimal night time sleep
conditions; a visual barrier of their southern outlook toward the Basin Reserve area”.
Environment and Amenity
Concerns about the recreational amenity of the Basin Reserve included its use as a sports
stadium and the disruption of Bridge traffic for spectators, and its day to day amenity as a
green space in the central Wellington environment. In particular people objected to being
able to see the proposed Bridge from inside the stadium;
“The Basin reserve is an iconic Wellington sporting destination. In order to preserve
the experience for all users of the reserve the bridge should not be located anywhere
near it.”
Amenity effects on residential property, as well as neighbourhood noise during construction
and operation were raised as well, particularly Grandstand and Lexington Apartments,
houses in Kent Terrace and Mount Victoria. Residents were concerned about accessibility
of their properties, property values, and the impact of having a motorway through a
residential area.
Submissions regarding the Bridge emphasised the need for quality design to uplift the area
and keep it ‘safe from undesirable activity’,
“The Wellington Inner City bypass for example has created many empty, sad, and
unusable spaces along its length. “
“I don't want an underbridge to be an unpleasant place to walk and am worried it will
be dangerous at night.”
“Loss of trees. Dank shadows. Mugging area.”
5C1617.00
June 2013
63
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Community
Submitters expressed concerns about the impact on schools and kindergartens in the area,
particularly traffic noise and air emissions, as well as maintaining good access for children
travelling on foot, as the proposed options could isolate them. St Mark’s School indicated
concerns not only in how students would be able to access the school on foot or bicycle, but
where parents dropping children by car would drop-off, or wait for students at bell times.
Many submissions reviewed for this assessment addressed concerns regarding the cultural
significance of the Memorial Park precinct. While heritage concerns are dealt with
separately to the SIA, submissions revealed the importance of this area to the wider
Wellington community, and feeling that the development was disrespectful to the National
War Memorial. There were concerns that the roading changes restricted access from the
proposed park to the memorial itself. Many also felt that the proposals were a lost
opportunity for the park to enhance the National War Memorial and the precinct. The
majority of these concerns have now been dealt with outside the scope of this Project with
the undergrounding project in Buckle Street.
As well as it’s amenity to residents and visitors, many submitters highlighted the heritage
values of the Basin Reserve, identifying it as a focal point for the community.
Summary of 2011 Community Engagement
The majority of issues raised by members of the public were concerned with the operational
effects of the Project. Positive impacts that were identified in the community feedback forms
mainly came from regional and national organisations and groups, whereas the majority of
potential negative impacts that were identified were from largely local submitters
(landowners, tenants, schools and other community organisations in the area). Submitters
who expressed urgency for the development to progress tended to be from the wider
Wellington region.
In general, submitters from suburbs neighbouring the development corridor expressed more
interest and concern in pedestrian access, and the physical and perceived safety of the
design.
Many of the issues raised at this stage of the Project were able to be resolved in the
developing design and have been addressed in other technical specialist assessments.
Issues which were resolved, and those still outstanding are included in the key stakeholder
discussions below. A social assessment of these effects is provided in section 9 of the SIA.
8.5
Key Stakeholder Meetings and Further Consultation (2012-2013)
Face-to-face meetings were held with key stakeholders identified through the Social Impact
Assessment Process, and through the public engagement process outlined above. These
meetings took place in mid-late 201269, and again in early 201370. Stakeholders either
69
Further consultation meetings were held with: St Marks Church School (27 August, 2012), Mt Cook
School (29 August, 2012), Grandstand Apartments (29 August, 2012), Wellington College (29 August,
2012), WCC: City Communities and Grants (20 August, 2012) Regional Public Health (13 September,
2012) and ACE House (21 December, 2012).
5C1617.00
June 2013
64
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
expressed a particular interest or sensitivity with regard to the Project design, or they were
identified by the social Project team as having a specific sensitivity to be addressed in
addition to the issues raised in general public engagement process. Communication
between businesses neighbouring the Project and other members of the Project team also
provided further insight about the potential effects of the Project71. Meetings were held with
representatives of: Mt Cook School, St Mark’s Church School, Wellington College,
Wellington City Council (City Communities and Grants), ACE House (Wellington Aftercare),
I-Kids, Grandstand and Landscape Apartments and Mt Victoria Residents Association. The
purpose of these meetings was to provide updates on the Project design following key
announcements relating to the Project, and to discuss any continued concerns with regard to
the revised Project design, from an explicitly social and community perspective.
In many cases, issues which had been voiced during the community engagement in mid2011 were resolved by the detailed design, such as the dedicated pedestrian and cycle lane
on the Bridge. Issues which were raised at these further consultation meetings are
discussed below, with reference to the IAIA categories used in this social assessment.
8.5.1 Way of Life
Construction
The potential for the Project to disrupt normal access arrangements was raised by most of
the stakeholders consulted. This related to road closures and changes to the local roading
network, as well as to construction staging areas, and where vehicles were stored overnight.
Some schools in the area have facilities used by the wider community into the evening and
on weekends requiring continued access. The need for on-going information about changes
in traffic movements was emphasised; where this had the potential to affect schools, it was
particularly important to provide information well in advance of the fact, in order to be able to
pass this information onto parents and the local community.
Where bus services are affected by construction, schools noted that it would be possible to
change arrangements with buses, such as staggering pick-up times, and collecting students
from Dufferin Street, although this would need to be worked through with the relevant bus
companies.
Operational
Stakeholders raised concerns about future parking arrangements, and what the environment
around the Project would look like, as well as how local traffic would move from Hania Street
onto the right-turning lanes around the Basin Reserve, and access for buses leaving
Wellington College merging with traffic on Paterson Street. Further discussions with key
stakeholders, particularly St Mark’s Church School and Wellington College informed the final
designs for the bus drop-off area, and short-term carparks on Dufferin Street.
70
Meetings held with: Landscape Apartments (16 January, 2013), Regional Public Health (17
January, 2013), I-Kids (24 January, 2013) and Mt Victoria Residents Association (19 February, 2013).
71
Refer to the summary of consultation in Part F, Chapter 10 of the AEE.
5C1617.00
June 2013
65
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
For residents of in the Mt Victoria area, there is an opportunity to improve egress of motor
vehicles from both Ellice and Pirie Streets. Residents of Landscape Apartments observed
that the green light to exit Pirie Street onto Kent Terrace is currently too short to allow more
than one or two vehicles through at a time. Some businesses in the area have expressed
concern at the proposed introduction of clear ways along Vivian Street during peak hours, as
it has the potential to deter business. This was particularly the case for I-Kids as the timing
of the clearways would coincide with typical drop-off and collection times for parents using
their childcare facilities. General concerns about potential economic effects of the Bridge
was mentioned by the Mt Victoria Residents Association, as it was felt that it would
encourage traffic to by-pass local businesses.
8.5.2 Wellbeing
Planning
Concerns related to the length of time to complete the Project were raised, particularly where
this affected the ability of residential property owners to sell. Concerns were also raised
about the consultation during the early stages of the Project72, and the way that feedback
was only sought on certain options.
Construction
The potential for noise and vibration during construction to disturb schools during the
daytime73, and residences at night-time74 was a continuing concern for stakeholders. This
related to direct construction activity – especially piling – but also to incidental noise after
dark such as backing vehicles and voices of workers. Benchmarking of existing buildings
before works begin as part of the construction management was accepted as a way to
manage potential risks to buildings. There was concern that the combination of construction
effects, including perceived effects, such as congestion and loss of parking, could have a
negative impact on the economic viability of businesses in close proximity to the Project
area, as potential customers may be put off from using these services.
There were also on-going concerns about the potential impact of dust on air quality during
construction, and discussion about emerging research on the effects of very small
particulates in emissions to air. It was generally accepted, however, that there will be little
excavation or earthworks required for the project. Stakeholders indicated that further
communication about the management of this effect would be helpful.
Operational
Potential benefits to health were mentioned by Regional Public Health, if improvements to
pedestrian and cycling facilities in the Project design led to increased up-take of active
transport modes.
Safety
72
Mt Victoria Residents Association (19 February, 2013)
St Mark’s Church School (27 August, 2012).
74
Grandstand Apartments (29 August, 2012).
73
5C1617.00
June 2013
66
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Construction
ACE House observed that typical signage used to redirect pedestrians during construction
activity can be confusing for their members, and they may need specific consideration in the
preparation of construction plans such as carrying out walk-overs before the construction
period, to ensure that they are familiar with temporary walking routes.
Operational
Increases in traffic noise as a result of the Project; particularly the irregular noise of traffic
going over expansion joints was raised as a concern by a number of stakeholders.
Inclusion of updates on locations of new bus-stops, crossings and facilities was requested by
Wellington City Council75, to enable it to pass on information to organisations such as the
Foundation for the Blind, to be disseminated to the visually impaired community. Inclusion of
this information as part of the Communication Management Plan would ensure that the
intended benefits to pedestrians can be enjoyed by as much of the local community as
possible.
The visual effects of street lighting on the Bridge was raised as a continued concern by local
residents, and the question was asked about whether this could be minimised. In this case,
a lighting design option has already been selected due to requirements for visibility and
traffic safety. Preliminary design modelling76 has indicated that light spill would only exceed
10 lux on two buildings (St Joseph’s Church and St Mark’s Church School). The lighting
design is also intended to meet CPTED principles, while minimising glare, and be in
accordance with AS/NZS 1158 Lighting for Roads and Public Spaces77.
8.5.3 Community
Many of the issues raised above also relate to the on-going amenity of local schools as
community facilities. Two positive issues were raised by schools78 on their future aspirations
for their school:


For schools in the area the opportunity to involve the students in the Project throughout
was considered a positive aspect of the construction phase.
Access for pedestrians and cyclists on the Bridge was considered to be positive for
students of Wellington College coming from the Aro Street / Kelburn area, and for
members of ACE House, once the Project is operational.
8.5.4 Other Key Stakeholders
Not all stakeholders provided feedback as part of the SIA assessment, either because there
was already considerable contact with another part of the project team79, or because the
stakeholder did not respond to invitations for follow-up consultation. This was the case with
some private residents close to the Basin Reserve. Note that the Catholic Church has been
extensively consulted with regard to the Archaeological and Built Heritage reports, and
75
WCC: City Communities and Grants (20 August, 2012)
Refer to the Design Philosophy Statement, Technical Report 1.
77
Refer to the Urban Design and Landscape Framework, Technical Report 2.
78
Meetings held with: Mt Cook School (29 August, 2012), Wellington College (29 August, 2012).
79
Refer to the summary of consultation in Part F, Chapter 10 of the AEE.
76
5C1617.00
June 2013
67
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
mitigation and recommendations from these reports are accepted in this assessment for
social considerations.
5C1617.00
June 2013
68
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
9
Assessment of Effects
9.1
Overview
This section considers the potential social effects that may result from the Project. The
assessment undertaken is based on information from a number of sources, predominantly:
Consultation feedback received to date, including general consultation and targeted
interviews
 Site visits and open days held in the area
 Demographic study of the area
 Council policies, strategies and plans
 Information and assessments obtained from other specialists.
(For more detail on the information sources used in the preparation of this report, please
refer to the Methodology chapter.)

Potential and actual effects identified through these sources were then assessed against the
SIA Framework adopted for this review. The framework was decided on taking into account
national and international best practice and frameworks such as the IAIA, NZTA guidelines,
the local policy and project context. The analysis below follows the structure of the
assessment framework which is:
Way of Life:
 Impacts on accessibility, connectivity, patterns of living and mobility
 Changes to ways of walking & cycling and changes to public transport
Well Being:
 Changes to wellbeing
 Health and safety
Environment and Amenity:
 Noise, dust, amenity and landscape
Community:
 Impact on people’s property and neighbourhoods
 Impacts on schools
 Impacts on community areas and sites
 Impacts on community plans and aspirations
 Impacts on and accessibility to commercial areas
The Project already includes measures which will mitigate social effects to a small or large
degree. The ‘level of effect’ assessment takes into consideration the reduction or avoidance
of effects achieved through the final design. In some cases, no additional measures are
considered necessary from a social perspective, however in some situations further
measures or recommendations may be made in order to address the social and community
impacts of the Project.
5C1617.00
June 2013
69
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
The table below provides a summary of:






The effect
The stage of the effect (‘P’ - planning, ‘C’ - construction, ‘O’ - operation)
Who is affected (‘D’ - directly affected landowners, ‘N’ - neighbours, ‘W’ - wider
community)
Proposed mitigation measures
An overall rating of the magnitude of the effect, and
Further comments or mitigation recommended from a social perspective.
Magnitude of Effects
In the assessment of effects, each effect has been given an overall rating. The rating is
designed to provide direction to the project team as to the magnitude of the effect and the
degree of mitigation required. For some effects, mitigation has already been achieved by
‘avoidance of effects’ through the route selection process or through design elements at
earlier stages in the Project. For other effects, specific mitigation measures have been
recommended by the environmental specialists including the social specialist. The rating
takes into account these mitigation measures which are already included in the Project. In
some cases, no additional mitigation will be necessary, however in others additional
measures may be considered necessary from a social perspective.
A nine-point scale has been applied in assessing social effects, consistent with the scale
applied in the Scheme Assessment Report. The ratings applied to the effects are:
Substantial Significant Moderate
positive
positive
positive
Minor
positive
InMinor
significant negative
Moderate Significant Severe
negative negative negative
In applying the overall rating of the effects, consideration was given to: the length of duration
of the effect, the likelihood of occurrence, the severity of the impact, who is affected, the
importance of the affected feature, as well as any mitigation measures already included in
the design.
Note that the two strongest ratings; ‘substantial positive’, and ‘severe negative’, have not
been applied in this assessment. These ratings have not been applied as the effects of the
Project were not assessed to be either severely negative or substantially positive.
5C1617.00
June 2013
70
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
9.2
Way of Life
Accessibility and connectivity
Effect
Stage Who
Mitigation
Overall
Rating
Comment
Reduction in SH1 congestion from airport O
W
Not needed as positive effect.
Improved access for emergency vehicles O
to and from Wellington Hospital as a
result of:
 Reduced congestion on local roads,
and
 Ability to use proposed bus lanes
around Basin Reserve in the event of
an emergency.
Improvements to local traffic through O
roading changes / redirection of eastwest through traffic
Potential for changes to accessibility for O
Mt Victoria residents due to removal of
right-hand turn into Hania Street from
Ellice Street.
W
Not needed as positive effect.
W
N
Not needed as positive effect.
N
Reduced accessibility between Mt C
Victoria and Basin Reserve at the
intersection of Hania and Ellice Streets,
due to construction activity.
N
Design includes access from Insignificant Changes may increase the distance of some
Ellice Street to Dufferin Street for
local trips slightly for some trips in private
local traffic, pedestrians and
motor vehicles, however traffic volumes for
cyclists.
many local trips will be reduced, and
accessibility of cycle and foot traffic will be
improved by the Project.
Construction traffic effects will be Insignificant
managed
through
the
implementation of a Construction
Traffic Management Plan that will
seek to optimise the network and
provide for road safety, and
5C1617.00
June 2013
71
Significant
positive
Significant
positive
Significant
positive
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Effect
Stage Who
Reduced access during construction for C
emergency vehicles to and from
Wellington Hospital as a result of
construction activity limiting traffic flows
at certain times:
Potential reduced accessibility for C
motorists on roads due to disruption
caused by construction activity between
Mount Victoria and Cuba Street on SH1,
and at the intersection of Pirie Street/
Vivian Street with Kent and Cambridge
Terrace. This may result in increased
congestion
and
change
currently
W
N
D
5C1617.00
June 2013
72
Mitigation
Overall
Rating
Comment
maintain pedestrian and cycle
access where practicable.
It is recommended that this
includes targeted communication
with community facility ACE
House, including site walk-overs
and discussion of signage before
the construction period.
Establish robust communications Minor
strategy
that
includes negative
establishment of a community
reference group that advises in
advance of planned works
programme and how traffic
movements will be affected.
Construction traffic effects will be
managed through a Construction
Traffic Management Plan that will
seek to optimise the network and
provide for road safety.
Establish robust communications Minor
strategy
that
includes negative
establishment of a community
reference group that advises in
advance of planned works
programme and how traffic
movements will be affected.
The
Construction
Environmental
Plan
includes a complaints and inquiries procedure
so that local communities can contact the
contractors to discuss the project and to seek
modification of behaviour where practicable. .
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Effect
Stage Who
available vehicle movements for limited
periods causing inconvenience and
frustration to local communities.
KEY
Stage
Who
P: Planning
D: Directly affected
Construction traffic effects will be
managed
through
the
implementation of a Construction
Traffic Management Plan.
C: Construction
N: Neighbours
5C1617.00
June 2013
Mitigation
73
O: Operational
W: Wider community
Overall
Rating
Comment
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Walking, cycling and public transport
Effect
Stage Who
Mitigation
Overall
Rating
Improved travel times for public transport
on north-south trips and local routes due
to:
 reduction in at-grade traffic, and
 introduction of bus lanes around the
Basin Reserve.
Improved pedestrian and cycling facilities
due to shared pathway over the bridge,
separated from motor-vehicles.
Improved
pedestrian
access
at
intersection of Sussex Street and Buckle
Street.
O
W
N
Not needed as positive effect.
Moderate
positive
O
N
Not needed as positive effect.
Moderate
positive
O
N
Potential negative effects on pedestrian
and cyclist accessibility through the
Basin Reserve during construction of
Northern Gateway Building.
C
W
KEY
Stage
Who
P: Planning
D: Directly affected
June 2013
This removes the need to cross at Cambridge
and Kent Terraces when travelling in an eastwest direction.
Not needed as positive effect.
Minor
Provision of drop curbs at the north-west
positive
corner of the Basin Reserve on Sussex Street
and Buckle Street will improve accessibility to
the north side of Buckle Street. Signalised or
zebra crossings will be the responsibility of
WCC to implement in the future.
Construction traffic effects will be Insignificant Effect is temporary, during construction only.
managed through a Construction
Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)
that will seek to optimise the
network and provide for road
safety, and maintain pedestrian
and
cycle
access
where
practicable.
C: Construction
N: Neighbours
5C1617.00
74
Comment
O: Operational
W: Wider community
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
9.3
Well-being
Health and safety
Effect
Stage Who
Mitigation
Overall
rating
General improvements to pedestrian and
cyclist safety.
O
W
N
Not needed as positive effect.
Potential negative effects to perceived
personal security for pedestrians under
and around the Bridge as a result of
spaces under the Bridge attracting antisocial behaviour, particularly after dark.
O
W
N
Activation and lighting of space Minor
under bridge by addition of negative
commercial building.
Potential safety hazard to pedestrians
and cyclists using the bridge due to
possibility of falling / jumping off the
Bridge.
O
W
N
Improvements to pedestrian and cycling
networks may encourage greater uptake
O
N
D
Inclusion of a 1.4m high barrier Minor
along the pedestrian / cycle lane negative
of the Bridge.
The proposed barrier to be
constructed of fine stainless steel
mesh to prevent climbing, and
allow views of the Basin Reserve
and trees through the mesh.
Not needed as positive effect.
Moderate
positive
80
Significant
positive
Refer to 6.5.4, Technical Report 11: Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, 20 July, 2012
5C1617.00
June 2013
75
Comment
Provision of new infrastructure such as
signalised crossings, footpaths and dedicated
cycle lanes will improve the safety and
amenity to active transport modes. This is a
benefit to the immediate area, and to the
wider area as it is a through route for many
surrounding suburbs.
Public spaces have been designed to
minimise actual and perceived risk to
pedestrians
by
incorporating
CPTED
principles, and the CPTED assessment finds
that security risks within the Project Area are
very low80.
2m or higher barrier would be needed to
discourage potential suicide attempts.
However considered that because the height
of the bridge is low, that the risk is slight,
when compared with other existing structures
in Wellington.
General improvements to safety and amenity
for pedestrians are expected through local
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Effect
Stage Who
Mitigation
Overall
rating
of walking and cycling for:
 Commuters,
 Recreational trips, and
 Local school children.
Potential negative effects to perceived
and actual personal security for
pedestrians under and around the Bridge
during construction.
KEY
Stage
Who
P: Planning
D: Directly affected
C
W
N
C: Construction
N: Neighbours
5C1617.00
June 2013
Take
account
of
CPTED Minor
principles in relevant construction negative
management plans.
76
O: Operational
W: Wider community
Comment
roading changes.
This may also lead to improved health
outcomes for those taking up active transport
options.
Additional communication with local schools
may be necessary in order to manage the
impact of effects during the construction
phase.
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Changes to Wellbeing and Cultural wellbeing
Effect
Landscaping and design on the corner of
Buckle Street and Cambridge Terrace
provides:
 ongoing connections between the
former Home of Compassion crèche
and surrounding residential and
Basin Reserve context, and
 improved disabled access between
Cambridge Terrace and the site of
the former Home of Compassion
crèche on Buckle Street.
Effect of increased light from street lights
/ car taillights on apartments.
KEY
Stage
Who
P: Planning
D: Directly affected
Stage Who
Overall
rating
O
N
Not needed as positive effect.
O
D
Design and location of street Minor
lighting to be directional and negative
shrouded so as to reduce glare.
Lighting from vehicles is below
the height of proposed road side
barriers.
Proposed green trellis will reduce
light effects on windows at
Grandstand Apartments.
C: Construction
N: Neighbours
5C1617.00
June 2013
Mitigation
77
O: Operational
W: Wider community
Moderate
positive
Comment
An accessible route does not currently exist.
Note that light spill is not expected to exceed
10 lux on residential buildings.
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
9.4
Environment and Amenity
Noise, vibrations and dust
Effect
Stage
Who
Perceived effects to health and wellbeing
from increased car emissions to air:
 at nearby schools, and
 at nearby residential buildings.
Potential negative effect on wellbeing
from increased road noise and vibrations
 At nearby schools
 At nearby residential buildings
Potential negative effect on wellbeing
from increased noise and vibrations
during project construction
 At nearby schools, and
 At nearby residential buildings.
O
N
D
O
N
D
C
N
D
Potential for negative effects to health
C
N
5C1617.00
June 2013
78
Mitigation
Overall
rating
Comment
None proposed, due to low level Insignificant Air quality report concludes that in general air
of effects, and improvements in
quality will improve but that there will be
some
locations
from
minor decreases in quality in some locations
reconfiguring the roads.
albeit that these are all within guideline levels.
Inclusion of low noise road Minor
surface in proposed design
negative
Development and implementation Minor
of a Construction Noise and negative
Vibration
Management
Plan
(CNVMP), to include measures
such as scheduling works to
minimise
disruption
and
communication with neighbouring
residents and businesses ahead
of works taking place.
To be mitigated by dust reduction Minor
The Vibration Assessment identifies potential
short-term disturbance to occupants of
specific buildings as a result of piling activity
during Project construction.
Additional mitigation is recommended that the
option for residents temporarily affected by
construction noise and vibration to be
temporarily relocated (for the duration of the
construction period) is provided, if the impacts
on them are too great to maintain normal
daily functioning. This requires consideration
by NZTA on a case-by-case basis, though in
the main this is not anticipated. This should
be reviewed once the detailed design and
final management plan are complete.
Temporary effects can be managed.
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Effect
Stage
Who
and wellbeing from dust and construction
related pollutants to air:
 at nearby schools, and
 at nearby residential buildings.
KEY
Stage
Who
P: Planning
D: Directly affected
D
Mitigation
Overall
rating
Comment
methods and best practice negative
construction methods outlined in
construction management plan.
C: Construction
N: Neighbours
O: Operational
W: Wider community
Amenity and landscape
Effect
Stage Who
Perceived negative impact of the Bridge
on the character and quality of the Basin
Reserve as a sports facility / event
venue.
C
O
W
N
D
Loss of visual amenity during
construction of Project due to
C
N
D
5C1617.00
June 2013
79
Mitigation
Design quality of the Bridge and
landscaping,
for
example:
screening trees, high Bridge
design values and landscaping.
The Northern Gateway Building
will screen the view of the Bridge
for players on the batting crease
inside the grounds of the Basin
Reserve, and will entirely or
partially screen views of the
Bridge from many other public
viewing points within the Basin
Reserve.
To be mitigated by dust reduction
methods
+
best
practice
Overall
rating
Comment
Minor
negative
The entrance to the Basin Reserve (Element
2.1 in the Project Description) will also
provide additional facilities for players and an
expanded entrance for spectators entering
the grounds from the northern end.
Minor
negative
Will be greatest for those in close proximity to
the Project area. Effects will be temporary,
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Effect
earthworks, constructions yards and
laydown areas etc.
Loss of visual amenity due to visual
impact of bridge and support structures
blocking views of Basin Reserve and sky:
 for nearby residents,
 for pedestrians moving through the
area, and
 from Dufferin St and Govt House
gates.
Stage Who
O
W
N
D
Perceived severance of the Basin
Reserve from Mt Cook/ Mt Victoria /
Newtown / Te Aro communities due to
the bridge acting as a visual barrier.
C
O
W
N
New building improves the safety and
amenity of the space underneath the
Bridge, by providing:
 activation of road edge,
 passive surveillance, and
 lighting.
Improvements between Cambridge
Terrace and Buckle Street provide
O
W
N
O
W
N
5C1617.00
June 2013
80
Mitigation
Overall
rating
construction methods outlined in
CEMP.
Design quality of the Bridge and Moderate
landscaping,
for
example: negative
screening trees, high bridge
design values and landscaping.
Inclusion of trees along Dufferin
Street will break up views of the
Bridge structure and help to
integrate the Bridge into the
landscape.
Comment
and will occur in stages.
Improvements will be made to other parts of
the environment through enhancement of the
approach to NWM Park from Cambridge
Terrace and plantings throughout the area.
Articulation of southern edge of bridge to be
developed to ensure that appearance is not
monolithic. Barrier heights to be as low as
possible.
Visual assessment will consider weathering of
bridge structure and long term visual
outcomes.
This effect has been minimised Insignificant
through the Project design,
including the design of the
Bridge, planting and landscaping
around the bridge, and the
creation of new open spaces
linking with the Basin Reserve
context.
Not needed as positive effect.
Moderate
Potential economic effect if NZTA is required
positive
to offer favourable rates to ensure occupancy.
Not needed as positive effect.
Moderate
positive
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Effect
improved outdoor recreational spaces for
residents and the general public.
New outdoor recreational/open space
provides improved linkages between
recreational spaces in NWM Park and
the Basin Reserve.
Potential negative effects on the
recreational amenity of the Basin
Reserve due to the visibility / audibility of
the bridge from inside the Basin Reserve
once operational.
Stage Who
W
N
Not needed as positive effect.
O
W
N
Design quality of the Bridge and Minor
landscaping,
for
example: negative
screening trees, high bridge
design values and landscaping.
C
W
N
Improved amenity through quality open
space design at corner of Cambridge
Terrace / Buckle St.
O
N
P: Planning
D: Directly affected
81
O: Operational
W: Wider community
Comment
Moderate
positive
The new structure and entrance
to the Basin Reserve will screen
the view of traffic from the view of
batsmen at the crease.
Construct the proposed structure Minor
within the Basin Reserve early negative
(possibly first) so as to provide a
physical barrier between the
proposed Bridge and the Basin
Reserve, to mitigate construction
noise and construction visual
effects on the Basin Reserve.
Not needed as positive effect.
Significant
positive
C: Construction
N: Neighbours
5C1617.00
June 2013
Overall
rating
O
Potential negative effects on the
recreational amenity of the Basin
Reserve due to construction noise and
reduced accessibility during construction.
KEY
Stage
Who
Mitigation
The Bridge will be visible and audible from
specific, limited points within the Basin
Reserve, and there will be improved access
to this recreational facility as a result of the
Project.
Effects as a result of the construction of the
Northern Gateway Building are short-term
only.
Potential for future active edge to north of
landscaped area.
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
9.5
Community
Impacts on school, community sites and private property
Effect
Stage Who
Inclusion of new Northern Gateway
Building and improved player facilities
within
Basin
Reserve
supports
community aspirations for continued
use and improvement of this sporting
venue.
Loss of land used for carpark at St
Joseph’s Church.
O
W, D
C
O
W
D
Improved safety at school gates due to
improved drop-off/pick-up spaces for
local schools.
O
W
D
Potential for construction activities to
result in traffic safety issues at schools'
drop off (pedestrian and parking) for:
 St Mark’s Church School, and
 Wellington College.
C
W
D
5C1617.00
June 2013
82
Mitigation
Overall
Rating
Comment
Not needed as positive effect.
Moderate
Positive.
Provision of new parking on St
Joseph’s Church site plus
provision of additional land to
cover parking loss to the church.
Not needed as positive effect.
Insignificant
On-site car parking involves the demolition
of a residence on church-owned property.
Moderate
positive
Management of this issue
through the development and
implementation of a CTMP and
program.
Ahead of construction discuss
programming of construction
works to seek to undertake
works during holiday periods (or
over as short a period as
possible). If necessary provide
Minor
negative
Changes to Dufferin street along school
gates to provide a safer pedestrian
environment.
There will also be a reduction in circulating
traffic by up to 50%.
This effect is temporary, during the
construction period only.
Bus drop-off times and locations may need
to
be
altered
during
construction.
Recommend on-going, early communication
with the school about changes to minimise
any potential disruption during the
construction period.
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Effect
Stage Who
Potential for construction activities to
result in traffic safety issues at schools
drop off and pick up (pedestrian and
parking) for Mt Cook School.
C
Roading changes in Mt Victoria / local
road network could result in potential for
reduced access to Wellington East Girls
College.
C,
O
D
Community
uncertainty
about
construction and operational effects of
Project.
P
D
KEY
Stage
Who
P: Planning
D: Directly affected
W
D
alternative access arrangements
for schools.
Management of this issue
through the development and
implementation of a CTMP and
program.
Ahead of construction discuss
programming of construction
works to seek to undertake
works during holiday periods (or
over a short a period as
possible). If necessary provide
alternative access arrangements
for schools.
Modification of Project design of
road
network
to
enable
continued access for buses to
and from school.
Public information days will
assist
in
developing
understanding. Communication
with directly affected residents is
on-going.
C: Construction
N: Neighbours
5C1617.00
June 2013
Mitigation
83
O: Operational
W: Wider community
Overall
Rating
Insignificant
Comment
This effect is temporary,
construction period only.
during
the
Access to and from the school is not
expected to be negatively affected by the
project once operational. Recommend ongoing, early communication with the school
about changes to minimise any potential
disruption during the construction period.
Insignificant
Minor
negative
The
Assessment
of
Traffic
and
Transportation Effects finds that the majority
of school bus routes will not be affected by
changes to Hania and Ellice Streets, and
ongoing access will be provided by a link
road between Ellice Street and Dufferin
Street.
Recommend
on-going
targeted
communication with affected parties about
project design and potential effects.
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Impacts on accessibility to facilities and commercial areas
Effect
Stage
Who
Mitigation
Overall
Rating
Comment
Potential for changes to accessibility for
The Street City Church and Croatian
Cultural Society, due to the removal of
right-hand turn into Hania Street from
Ellice Street.
Changes to Paterson Street could result
in reductions in accessibility for vehicles
leaving Wellington College during
construction.
C
O
W
D
N/A
Insignificant
No direct effects as a result of roading
changes are expected.
C,
O
W
D
Minor
negative
Recommend consideration of traffic needs,
especially school buses, exiting school
driveway onto Paterson Street.
O
N
D
N
D
Discussions with Wellington
College indicate need to advise
them on programming of works
so that alternative access to
school
can
be
provided.
Programming
to
seek
to
undertake works during holiday
periods (or over as short a
period as possible).
Not needed as positive effect
Moderate
positive
Insignificant
Access from the pedestrian and cycling
bridge will be provided to the Church.
Mitigation has not been recommended by
the
Assessment
of
Traffic
and
Transportation Effects as utilisation in these
areas is not considered high.
Improved pedestrian and cycling access
to St Joseph’s Church.
Potential for reduced access to local
commercial facilities due to local
network changes such as the clearway
on Pirie Street, and the clearway on
Vivian Street during peak hours.
Potential for reduced access to local
commercial facilities due to local
network changes.
O
C,
N
D
5C1617.00
June 2013
84
N/A
Construction traffic effects will
be managed through a CTMP
that will seek to optimise the
network and provide for road
safety, and maintain pedestrian
and
cycle
access
where
Insignificant
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Effect
Potential economic benefits within the
study area during construction due to
workers in the area increasing
patronage of local businesses.
Potential negative effect on access to
Regional Wines and Spirits during the
construction of the Bridge structure and
improving east bound State highway.
KEY
Stage
Who
P: Planning
D: Directly affected
Stage
Who
Mitigation
C
N
practicable.
Construction
programme and methods to be
discussed with local businesses
to reduce disruption.
Not needed as positive effect.
C
D
C: Construction
N: Neighbours
5C1617.00
June 2013
On-going direct negotiation with
the landowners and business
owners to resolve.
Construction programme and
methods to be discussed with
local businesses to reduce
disruption.
85
O: Operational
W: Wider community
Overall
Rating
Minor
positive
Minor
negative
Comment
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
9.5.1 Basin Reserve Mitigation
This section identifies the effects of alternative screening mitigation options within the Basin Reserve, comprising either a 55m or a
65m structure within the Basin Reserve. The effects of the alternative mitigation options have been assessed relative to the existing
environment and relative to the effects of the 45m structure option assessed in the preceding section.
The design of the 55m and 65m screening options are shown in Volume 5: Plan and Drawing Set and are further described in
Technical Report 3: Urban and Landscape Design Framework. A summary of the design of each is provided Chapter 3: Project
Description of this assessment.
Effects of a 55m structure
Negative effects as a result of the 55m design for the Northern Gateway Building are related to the construction phase of the Project
and include; effects to the accessibility of the Basin Reserve as a through route for pedestrians and cyclists, and effects to the
recreational amenity of the Basin Reserve as a result of construction noise and disturbance.
The stand has a positive effect as it strengthens the amenity of the Basin Reserve as a sporting facility once operational, by adding
additional facilities. The building also mitigates negative effects of the Bridge on the amenity of the Basin Reserve. Effects and
mitigation of the 55m structure are not considered to differ significantly from those assessed for the 45m structure.
Effects of a 65m building/structure
Negative effects as a result of the 65m design for the Northern Gateway Building are related to the construction phase of the Project
and include; effects to the accessibility of the Basin Reserve as a through route for pedestrians and cyclists, and effects to the
recreational amenity of the Basin Reserve as a result of construction noise and disturbance.
The structure has a positive effect as it strengthens the amenity of the Basin Reserve as a sporting facility once operational, by
adding additional facilities. The building also mitigates negative effects of the Bridge on the amenity of the Basin Reserve. Effects
and mitigation of the 65m structure are not considered to differ significantly from those assessed for the 45m structure.
5C1617.00
June 2013
86
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Additional Effects
The table below summarises the effects associated with the 45m structure option and identifies the additional effects caused by the
65m and 55m structure options.
Criteria
45m structure
55m structure
65m structure
Way of Life
Impacts
on
accessibility, No specific effects related to the Northern Gateway structure.
connectivity, patterns of living
and mobility
Changes to ways of walking & Potential negative effects on pedestrian and cyclist accessibility through the Basin Reserve during
cycling and changes to public construction of the Northern Gateway Building.
transport.
Rating: Insignificant
Rating: Insignificant
Rating: Insignificant
Well Being
Health and safety
Changes to wellbeing
cultural wellbeing
No specific effects related to the Northern Gateway Building.
and No specific effects related to the Northern Gateway Building.
Environment and Amenity
Noise, vibration and dust
No specific effects related to the Northern Gateway Building.
Amenity and landscape
Potential negative effects on the recreational amenity of the Basin Reserve due to construction noise and
reduced accessibility during construction.
Rating: Minor negative
Rating: Minor negative
Rating: Minor negative
Community
Impact on schools, community Inclusion of the new Northern Gateway Building and improved player facilities within Basin Reserve supports
sites and private property
community aspirations for continued use and improvement of this sporting venue.
5C1617.00
June 2013
87
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Criteria
45m structure
Rating: Moderate positive
55m structure
Rating: Moderate positive
65m structure
Rating: Moderate positive
Impacts on and accessibility to No specific effects related to the Northern Gateway Building.
commercial areas
Conclusion
Although design options for the Northern Gateway Building differ in size and scale, from a social perspective, the negative and
positive effects as a result of the Northern Gateway Building are very similar whether the structure is 45m, 55m or 65m. Overall the
differences in effect as a result of the size differences are insignificant.
5C1617.00
June 2013
88
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
9.6
Summary of Effects
The Project is assessed as having both positive and negative social effects. Overall the
positive effects of the Project are:









Reduction in traffic congestion saving time and improving safety for both regional and
local travellers
Improved health, safety and connectivity benefits for pedestrians and cyclists both for
local and regional trips
Provision of dedicated bus lanes improving access and reducing delays for bus
commuters
An overall improvement in safety for students being dropped at schools both in terms of
crossing points, and safer stopping points for cars and buses
Improved access to community facilities or at a minimum no change in standard of
accessibility
Consideration of the needs of the disabled through the provision of appropriate ramps
and other measures in the areas around the bridge and Basin Reserve
A strong emphasis on well-designed spaces to improve urban amenity linking from the
Basin Reserve to Memorial Park
A reduction in traffic on parts of the network thus improving quality of the urban
environment particularly for parts of the north and south transport spine
Retention of significant historic fabric and protection of the Basin Reserve context.
Potential adverse effects of the Project are the following:







Visual and amenity effects of the Bridge on immediate and surrounding neighbourhoods
Perceived and actual safety issues under and around the Bridge during Project
construction
Construction effects from noise, dust, vibration, lighting and glare on health and
wellbeing
Operational effects from the road such as noise, dust and glare on health and wellbeing
Reduced accessibility to essential community infrastructure during construction
Traffic delays during construction
Localised access effects on some businesses particularly during construction
5C1617.00
June 2013
89
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
9.6.1 Assessment of effects
A number of potential effects raised by the local and wider community interest groups have
been addressed through the design process and specialist input into the Project, such as the
design of the Bridge, or by decisions taken outside the Project scope, particularly the
undergrounding of SH1 in front of the National War Memorial as part of the proposed
Memorial Park project. Further consultation with directly affected community groups has
also identified further opportunities for the final design to resolve potential issues with regard
to access for school buses coming from Wellington College81.
In other cases concerns expressed by the community with regard to potential effects were
not expected to occur by the relevant technical specialists, for example although concerns
were expressed about air quality in feedback and interviews, the Air Quality Assessment
concludes that overall air quality is expected to improve as a result of the Project, and that
while some increases are expected in specific locations, these are not expected to exceed
the NES for Air Quality. In these cases the effects have been assessed as ‘insignificant’ as
they are unlikely to actually occur. The findings and proposed mitigation contained in the
relevant technical reports are relied on, and their results accepted.
While potential construction effects such as emissions to air, and construction noise and
vibration will be mitigated and managed through the Construction Management suite of
plans, the implementation of these plans is key to managing some identified social effects.
Discussions as part of further stakeholder consultation identified opportunities for the Project
to improve past experiences of local residents during construction. While notification of
neighbouring residents is a standard inclusion in construction management plans it is also
expressly mentioned in the recommended mitigation in this assessment. Likewise, early
notification and communication with neighbouring schools provides the Project with an
opportunity to optimise communication of changes with school communities and minimise
any disruptions.
The key considerations with regard to the IAIA impact categories are summarised below.
Way of Life
Effects range from significant positive to minor negative. Effects mainly relate to the
improvements in accessibility in, around and through the area, due to improved flow of SH1
traffic, reduced congestion and traffic volumes on local roads, and an improved pedestrian
and cycling facility. There may be some flow-on health benefits to the local community as a
result of the Project encouraging more people to take up active transport modes.
The forecast duration of the construction phase is 28 months. A contingency period of six
months has been assumed. The expected construction period is 34 months. An assumed
start is mid-2014 and the expected completion date is between the end 2016 and mid201782.
Disruption to local trips for motorists and users of active transport modes is expected to a
certain degree during the construction phase. These effects are temporary, and can be
mitigated by communication in local and regional media. It is expected that disruption can
be further reduced through project specific construction management plans, and that these
81
82
Wellington College (29 August, 2012)
Construction Environmental Management Plan.
5C1617.00
June 2013
90
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
will maintain on-going provision of pedestrian and cycling facilities throughout the
construction period.
Overall, reductions in the at grade traffic travelling from east to west and the enhanced
pedestrian and cycling facilities are expected to improve the traffic situation around the Basin
Reserve for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists alike. Negative effects to nearby community
facilities and schools particularly are not expected to be more than minor, and in most cases
there will be positive changes to street frontages and general pedestrian safety due to the
reduced volume of traffic on local roads and improved footpaths and crossing facilities.
Minor issues regarding access for buses during construction can be resolved through
construction management plans.
Wellbeing
Effects range from significant positive to minor negative. Negative effects to people’s
wellbeing may come from short-term construction effects causing disturbance to nearby
residences and community facilities, or through process-related issues during the planning
phase of the Project, such as uncertainty about effects and timelines.
There is the potential for negative effects on personal safety during the construction period,
although this is expected to be mitigated by the inclusion of appropriate CPTED measures in
the preparation and implementation of construction management plans. Community
groups83 have expressed concerns about personal safety once the Project is operational;
however the CPTED assessment concludes that community concerns have been addressed
by the Project and that there are no residual safety and security risks as a result of the
Project84.
Given the scale of the Project and its proximity to residential properties, local residents may
also experience anxiety about construction effects. These effects apply to a limited number
of people, and are minimised as far as possible through on-going communication and
Project updates, but will nevertheless be experienced by the people in neighbouring
communities.
In the case of the Grandstand Apartment buildings on Kent Terrace, there are a number of
apartments which will overlook the Bridge, and some views are expected to be affected by
the Project. This includes increased lighting from street illumination, and moving cars at
night. Although full mitigation of this effect may not be achievable, light spill is not expected
to exceed 10 lux on residential buildings.
Environment and Amenity
Changes to the visual environment have the potential to affect the environment and amenity
of the Project area. Effects range from significant positive to moderate negative and largely
relate to the visual impact of the Bridge structure. These effects include loss of views and
visual amenity as a result of the Bridge and its support structures. Given the size and
location of the structure, it will have a visual impact on the surrounding environment. The
Visual Assessment85 assess that visual effects will largely be experienced in a dynamic way
and will vary with distance and viewpoint location. Mitigation through the design of the
83
Refer to section 8 of this assessment.
Refer to 9.2, Technical Report 11: Assessment of Crime Prevention through Envrionmental Design.
85
Technical Report 10: Assessment of Visual Effects.
84
5C1617.00
June 2013
91
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Bridge itself, as well as landscaping and planting around the Basin Reserve will reduce this
impact, as will the proposed Northern Gateway Building, which will partially screen views of
the Bridge from within the Basin Reserve. Improvements to open spaces particularly on the
corner of Buckle Street and Cambridge Terrace will improve the amenity of the area and link
up the green spaces of the Basin Reserve and Memorial Park.
While daytime construction noise may not affect residents at work during the day, there is
potential that people working from home, shift workers, unemployed and people not in the
labour-force may be affected. It is also worth noting that students in the area may be
studying from home during the daytime, and as such may be affected by noise and vibration
during daylight hours. Visual effects may be experienced by residents during the
construction period, due to vehicle storage, construction yards and ‘laydown areas’. These
potential effects are expected to be managed via appropriate mitigation measures in the
CEMP. On-going communication with local residents as part of a proposed communication
management plan will inform the local community of what to expect during this time and the
contractor will be required to programme works so as to seek to practicably minimise
disruption.
Noise and vibration effects on the surrounding environment during the construction period
can also have an effect on the social environment and management and monitoring over
and above the measures employed to mitigate/minimise the effects on the immediate
environment may be necessary.
This assessment recommends that construction
management and communication management plans take into account potential social
effects, and provide mechanisms for the on-going monitoring and management of these
effects. The Vibration Assessment identifies potential short-term disturbance to occupants of
specific buildings as a result of piling activity during Project construction. It is recommended
that the option for residents temporarily affected by construction noise and vibration to be
temporarily relocated (for the duration of the construction period) is provided, if the impacts
on them are too great to maintain normal daily functioning. This requires consideration by
NZTA on a case-by-case basis, though in the main this is not anticipated. This should be
reviewed once the detailed design and final management plan are complete.
This Project is taking place within the context of an urban environment, on a major arterial
route. The Noise Assessment establishes that existing road-traffic noise is already high
within the Project area, and that the scale of any noise effects as a result of the Project are
very small. The Air Quality Assessment finds that any increases in air quality effects will be
acceptable with the applicable standards and guidelines for air quality, and once operational,
the Vibration Assessment does not expect any differences to traffic-induced vibrations as a
result of the Project.
Potential negative effects during the construction period due to noise and vibration are
expected to be able to be managed through the development and implementation of the
Construction Management plan, and that any effects will be temporary and well
communicated to affected parties. Negative visual effects as a result of the presence of the
Bridge are expected to be mitigated by the design of the bridge structure and landscaping,
as far as is possible. Overall improvements to open spaces under and around the proposed
Bridge are expected, creating a more usable space for residents and users of active
transport modes.
5C1617.00
June 2013
92
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Community
Community effects range from moderate positive to minor negative. Potential effects to
amenity, community facilities – particularly schools – and a specific group of residences
were among the most frequently commented on, and the most strongly voiced during
community consultation. Perceived future effects such as loss of heritage value or loss of
recreational amenity are difficult to measure, but arouse strong concern among local
communities. The Project team intends to mitigate these potential effects through
minimising the visual impact of the Bridge through landscaping, and design treatments to
minimise its impact and provide offset mitigation by developing and enhancing public open
spaces.
The overall social and community impact of the Project is expected to be positive, based on
improvements to active transportation networks, development of new green spaces and
linkages between existing spaces, as well as enhancing the connectedness of the former
Home of Compassion Crèche with the surrounding community, and the creation of a new
commercial building within the immediate Basin Reserve environment.
Overall effect summary
The overall effect of the Project is assessed to be positive, largely given the improvements to
regional and local road networks, active transportation networks, development of new green
spaces and linkages between existing spaces. These will improve accessibility and amenity
for local residents and pedestrians and cyclists moving through the area, as well as improve
the safety of active transport users and motorists. Negative effects generally relate to the
construction phase of the Project, are expected to be able to be mitigated through sound
construction management practices and through on-going communication with the affected
parties throughout the project. Some potential visual effects in specific, limited locations
may not be able to be fully mitigated.
5C1617.00
June 2013
93
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
10
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Many of the mitigation measures discussed in the Assessment of Effects Table above have
been incorporated in the detailed design of the Project, and/or are covered in other
specialist’s assessments. These mitigations have been recommended by the environmental
specialists and design team to avoid or reduce the magnitude of the social effects of the
project and are supported by this social assessment. Some additional mitigation has also
been recommended by the social assessment.
The Table below summarises both the specific mitigation measures which have already
been incorporated in the Project design, and those to be undertaken during the construction
and operational phases of the Project. This table only summarises the mitigations proposed
for effects which are assessed to be minor negative or greater, or where there is a specific
social mitigation proposed. The particular social effects these mitigation measures address
are discussed in greater detail above in the Assessment of Effects (section 9). For
consistency and cross-referencing purposes, the table below is structured to reflect the IAIA
effects categories.
IAIA Effects
Category
Way of Life
Accessibility
and
Connectivity
Way of Life
Accessibility
and
Connectivity
Way of Life
Accessibility
and
Connectivity
Effect
Proposed Mitigation
Reduced
accessibility
between Mt Victoria and
Basin Reserve at the
intersection of Hania and
Ellice
Streets,
due
to
construction activity.
The SIA supports the recommendations of the
Transportation
Assessment,
including
the
management of construction effects through the
implementation of a CTMP and SSTMPs.
In addition to this, it is recommended that targeted
actions are carried out for ACE House, including site
walk-overs, and a presentation of signage to be used
during construction, before construction begins.
The SIA supports the recommendations of the
Transportation
Assessment,
including
the
management of construction effects through the
implementation of a CTMP and SSTMPs.
Reduced
access
for
emergency vehicles to and
from Wellington Hospital as
a result of construction
activity limiting traffic flows at
certain times.
In addition to this, it is recommended that a robust
communications strategy is established, including a
community reference group prior to construction
beginning.
Potential
reduced The SIA supports the recommendations of the
accessibility for motorists on Transportation
Assessment,
including
the
roads due to disruption management of construction effects through the
caused
by
construction implementation of a CTMP and SSTMPs.
activity
between
Mount
Victoria and Cuba Street on In addition to this, it is recommended that a robust
SH1, and at the intersection communications strategy is established, including a
of Pirie Street/ Vivian Street community reference group prior to construction
with Kent and Cambridge beginning.
Terrace. This may result
increased congestion and
change currently available
traffic movements for limited
periods
causing
5C1617.00
June 2013
94
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
inconvenience
and
frustration
to
local
communities.
Way of Life
Potential negative effects on
Walking, cycling pedestrian
and
cyclist
and
public accessibility through the
transport
Basin
Reserve
during
construction of Northern
Gateway Building.
Wellbeing
Potential negative effects to
Health
and perceived personal security
safety
for pedestrians under and
around the bridge as a result
of spaces under the bridge
attracting
anti-social
behaviour, particularly after
dark.
Wellbeing
Potential negative effects to
Health and
perceived
and
actual
safety
personal
security
for
pedestrians
under
and
around the Bridge during
construction.
Wellbeing
Potential safety hazard to
Health
and pedestrians and cyclists
safety
using the Bridge due to
possibility of falling / jumping
off the Bridge.
Wellbeing
Effect of increased light from
Changes
to street lights / car taillights on
wellbeing and apartments.
cultural
wellbeing
The SIA supports the recommendations of the
Transportation
Assessment,
including
the
management of construction effects through the
implementation of a CTMP and SSTMPs, noting that
these seek to maintain pedestrian and cycle access
where practicable.
It is further recommended that the CTMP provides for
maintained access to public transport throughout
construction.
The SIA supports the conclusions of the CPTED
assessment, noting that design decisions already
incorporated into the Project have minimised actual
and perceived risks to pedestrians.
The SIA supports the conclusions of the CPTED
assessment that relevant construction management
plans take account of CPTED principles to mitigate
this potential effect.
This effect has been minimised through the Project
design, including a 1.4m high barrier along the
pedestrian / cycle lane of the bridge; and the low
height of the bridge itself (9m to road surface).
The Project design includes measures to minimise
this effect; street lighting is to be directional and
shrouded so as to reduce glare; lighting from vehicles
is below the height of proposed road side barriers; a
proposed green trellis will reduce light effects on
windows at Grandstand Apartments.
Environment
Potential negative effect on The SIA supports the findings of the Noise and
and Amenity
wellbeing from increased Vibration assessment with regards to potential noise
Noise, vibration road noise and vibrations
increases being very small. The Project design
and dust
already includes mitigating measures such as low
 At nearby schools, and
 At nearby residential noise road surfaces.
buildings.
Environment
Potential negative effect on The SIA supports the recommendations of the Noise
and Amenity
wellbeing from increased and Vibration Assessment that construction effects
Noise, vibration noise and vibrations during are to be addressed through the implementation of a
and dust
project construction:
CNVMP, in particular the recommendation that works
are scheduled to minimise disruption to neighbouring
 At nearby schools, and
 At nearby residential schools and residents.
buildings.
It is further recommended that communication with
neighbouring residents, schools and businesses
takes place prior to construction.
5C1617.00
June 2013
95
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Environment
and Amenity
Noise, vibration
and dust
Environment
and Amenity
Amenity
and
Landscape
Environment
and Amenity
Amenity
and
Landscape
Environment
and Amenity
Amenity
and
Landscape
Environment
and Amenity
Amenity
and
Landscape
Environment
and Amenity
Amenity
and
Landscape
In addition to this it is recommended that the option
for residents temporarily affected by construction
noise and vibration to be temporarily relocated (for
the duration of the construction period) is provided, if
the impacts on them are too great to maintain normal
daily functioning. This requires consideration by
NZTA on a case-by-case basis, though in the main
this is not anticipated. This should be reviewed once
the detailed design and final management plan are
complete.
Potential for negative effects The SIA supports the recommendations of the Air
to health and wellbeing from Quality Assessment, that appropriate air quality
dust and construction related controls during the construction period are managed
pollutants to air:
via the CAQMP, including monitoring and complaint
response.
 at nearby schools, and
 at nearby residential
buildings.
Perceived negative impact of The Project design includes measures to mitigate this
the bridge on the character effect, including the design quality of the bridge,
and quality of the Basin landscaping and plantings.
Reserve as a sports facility / The Northern Gateway Building will tie the bridge
event venue.
structure into the entrance to the Basin Reserve and
screen the view of the bridge for players on the
batting crease inside the grounds of the Basin
Reserve, and will entirely or partially screen views of
the bridge from many other public viewing points
within the Basin Reserve.
Loss of visual amenity due The SIA supports the findings of the Visual
to visual impact of bridge Assessment, noting that the design of built elements
and
support
structures and landscape treatments already have incorporated
blocking views of Basin mitigating measures for visual effects as far as
Reserve and sky:
practicable.
 for nearby residents,
 for pedestrians moving
through the area,
 from Dufferin St, and
 Govt House gates
Perceived severance of the This effect has been minimised through the Project
Basin Reserve from Mt design, including the design of the bridge; planting
Cook/ Mt Victoria / Newtown and landscaping around the bridge; and the creation
/ Te Aro communities due to of new open spaces linking with the Basin Reserve
the bridge acting as a context.
barrier.
Potential negative effects on The SIA supports the findings of the Visual
the recreational amenity of Assessment and the Noise and Vibration
the Basin reserve due to the Assessment, noting that the design of built elements
visibility / audibility of the and landscape treatments already have incorporated
bridge from inside the Basin mitigating measures for visual effects and noise
Reserve once operational.
mitigation measures.
Potential negative effects on The SIA supports the findings of the Noise and
the recreational amenity of Vibration Assessment and the Transportation
the Basin reserve due to Assessment that construction effects can be
construction
noise
and managed via the CNVMP and the CTMP.
5C1617.00
June 2013
96
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
disturbance
construction.
during
Temporary construction effects may not be able to be
fully mitigated, and it is further recommended that the
community reference group is kept informed of the
schedule of works prior to and throughout the
construction period.
Loss of land used for The Project will also provide a solution for the church
carparks at St Joseph’s to enable to continued use of the church as a
Church.
community facility.
Community
Impacts
to
schools,
community
sites
and
private
property
Community
Potential for construction
Impacts
to activities to result in traffic
schools,
safety issues at schools
community
drop off (pedestrian and
sites
and parking) for:
private
 St
Mark’s
Church
property
School, and
 Wellington College.
Community
Potential for construction
Impacts
to activities to result in traffic
schools,
safety issues at schools
community
drop off and pick up
sites
and (pedestrian and parking) for
private
Mt Cook School.
property
Community
Changes to Paterson Street
Impacts
to could result in reductions in
community
accessibility for vehicles
facilities
and leaving Wellington College
commercial
during construction.
areas
Community
Potential negative effect on
Impacts
to access to Regional Wines
community
and Spirits during the
facilities
and construction of the Bridge
commercial
structure and improving
areas
east bound State highway.
Community
Community
uncertainty
Impacts
to about construction and
schools,
operational
effects
of
community
Project.
sites
and
private
property
Community
Impacts
to
community
facilities
and
commercial
Potential
for
reduced
access to local commercial
facilities due to construction
activity.
The SIA supports the recommendations of the
Transportation
Assessment,
including
the
management of construction effects through the
implementation of a CTMP and SSTMPs.
It is further recommended that on-going, early
communication with the schools and local
businesses is carried out prior to construction to
further minimise and disruption as a result of
construction activities.
This effect has been mitigated by community
consultation carried out throughout the Project
development, including direct consultation with
neighbouring residents.
It is further recommended that communication with
neighbouring residents is included in the CEMP,
including representation of residents in the
community reference group.
The SIA supports the recommendations of the
Transportation
Assessment,
including
the
management of construction effects through the
implementation of a CTMP and SSTMPs.
5C1617.00
June 2013
97
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
areas
It is further recommended that the schedule of works
and construction methods are discussed with local
businesses (including I-Kids) prior to construction, to
reduce disruption.
Further Recommendations
IAIA Effects
Category
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Community
(all)
The Construction Environmental Management Plan (draft provided in Volume 4)
which will be finalised and implemented to minimise adverse effects of construction
activities also include a communications strategy to detail how and when
construction management information will be communicated to the public,
stakeholders and directly affected landowners. Tools that may be utilised include
information in the local press, radio advertisements, information boards, flyers,
newsletters and direct contact.
Community
(all)
Establish a community reference group, to include key stakeholders such as
schools, local businesses and local residents, prior to and throughout the
construction phase. Include a stakeholder liaison representative to provide a
conduit between the community and the Project team.
Community
(all)
Feedback/complaints database established for the construction phase to ensure
that community, stakeholder and individual issues are addressed and that
appropriate responses are provided for all queries.
5C1617.00
June 2013
98
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
11
Future Work
As identified throughout the report, the assessment is guided by the information that is
known at this time. As the process progresses through designation, construction and
operation, regular reviews of the effects identified in the SIA should be undertaken as
changes may result as detailed design and construction methodology evolve. The future
work required will include, but is not limited to:




Further community engagement including key stakeholders and directly affected
individuals (see detailed recommendations in the mitigation section above);
Finalisation of a construction management plan and the details communicated to the
community, key stakeholders and the community;
Establishment of a database for recording and responding to community, stakeholder
and individual requests, complaints or statements; and
Review effects identified in the SIA and address as appropriate. Possible establishment
of a community reference group and nominated project liaison representative.
Monitoring
While no specific monitoring of the social environment, or of mitigations proposed in this
assessment is recommended, any specific measures which will require on-going monitoring
- such as the complaints management system - are to be implemented and managed
through the relevant construction management plans86 (these mitigations are also noted in
the assessment of effects in section 9 above). Review of Construction Environmental
Management Plans has been undertaken by the social assessment team throughout their
development, up to the point of lodgement. These reviews have been carried out to ensure
that the relevant recommendations from the social assessment are included.
86
Refer to details of monitoring required during the construction period included in the; CAQMP
(section 4.1 and 4.4), NVMP (section 5.1 and 5.2), and the CEMP (section 6.1 and 6.2).
5C1617.00
June 2013
99
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
12
Conclusion and Recommendations
12.1
Conclusion
The overall social and community impact of the project is expected to be positive, based on
improvements to active transportation networks, development of new green spaces and
linkages between existing spaces, improving walking and cycling facilities as well as the
connectedness of the former Home of Compassion Crèche to the surrounding community,
and the creation of a new commercial building within the immediate Basin Reserve
environment.
Adverse effects on nearby community facilities and schools in particular are expected to be
minor, provided the recommended mitigation is adopted. In most cases there will be positive
changes to street frontages and general pedestrian safety due to the reduced volume of
traffic on local roads and improved footpaths and crossing facilities. Effects on the visual
amenity of the Project area can be mitigated for most viewing audiences, however effects to
certain limited residences may not be able to be fully mitigated. Minor issues regarding
access for buses during and after construction can be resolved through traffic management
in final detailed design.
There is the potential for negative effects during the construction period due mainly to noise
and vibration, it is expected that this will be managed as appropriate as part of the
Construction Management plan, and that any effects will be temporary and well
communicated to affected parties.
12.2
Recommendations
It is important that there is on-going communication, not just with residents but also with key
community points such as the local schools in the immediate project environment, to keep
them informed during the construction period.
As part of the communication management plan it is recommended that measures are
included to provide the opportunity for residents and community facilities to air any
complaints and have issues resolved during the construction period. A community reference
group is suggested along with a dedicated project liaison officer.
Advance communication of construction activities in the area, particularly changes to traffic
movements and parking facilities will enable schools to communicate safe transport
movements and behaviours to their respective communities, and minimise any potential
disruption to their normal activities.
5C1617.00
June 2013
100
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Appendix 14.A: Literature Review
Social Impact Assessment (SIA) as a specific concept originated in the 1969 National
Environmental Policy Act of the United States of America (NEPA) and later became
widespread as a decision making tool in developed countries87. Recently, its use as a
supporting tool for decision-making is gaining popularity with major infrastructural projects in
developing countries. SIA is now a mandatory requirement for major road infrastructure
projects funded by the World Bank88, European Investment Bank, Asia Development Bank
and other major international financial institutions89.
The International Association for Impact Assessment90 (IAIA) defines SIA as “ the processes
of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences,
both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and
any social change processes invoked by those interventions. Its primary purpose is to bring
about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment”.
Vanclay and Becker (2003)91 expanded on the implications of this definition, describing SIA
as a broad umbrella or overarching framework that embodies the evaluation of all human
impacts.
Impacts included in this framework are: aesthetic (landscape analysis),
archaeological and heritage, community, cultural, demographic, development, economic and
fiscal, gender assessment, health, indigenous rights, infrastructural, institutional, political
(human rights, governance, democratization), poverty assessment, psychological, resource
issues (access and ownership of resource), tourism and other impacts on societies.
To obtain a full appreciation of these to enable them to be categorised needs the
consideration of SIA as changes to one or more of the following:

People’s way of life – that is, how they live, work, play and interact with one another on a
day-to-day basis;

Their culture – that is, their shared beliefs, customs, values and language or dialect;

Their community – its cohesion, stability, character, service and facilities;

Their political system – the extent to which people are able to participate in decisions
that affect their lives , the level of democratisation that is taking place, and the resources
provided for this purpose;

Their environment – the quality of the air and water people use, the availability and the
quality of food they eat, the level of hazard or risk, dust and noise they are exposed to,
the adequacy of sanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over
resources;

Their health and wellbeing – where ‘health’ is understood in a manner similar to the
World Health Organisation definition: “a state of complete physical, mental, and social
wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”;

Their personal and property rights – particularly whether people are economically
affected, or experience personal disadvantage which may include a violation of their civil
liberties;
87
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service
(1994) – Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment
88
Koji Tsunokawa and Christopher Hoban (Edit) 1997 – “Roads and the Environment – A Handbook” World Bank Technical
Paper No 376
89
www.eib.org/; www.adb.org/gms; www.tba.co.nz;
90
www.iaia.org/
91
Becker H & Vanclay F (eds) 2003, The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and
Methodological Advances, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
5C1617.00
June 2013
101

Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Their fears and aspirations – perceptions about safety, fears about the future of their
communities, and aspirations for their future and the future of their children.
International SIA Practices – Social Impact Categories
SIA has become firmly established internationally as an important aspect of environmental
impact assessment.
Australia
In Australia, the State Government has amended its Local Government Act to incorporate
the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)92. All levels of government
have agreed that ESD is based on three under-pinning principles:



development that safeguards the welfare of future generations,
providing for equity within and between generations, and
Protecting biological diversity and maintaining essential ecological processes and lifesupport systems.
Under this ESD paradigm LGA practitioners have identified the following social impact
categorisation relevant to major road infrastructure projects in the federal, state and local
governments.
Population characteristics




Present population and expected change
Ethnic and racial diversity
Demographic mix
Fluxes in temporary residents, seasonal and leisure visitors
Community and institutional structures




Local government and links to the larger political system
Patterns of employment and industrial diversification
Voluntary organisations
Religious and other interest groups
Political and Social resources



Distribution of power and authority - participation, discrimination
Income and wealth distribution
Legal and civil rights
Individual and family change




Health
Education
Personal safety
Family and friendship networks
Community resources


92
Natural resources and land use
Physical environment
http://www.communitysolutions.com.au/papers/quantsocimpass.html
5C1617.00
June 2013
102
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment




Recreation
Availability of housing and community services
Viability of community life
Historical and cultural resources - indigenous and non English-speaking background
SIA is also a requirement under the Commonwealth/ State Strategic Assessment Agreement
for approval under its Environmental Protection Act 198693.
United States
In the US, SIA is a statutory requirement under several acts of legislation such as the
Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act 1976 and the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act 1978. The predominant legislation though, is the National Environmental
Policy Act 196994. The social impact assessment variables required under this legislation
include:





Population Characteristics which mean the present population and expected change,
ethnic and racial diversity, and influxes and outflows of temporary residents as well as
the arrival of seasonal or leisure residents.
Community and Institutional Structures which mean the size, structure, and level of
organization of local government including linkages to the larger political systems. They
also include historical and present patterns of employment and industrial diversification,
the size and level of activity of voluntary associations, religious organizations and
interests groups, and finally, how these institutions relate to each other.
Political and Social Resources that refers to the distribution of power authority, the
interested and affected publics, and the leadership capability and capacity within the
community or region.
Individual and Family Changes referring to factors which influence the daily life of the
individuals and families, including attitudes, perceptions, family characteristics and
friend-ship networks. These changes range from attitudes toward the policy to an
alteration in family and friendship networks to perceptions of risk, health, and safety.
Community Resources including patterns of natural resource and land use; the
availability of housing and community services to include health, police and fire
protection and sanitation facilities. A key to the continuity and survival of human
communities are their historical and cultural resources. Under this collection of variables
we also consider possible changes for indigenous people and religious sub-cultures.
93
Vanclay, F. 2003. International Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal 21(1): 511
94
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service
(1994) – Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment.
5C1617.00
June 2013
103
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Canada
In Canada, SIA is a statutory requirement under the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act95. Stevenson96 (1995) described the way it categorised the impacts of major road
projects on people and communities as:
Displacement of Residents – residents may be displaced by the construction of a
road due to additional impacts like the economic impact resulting from acquiring new
housing at a new location; social and psychological impacts due to the disruption of
social relationships and establishing relationships in a new social environment; or
changes in type and tenure of housing.
Displacement of Businesses and Community Services –road projects may remove or
cause relocation of businesses and community services such as churches,
community centres or parks. Businesses and community services may have difficulty
in obtaining suitable relocation sites; they may lose clients, and on relocation, may
incur additional costs to re-establish.
Impacts on Residents – how residents may be disrupted and inconvenienced by
detours, local road closures, dust, noise, heavy equipment traffic on existing roads,
changes in the level of service, safety hazards, and interference with emergency
services during the construction phase. Occasionally, there is vibration damage to
near-by structures.
On the positive side, SIA also describe how residents may benefit from construction
employment. Travel time, gas consumption, accidents and inconvenience to users
generally decrease. The roadway increases access to jobs, schools, stores,
recreation and other community services and amenities. These effects can be
reflected in increased land values.
However, there may be negative impacts for some residents living near the roadway.
These include increased noise, pollution and aesthetic impacts. Some of these
impacts can be mitigated.
Impacts on Businesses and Community Services – socio-economic impacts on
businesses and community services can be positive and negative. During the
construction phase, some businesses and community services may lose clients,
while other businesses may obtain additional business. When the roadway is
operational, changes in traffic patterns may increase or decrease the clients for some
businesses and community services.
Impacts on the Community- community impacts can be considered positive or
negative. The most significant impacts are likely to result from the displacement of
residents, businesses and community services. This, in turn, affects the community
as customers, and members of businesses and community services, jobs and social
relationships are lost. The loss of residents can have an additional effect of disrupting
the social relationships in the community, creating a further loss for those who
remain. Disruption of residents can lead to a loss of satisfaction with life in the
community and reduced participation in community activities.
Forkenbrock and Weisbrod (2001)97 give a very good account on transportation factors that
affect people and communities, summarizing the various practices of categorising SIA
95
André, P. and D. Bitondo (2001)."Development of a Conceptual and Methodological Framework for the Integrated
Assessment of the Impacts of Linear Infrastructure Projects on Quality of Life". Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency Research and Development Monograph Series
96
th
Mark Stevenson (1995), “Social Impact Assessment of Major Roads” paper presented to the 20 World Road Congress,
Montreal.
5C1617.00
June 2013
104
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
effects/impacts used widely in the international arena. This is now largely adopted by major
international funding organisations for project appraisals.
Road transportation factors affecting travel time savings – while traffic congestion
and pressure areas may be shifted to another part of the township, travel time ,
congestion and incidents may be reduced, relieving pressure on some parts of the
city, and increasing certainty of arrival time.
Road transportation factors affecting safety – crash rate may decrease, improved
travel convenience thus reducing confusion and conflicting vehicles, no more pot
holes and improved driving on smooth surfaces.
Road transportation factors affecting VOC98 savings – resurfacing results in smooth
roads which reduces loads and thus improve fuel efficiency. Good flow will reduce
stop-and-go thus improve fuel use. Straight and short roads improve time taken for
travel and reduce fuel use.
Road transportation factors affecting alternative transport modes - There are three
major ways in which new or upgraded transportation facilities may affect the viability
of alternate transportation modes i.e.



Upgrading roads can increase vehicular traffic;
Street widening can create barriers; and
Transportation projects can displace or disrupt facilities (e.g. bicycle trails,
sidewalks, and public transport stops may have to be moved to make way for
other facilities)
Road transportation factors affecting accessibility - Transportation projects can
directly affect the accessibility of households and businesses in a given location in
the following ways:

Improvements to public transport systems can expand travel options and
opportunities for residents and sometimes reduce traffic congestion.

Improvements to road system capacity and traffic control can reduce travel times
to and from affected areas for those with vehicles.

Any type of transportation infrastructure (including highways, rail lines and other
fixed guideways, terminals, stations, and parking lots) can represent a physical
barrier to pedestrian or vehicular movement, thereby reducing accessibility to
preferred destinations.

During construction of transportation projects, there can be considerable
disruption of travel, and access to numerous destinations can be adversely
affected.
Road transportation factors affecting community cohesion - Changes
transportation systems can affect community cohesion in several ways including.



in
Direct effects of household and business relocation;
Direct effects of structural barriers; and
Indirect effects of psychological barriers;
Road transportation factors affecting economic development - Economic development
effects occur as the end result of other direct effects that a transportation project has on
travellers and non-travellers. Five specific factors or mechanisms at the root of economic
97
Forkenbrock DJ (Public Policy Centre – University of Iowa) and Weisbrod GE of Economic Development Group Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects, NCHRP Report 456 (2001)
98
Vehicle operating cost
5C1617.00
June 2013
105
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
development effects from transportation projects include: (1) business travel costs, (2)
business market reach, (3) personal travel costs, (4) job access, and (5) quality of life.
Road transportation factors affecting neighbourhood noise levels - Traffic noise varies
with the volume and type of traffic as well as with the physical geography of the terrain
surrounding the roadway. A transportation project can bring about a series of noise
related effects within a community.
Road transportation factors affecting visual quality in a community - Transportation
projects can directly affect the visual quality of an area in the following ways:
construction of new structures may disrupt the visual quality of an area; blocking views of
existing community features, including significant landmarks, open space, and special
vistas; change the visual structure of an area and add visual clutter to the environment.
Road transportation factors affecting property values and land use - Transportation
projects affect property values and land use as a result of their direct effects on other
social and economic factors. These include:






Changes in accessibility;
Changes in safety;
Changes in noise;
Changes in visual quality;
Changes in community cohesion; and,
Changes in business productivity
Road transportation factors affecting distributive effects - With changes in transportation
systems, the beneficiaries of a particular project may be difficult to identify because they
are dispersed across a region, However negative effects such as noise, community
disruption, and other effects often occur along a relatively narrow area immediately
adjacent to the road. Even when a project provides net gains across a region, the
relative benefits and costs accruing to individuals and groups within the region vary so
that those who must tolerate the worst effects may not be enjoying benefits
commensurate with the costs they bear.
New Zealand Approach to SIA
In New Zealand SIA is a legal requirement for matters covered by the Resource
Management Act 1991 framework , particularly under section 5(2), providing for the
avoidance, remediation and mitigation of the impacts of use and development of resources
on the environment (including people and communities). Schedule 4(2) is also relevant as it
provides for the consideration of neighbourhoods and the communities when preparing an
assessment of environmental effects.
Major road infrastructure projects require SIA in support of environmental approval
applications to consenting authorities. The RMA does not provide a standard framework for
preparation of SIA and most SIA work has been guided by the IAIA guidelines.
MWH99 (2010) conducted a study on social effects of four options for the Nelson Arterial
routes. The study defines SIA as “the effects of a proposed plan of action on the social well
being of the communities affected by that action”. It then emphasised the three important
aspects of social wellbeing namely “community severance, amenity and recreation”.
99
Corydon Consultants Ltd for MWH, October 2010 – ’Nelson Arterial Traffic Study: Social Impact Assessment of Selected
Options’
5C1617.00
June 2013
106
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Community severance – refers to physical and psychological social severance100 (or
dislocation) of communities caused by its interaction with roads and traffic.
Amenity - refers to the quality and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s
appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence and cultural and recreational
attributes.
Recreation – refers to passive and active, organised and informal or social interaction that
contribute to people’s mental as well as physical wellbeing.
Applying these as basis for assessment, consideration of the impacts of traffic has been
focussed on noise and air quality as two major categories.
The study considered noise as not just a nuisance but also takes effect via two independent
physiological mechanisms, i.e. via the hearing and indirectly through the way it affects
attention spans and behaviour. Regarding air pollution, the World Health Organisation
(WHO)101 has found that the effect of traffic related air pollution is one of the leading
concerns in traffic issues.
The approach for the social effects assessment of the Western Ring Route – Waterview
Connection102 was regional and local focus. It categorised regional issues into transport –
accessibility and connectivity, economic growth and development, environmental
sustainability, and healthy communities. At the local level it considered effects during the
planning phase, effects during the construction phase, and effects once operational. The
specific health and cultural impact assessments were not part of the SIA for this project.
100
Grigg, A.O. and Ford, W.G. 1983, Review of Some Effects of major roads on urban communities, transport and Road
Research Laboratory Supplementary Report 778, Berkshire.
101
WHO - Health Aspects of Air Pollution with Particulate Matter, Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide - Report on a WHO
Working Group Bonn, Germany (January 2003)
102
BECA on behalf of NZTA RoNS Project: Western Ring Route – Waterview Connection (July 2010) “Assessment of Social
Effects”
5C1617.00
June 2013
107
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Appendix 14.B: Basin Reserve Demographic Profile of Local Study
Area
The demographic profile describes the existing environment and assists in the identification
of potential community groups which may be affected by the Project, particularly those which
are not in direct proximity to the Project, but which may take a particular interest in it, such
as community groups defined as ‘neighbours’ or ‘wider community’ in the assessment of
effects. The geographic boundaries of the demographic study area are wider than the
Project area (see figures 14.2 and 14.B.1) as the Basin Reserve is a regionally important
sporting and recreational facility, as well as a key transport hub. Boundaries for the
demographic study area have been largely selected to follow natural boundaries around the
area: the waterfront to the north; the town belt to the east, parks and areas of low residential
population to the south; parks, town belt and motorway to the west. As the immediate
Project area has a low resident population, the selection of these boundaries was to ensure
that connections between areas of higher residential population, and community facilities –
including the Basin Reserve itself – were considered.
Census Statistics
The following demographic profile has been prepared from Census data prepared by
Statistics New Zealand. The profile is based on data from the 2006 Census with the
inclusion of some data from the 2001 and 1996 Census for comparison. It is important to
note that the data from the 2006 Census is now six years out of date, but remains the most
appropriate dataset available to compile a study area profile.
A Geographic Information System has been used to identify the study area. The study area
has been delineated by selecting the Meshblocks of interest. Meshblocks are geographical
units defined by Statistics New Zealand, containing a median of approximately 87 people in
2006. Meshblock data for the Wellington City was extracted from the Statistics New Zealand
Website. The meshblocks relevant to the study area were then extracted from the Wellington
City dataset. Meshblocks with a population of zero were removed from the study area
dataset and statistics on a number of aspects were then compiled from the study area
dataset. For some of the analysis, the larger Census Area Units have been used.
For population projection analysis, Census Area Units have been used because population
projections are not available at meshblock level. This means that population totals for
projections (by Area Unit) do not match population totals for counts (by meshblock) as the
areas do not match exactly.
Census data classified as ‘confidential’ by Statistics New Zealand has not been included in
this analysis. The study area is shown in Figure 14.B.1 below. The population of the study
area is 33,267. The population of Wellington City, of which the study area is a subset, is
179,466. Figure 14.B.1 shows the population density of the study area and surrounding
area.
5C1617.00
June 2013
108
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Figure 14.B.1: Location of the study area in the Wellington Region
5C1617.00
June 2013
109
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Figure 14.B.2: Location of the study area within Wellington City
Usually Resident Population
5C1617.00
June 2013
110
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Table 14.B.1 shows the usually resident population and rates of change for the study area. A
total of 33267 people lived in the study area meshblocks in 2006 representing approximately
19% of the population of Wellington City. Between 1996 and 2006, the population of the
study area increased by a total of 7473 people. Population growth in the study area was
greater than Wellington City in general between both 1996-2001 (10.5% compared with 4%)
and 2001-2006 (16% compared with 9%).
Table 14.B.1: Usually Resident Population (1996-2006)
Usually Resident Population 2006
Area
1996
2001
2006
Change 1996-2001
Change 2001-2006
Study Area
25794
28524
33267
10.5%
16%
Wgtn City
157719
163824
179466
4%
9%
Population Projections
The following table provides a summary of population projections to the year 2013.
Projections are provided for area units, rather than meshblocks, as Statistics NZ only
provides population projections at the area unit level and above. The area units used to
provide population projections do not exactly match the study area but a ‘best fit’ approach
has been taken to select area units that will give an indication of projected population
change. Three alternative series (designated low, medium and high) have been produced by
Statistics New Zealand for each area unit using different assumptions about mortality, fertility
and migration. The medium series is considered the most suitable and has been used in
Table 14.B.2 below, showing the usually resident population at 2006 and projections at five
yearly intervals until 2031.
All of the area units show a projected population increase, however there is predicted to be a
population increase of approximately 49% for the study area, compared with approximately
29% for Wellington City between 2006 and 2031.
5C1617.00
June 2013
111
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Table 14.B.2: Population Projections to 2031
Population Projections 2006
Area
Usually
Resident
Population
Area Unit Description
2006
Population Projection
2016
2021
2026
2031
Lambton
4776
6100
6660
7210
7750
Willis Street-Cambridge Terrace
4518
5880
6450
7000
7520
Aro Street-Nairn Street
3825
4630
4930
5220
5500
Mt Cook-Wallace Street
4848
6440
7160
7870
8570
Mt Victoria West
5229
6010
6300
6570
6830
Berhampore
2595
2880
2960
3030
3100
Newtown West
3693
4240
4380
4500
4610
Newtown East
4716
5390
5580
5730
5840
942
1810
2220
2640
3040
1116
1280
1330
1370
1400
36258
44660
47970
51140
54160
179466
206750
215730
224110
231760
Adelaide
Oriental Bay
Total of Area Units in Study Area
Wellington City
Age Structure
Table 14.B.3 below, provides a summary of the age structure of the study area. Age
structure provides information about the proportion of residents of working age, pre–
employment age and post-employment age. ‘Working age’ refers to the years between 1564 inclusive.
Graph 14.B.1 below shows the difference in the distribution of ages between the study area
and Wellington City. The study area has a higher percentage of residents in age ranges
between 15 and 34 years, and a lower number of residents in all other age ranges than
Wellington City. The biggest difference is in the 20-24 year range; 21.5% of the study area
fall into this range, compared with 10% of Wellington City.
5C1617.00
June 2013
112
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Table 14.B.3: Age Structure 2006
Age Structure 2006
0-4
Yrs
5-9
Yrs
10-14
Yrs
15-19
Yrs
20-24
Yrs
25-29
Yrs
30-34
Yrs
35-39
Yrs
40-44
Yrs
45-49
Yrs
50-54
Yrs
55-59
Yrs
60-64
Yrs
65
Yrs
and
Over
Study
Area
No
1074
828
792
3210
7158
5058
3513
2328
1836
1443
1452
1188
765
1965
Study
Area
%
3.2%
2.5%
2.4%
9.7%
21.5%
15.2%
10.6%
7.0%
5.5%
4.3%
4.4%
3.6%
2.3%
5.9%
Wgtn
City
%
6%
6%
6%
7%
10%
9%
9%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
8%
Graph 14.B 1: Age Structure 2006
Ethnic Composition
The ethnic composition of the study area and the ethnic composition of Wellington City is
summarised in Graph 14.B.2 below. Within the study area there is a distinct ethnic
composition.
Over half of residents in the study area identify as belonging to European ethnic groups
(61.1%). The second largest group is Asian ethnicity (14.5%) followed by Maori, Pacific
Peoples and MEELA* ethnic groups. While the ethnic composition of the study area follows
roughly the same proportions of each ethnic group as Wellington City, it has slightly higher
numbers on non-European ethnicities.
5C1617.00
June 2013
113
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Graph 14.B.2: Ethnic Composition Comparison
*Middle Eastern, Latin American, African Ethnicity
Languages Spoken
Table 14.B.4 below identifies the number of people who speak each language. The total
percentage of languages spoken exceeds 100% because some people speak more than
one language. The table shows that there are fewer residents within the study area who
speak English (88%) than in Wellington City generally (92%). It also shows that there are a
higher number of speakers of Maori, Samoan and ‘other’ languages in the study area than in
the wider Wellington area.
Table 14.B.4: Languages Spoken
Languages Spoken 2006
English
Study Area
Mäori
Samoan
NZ
Sign
Language
Other
Not
Elsewhere
included*
29313
858
960
180
7503
3069
165459
3939
3891
939
34719
11187
Study Area %
88.0%
2.6%
2.9%
0.5%
22.5%
9.2%
Wgtn City %
92.2%
2.2%
2.2%
0.5%
19.3%
5.1%
Wgtn City
*Includes responses not included in the available categories and those with no language e.g. too young to talk.
5C1617.00
June 2013
114
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Country of Birth
Table 14.B.5 shows that within the study area the majority of residents (62%) were born in
New Zealand compared. This compares with 72% of residents of Wellington City who were
born in New Zealand.
Table 14.B.5: Country of Birth
Country of Birth 2006
New Zealand born
Study Area
Wgtn City
Overseas born
20787
10140
2316
113811
37140
6771
Graph 14.B 3: Country of Birth
5C1617.00
June 2013
Unknown
115
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Years Since Arrival in NZ for People not Born in New Zealand
Table 14.B.6 below shows the years since arrival in New Zealand for people who were not
born in New Zealand. In the study area, 57% of non-NZ residents arrived nine years ago or
less, while in Wellington City this is 46%. The study area has fewer immigrants having
arrived in New Zealand more than nine years ago across all groups.
Table 14.B.6: Years since arrival in New Zealand
Years Since Arrival in New Zealand 2006
0-9 Years
10-19
Years
20-29
Years
30-39
Years
40-49
Years
50 Years or
More
Not Known
Study Area
5445
1473
738
645
387
378
519
Wgtn City
22257
8823
4452
5085
3519
2784
1830
Study Area
57%
15%
8%
7%
4%
4%
5%
Wgtn City
46%
18%
9%
10%
7%
6%
4%
Graph 14.B.4: Years since arrival in New Zealand
Occupied Households
The Census defines a household as either one person of two or more people who usually
reside together and share facilities (e.g. cooking, living and bathroom facilities). The table
below summarises the number of occupied dwellings in the study area. In 2006 the study
area included 19% of the 68,706 occupied dwellings in Wellington City. Sixty-three percent
of dwellings within the study area were classified as flats/townhouses/apartments. Table
14.B.8 shows the number of residents per dwelling and the occupancy rates for the study
area and for Wellington City. The occupancy rate for dwellings within the study area is 2.3,
slightly lower than that of Wellington city with 2.6, suggesting smaller, single-person
dwellings.
5C1617.00
June 2013
116
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Table 14.B.7: Occupied Dwellings
Private Occupied Dwellings 2006
Separate House
Study Area
Two or More
Flats, Units,
Townhouses,
Apartments,
Houses Joined
Together
3663
Other Occupied
Private Dwelling,
Not Further
Defined
8361
Total
1224
13248
Table 14.B.8: Number of residents per dwelling
Number of Usual Residents in Dwelling 2006
One
Study
Number
Dwellings
Area
of
Wgtn
Number
Dwellings
City
of
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Occupancy
Rate
4002
4386
2046
1434
555
252
69
39
2.3
16683
22230
11895
10611
4248
1374
426
246
2.6
Graph 14.B.5: Number of residents per dwelling in study area
5C1617.00
June 2013
Eight
or
More
117
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Graph 14.B.6: Number of residents per dwelling in study area
Household Composition
While more households in the study area fell into the ‘one-family household’ group than any
other, at 42%, this was much lower than the number of one family households in Wellington
City, which was 62%. There is more than twice the number of non-family multi-person
households in the study area than in Wellington City. ‘Multi-person households’ describes
households where residents are not related to one another, such as in flatting situations.
The larger number of one person households (31%) in the study area than in Wellington City
(25%) reflects the lower occupancy and higher proportion of single-resident dwellings in
Table 14.B.8 above.
Table 14.B.9: Household composition
Household Composition 2006
One-family
household*
Two-family
household*
Three or more
family
household*
Other MultiPerson
Household
One Person
Household
Household
Composition
Not Know
Study Area
42%
1%
0%
22%
31%
4%
Wgtn City
62%
2%
0%
10%
25%
2%
*Family households may be with or without other people.
5C1617.00
June 2013
118
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Graph 14.B.7: Household composition
Graph 14.B.8: Household composition of study area
Household Mobility
Table 14.B.10 below provides a summary of the number of years that people have lived at
their usual residence in the study area. This data provides a simplified measure of the
‘mobility’ of the residency in the study area.
Almost half the population (42.8%) within the study area have lived in their usual residence
for less than a year, with 28.2% having lived in their usual residence for 1-4 years. The
number of residents across the remaining groups drops off dramatically with each five year
increase in period of occupancy, suggesting a highly mobile population.
Table 14.B.10: Number of years at usual residence
5C1617.00
June 2013
119
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Years at Usual Residence 2006
0 Years
Number of
People
in
Study Area
14184
1-4 Years
9342
5-9 Years
10-14
Years
3063
1395
15-29
Years
1749
30 Years
or More
552
Not
Elsewhere
Included
2796
Graph 14.B.9: Household composition of study area
Transport
Household vehicle ownership provides information about the mobility and economic status of
a population. A comparison of the number of vehicles that households have access to in the
study area and in Wellington City is shown in Table 14.B.11 below.
The percentage of households with no motor vehicle access within the study area (29%) is
roughly double that of Wellington City (14%). Just under half of households in both areas
have access to a single motor vehicle (44% and 45% respectively), while Wellington City has
roughly double the percentage of households with access to two motor vehicles (295) that
the study area has (15%).
5C1617.00
June 2013
120
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Table 14.B.11: Household access to motor vehicles
Household has Access to Motor Vehicles 2006
No
Vehicle
Motor
One
Vehicle
Motor
Two
Motor
Vehicles
Three or More
Motor Vehicles
Not Known
Study Area
3795
5643
1932
585
939
Wgtn City
9153
30276
19866
5823
2592
Study Area %
29%
44%
15%
5%
7%
Wgtn City %
14%
45%
29%
9%
4%
Graph 14.B.10: Household access to motor vehicles
Graph 14.B.11: Households with access to motor vehicles in study area
Journey to Work
5C1617.00
June 2013
121
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
The means of travel to work provides key information for understanding community travel
patterns and movements. Almost a third of residents (31%) within the study area walked or
jogged to work as their main means of travel to work, while this was the case for 15% of
Wellington City residents overall. Twenty-eight percent of residents drove to work (car, truck
or van) in the study area, while in Wellington City 40% of residents travelled using this mode.
Table 14.B.12: Main means of travel to work
Main Means of Travel to Work for Those Aged 15 Years and Over and Employed 2006
Worked
at Home
Did not
go to
Work
Today
Drove a
Car,
Truck or
Van
Passeng
er in a
Car,
Truck,
Van
Public
Bus
Motor
Cycle or
Power
Cycle
Bicycle
Walked
or
Jogged
Other or
Not
Known
Study Area
507
1140
3531
543
2043
75
366
4014
789
Wgtn City
5187
9900
41178
5118
17505
882
2157
15696
5003
Study Area %
4%
9%
28%
4%
16%
1%
3%
31%
6%
Wgtn City %
5%
10%
40%
5%
17%
1%
2%
15%
5%
Graph 14.B.12: Main means of travel to work
5C1617.00
June 2013
122
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Graph 14.B.13: Main means of travel to work in the study area
Education
Highest qualification data provides a ‘snapshot’ of the education status of the population
within the study area and within Wellington City. Percentages falling into each category were
similar across the study area and the wider Wellington City area, although there was a
slightly smaller percentage (8%) of people with ‘no qualification’ in the study area than in
Wellington City (10%), and a slightly higher percentage (33%) of secondary or equivalent
qualifications in the study area, compared with Wellington City (31%).
Table 14.B.13: Highest qualification
Highest Qualification for Those Aged 15 Years and Over 2006
No
Qualification
Secondary
School or
Equivalent
Post
Secondary
School
Certificate or
Diploma
Bachelor
Degree
Post
Graduate
Not Known
Study Area
2349
9954
4485
6846
3330
3039
Wgtn City
15447
45792
27756
31773
16755
10173
Study Area
%
8%
33%
15%
23%
11%
10%
Wgtn City %
10%
31%
19%
22%
11%
7%
5C1617.00
June 2013
123
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Graph 14.B.14: Highest qualification
Graph 14.B.15: Highest qualification in study area
Employment Status
Employment status provides an indication of the proportion of residents engaged in full time
or part-time work. The data provided below is from the 2006 Census and was collected
before the global economic downturn. Employment status is known to have changed since
that time. The 2006 figures show a similar percentage of people in each of the employment
status categories for both the study area and in Wellington City, but with the study area
having 1% more unemployed residents, and 4% fewer full-time employed residents than
Wellington City.
Table 14.B.14: Employment status
5C1617.00
June 2013
124
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Employment Status for Those Aged 15 Years and Over 2006
Employed
Full-time
Employed
Part-time
Unemployed
Not in the
Labour Force
Not Known
Study Area
15504
4551
1569
7098
1788
Wgtn City
81150
21483
5214
35217
4632
Study Area
51%
15%
5%
23%
6%
Wgtn City
55%
15%
4%
24%
3%
Graph 14.B 16: Employment status
Graph 14.B.17: Employment status
Household Income
Household Income is a composite measure of the income earned by individual residents of
each household. This data provides an insight into the economic condition of households in
the study area. It is also necessary to recognise that the number of working household
5C1617.00
June 2013
125
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
members influences household income. The median weekly rent paid in the study area gives
an indication of the cost of living in that area. The median household income for the study
area was $6,200 lower than Wellington City, while weekly rents were $31 higher in the study
area.
Graph 14.B.18 below shows that the study area has a high number of residents in both the
top income band (23%) and in the bottom income band (15%), a greater mix of socioeconomic statuses than in Wellington City.
Table 14.B. 15: Total household income
Total Household Income 2006
$20,000
or Less
$20,001 $30,000
$30,001 $50,000
$50,001 $70,000
$70,001 $100,000
$100,001
or More
Not
Known
Median
Income
Median
Weekly
Rent Paid
Study Area
1920
975
1665
1308
1503
2874
2151
$68,000
$301
Wgtn City
6648
4470
8664
8271
10143
20757
8754
$74,200
$270
Graph 14.B.18: Total household income
5C1617.00
June 2013
126
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Graph 14.B.19: Total household income
Housing Tenure
Household tenure provides some insight into the economic situation of households, however
it is important to take account of the fact that household tenure is also subject to individual
preference. Not owning a home does not necessarily denote low socio-economic status.
Figures in Table 14.B.16 below show the difference in ownership patterns between the study
area and the city in general. Twenty-three percent of residents own or part own their
dwelling in the study area, compared with 47% in Wellington City.
Graph 14.B.20 shows that of the properties that are rented, the majority are rented from a
private landlord (72%) although a number of tenants rent accommodation from Public
housing providers like Housing New Zealand.
Table 14.B. 16: Tenure of household in private occupied dwellings
2006 Tenure of Household, for Households in Private Occupied Dwellings 2006
Dwelling Owned
or Partly Owned
by Usual
Resident(s)
Study Area
Dwelling Held in
a Family Trust by
Usual Resident(s)
Dwelling Not
Owned by Usual
Resident(s)
Not Elsewhere
Included
3042
732
8106
1239
31920
6840
25344
3609
Study Area
23%
6%
62%
9%
Wgtn City
47%
10%
37%
5%
Wgtn City
5C1617.00
June 2013
127
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Graph 14.B.20: Tenure of household in private occupied dwellings
Graph 14.B.21: Tenure of household in private occupied dwellings in study
area
5C1617.00
June 2013
128
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Graph 14.B.22: Owner of rental housing
Graph 14.B.23: Owner of rental housing in study area
5C1617.00
June 2013
129
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Deprivation
Deprivation refers to the state of observable and demonstrable disadvantage of a community
relative to the wider nation. The Deprivation Index uses a number of Census statistics to
provide a relative overall measure of the advantage or disadvantage that a community
experiences.
The Deprivation Index was prepared by the Department of Public Health, University of
Otago, in 2007 and combines nine variables from the 2006 census which reflect eight
dimensions of deprivation. A deprivation score is provided for each meshblock in New
Zealand. The deprivation score is provided as a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 representing
the most deprived 10% of New Zealand.
The variables that make up the Deprivation Index, in order of decreasing weight are:
Income
Income
Owned home
Support
Employment
Qualifications
Living space
Communication
Transport
People aged 18-64 receiving a means tested benefit
People living in equivalent households with income below an income threshold
People not living in own home
People aged <65 living in a single parent family
People aged 18-64 unemployed
People aged 18-64 without any qualifications
People living in equivalent households below a bedroom occupancy threshold
People with no access to a telephone
People with no access to a car
Figure 14.B.3 below shows the deprivation scores for the meshblocks within the study area.
While the lower deprivation areas tend to be towards the north-east of the study area
approaching Oriental Parade and the harbour, the area closest to the Basin Reserve has the
highest level of deprivation. It also illustrates the mix of residential incomes, throughout the
study area, where high and low deprivation scores occur in neighbouring meshblocks,
particularly along Adelaide Road.
5C1617.00
June 2013
130
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
Figure 14.B.3: Deprivation levels of meshblocks in the study area
School Decile Ratings
5C1617.00
June 2013
131
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
School decile ratings are determined by the Ministry of Education and take account of the
socio-economic status of the families of pupils at the school. Information is drawn from the
Census and includes household income, occupation, household crowding, educational
qualifications and income support. The Census information for each category is drawn from
the meshblocks in which the pupils of the school reside. Decile ratings are based on the last
Census in 2006.
The decile ratings range from 1-10 and 10% of schools are assigned to each rating. A rating
of 1 indicates a high proportion of disadvantaged children and a rating of 10 indicates a low
proportion of disadvantaged children. Decile ratings for schools within the study area are
outlined in the table below. The high decile ratings for many of the schools, compared with
the deprivation ratings in the table above suggests that students at many of the schools
come from a wider catchment than the immediate study area.
Table 14.B.1: School decile rating
School Decile Rating 2006
School
Decile Rating
Clyde Quay School
8
Mt Cook School
10
Wellington East Girls College
10
St Marks Church School
10
Wellington College
10
Wellington High School
9
Moriah college
9
Te Aro School
6
Kelburn Normal School
10
St Annes School
3
Newtown School
4
South Wellington Intermediate School
7
Central Regional Health School
1
Berhampore School
4
Wellington Girls College
10
Queen Margaret College
10
Thorndon School
10
Kimi Ora School
8
Sacred Heart Cathedral School
9
St Mary's College
9
Clifton Terrace Model School
9
5C1617.00
June 2013
132
Basin Bridge – Technical Report 14: Social Impact Assessment
5C1617.00
June 2013
133