If you're thinking about financially supporting the Island Bay Residents Association's judicial review you might want to read this first...

​Residents of Island Bay and Berhampore have probably received this flyer from the Island Bay Residents Association (IBRA) in the last few days.

IBRA are well within their rights to seek a judicial review but collecting money from the public to fund it requires a level of transparency and accuracy that, in my opinion, this flyer and the associated information on their Givealittle page doesn't meet. If you want to donate to IBRA that's up to you but at least be aware of the following...

The judicial review has a very low chance of 'success'

I've written previously on why I think the judicial review is an absolutely terrible idea that I support anyway. I suggest you read that blog post in full but in summary:

• A judicial review is a legal test of the decision-making process of a public body, not whether the outcome was the 'right' one
• The only question the court will really be interested in is whether Wellington City Council (WCC) met their legal obligation to consult properly. In this case, because there was the Love the Bay process the answer will almost certainly be "yes", regardless of what anyone thinks of the outcome
• Even if IBRA are 'successful' the court won't make a new or different decision, it will simply ask WCC to reconsider their decision. WCC could then just make the same decision after correcting any problems with their process that the judge identified
• IBRA are being disingenuous by implying that a successful judicial review means "getting our wonderful wide Parade back". It doesn't [Note 1].

Some of the information in the flyer and on the Givealittle page is misleading

The claim that "Four times now, 80% of submitters have been clear on what they want for The Parade" isn't true. I'm not even sure what 'four times' IBRA are referring to but what's absolutely clear is that was not result of the 2017 consultation that came at the end of the Love the Bay process. According to the September 2017 The Parade – Island Bay Design Option Refinement report (page 6) the quantitative consultation results actually looked like this:

​It's also worth noting that IBRA's 'Option E' solution has not been consulted on four times as implied by the flyer. 'Option E' was only developed by IBRA in late 2017 in response to the four options arrived at by WCC and their consultants as a result of the Love the Bay process.

IBRA's Givealittle page also states that indicative costing for Option E is "to be confirmed but would be no more than $750k". This claim is false and IBRA has known it is false for at least 18 months. In the September 2017 Design Option Refinement report the cost of Option E is estimated to be $3.8m (page 8). Even accounting for the fact both these numbers are estimates that's a massive disparity that IBRA should have acknowledged.

​There are questions about IBRA's legal status

IBRA continue to describe themselves as incorporated society, including on their Givealittle page. However, they haven't held an AGM or approved any financial statements since Oct 2017, which is a breach of their own rules. In October 2018 they announced they were delaying their AGM until February 2019 despite there being no provision in their rules to do this. This also means that they haven't published any information about their finances beyond March 2017, which is almost two years ago.

This failure is probably also a breach of the Incorporated Societies Act 1908, although in reality the Registrar of Incorporated Societies (the Registrar) is very slow to remove societies from the register for non-compliance, and the Act is so antiquated (it's been due for review for years) that it's barely enforceable.

However, the High Court might put more emphasis on IBRA's legal status and whether they can legitimately take anyone to court right now. If the court date is set for May IBRA are running out of time to hold an AGM and submit financial statements to the Registrar as per the Act, assuming the High Court would even accept that. Their rules require them to seek nominations for the committee 30 days before the meeting so the earliest they can now hold an AGM is mid-late March. Of course, they will also need a set of April 2017 - March 2018 accounts by then, which would need to be submitted to the Registrar within a month of being approved at the AGM.

Despite the fact that it might suit WCC I'd be very disappointed if the judicial review was delayed while IBRA did some of the basic house-keeping associated with being an incorporated society. As I outlined in my previous blog I'd like to see the review get through court as quickly as possible and bring a much needed conclusion to the whole saga. Any delays are also likely to cost more money in legal fees, which IBRA are funding out of the pockets of donors. In addition, if IBRA lose the judicial review and have costs awarded against them they will almost certainly then become bankrupt. That would mean the council's legal costs will fall upon ratepayers, so we all have an interest in the council's costs being kept to a minimum. 

We've been here before

Many of the same people behind IBRA were behind the Democratic Voice for Island Bay (DVIB) group who threatened a judicial review back in 2015. They quickly backed down but not before they had raised approximately $15,000, of which nearly $4,000 was via this Givealittle page. If you are considering giving to IBRA this time around you really should read the Q&A are make sure you are happy with the answers given to some of the questions. The key question, of course, is what happened to the money?

Interestingly DVIB is still a registered incorporated society. According to the societies register it held an AGM on 30 September 2017 at which 8 of the 15 members were required to be present to form a quorum. At the meeting they approved annual accounts for the year ending 31 March 2016 and the year ending 31 March 2017, which is more sloppy house-keeping. It's not clear whether DVIB ever held AGMs by 30 September 2016 and 30 September 2018 in accordance with its rules. It certainly hasn't lodged any financial records past 31 March 2017 with the Registrar.

According to the societies register between September 2015 and March 2017 DVIB raised $14,168 in donations and spent $10,093 on legal fees, $379 on printing & stationary and $75 on bank fees. As at 31 March 2017 they still had $3,622 sitting in an ANZ bank account. Because they haven't lodged any annual accounts since then there is a two year gap in transparency over what happened to the money.

Basically all DVIB ever achieved was to threaten a judicial review and then almost immediately back down, and they somehow managed to spend over $10,000 on legal fees doing it. As of March 2017 they were still sitting on nearly $4,000 and it's not at all clear who's currently in control of that money and what's going to happen to it [Note 2]. The press release announcing they were giving up on a judicial review said any funds left after paying legal expenses would be "put towards initiatives in Island Bay", which is consistent with their rules, but as of March 2017 that hadn't happened.

Both DVIB's and IBRA's Givealittle campaigns are 'open goals' which means they get any money donated without having to meet a target and regardless of the outcome of their cause. Basically, if you make a donation then your money's gone no matter what happens. Of course, that's also true if you donate directly to their bank account. This time round IBRA are promising "you will get a percentage of your money back when we are successful, and if the court awards us costs" if you donate over $500.

Ask questions

If you were one of the people who donated to DVIB I think it would be quite reasonable for you to feel pissed off at the outcome. If you still feel inclined to financially support IBRA's judicial review but don't want to see the same outcome again then maybe ask some questions first. I'd suggest the best place to do that is IBRA's Givealittle page where Givealittle's terms and conditions at least create a minimum requirement for transparency, accuracy and completeness of answers.

Regan.

Note 1. If residents are really determined to "get our wonderful wide Parade back" then a far more likely solution is for all on-street parking to be removed. That will actually create a more wonderful and wider Parade than ever before. It's worth noting that's a solution that is actually in the hands of residents right now and needs no intervention from the council. If getting a "wonderful wide Parade back" is so important, just stop parking on it.

Note 2. If anyone associated with DVIB or IBRA wants to provide information such as minutes of AGMs, up to date copies of annual accounts, names of current committee members etc I'd be happy to publish that in a subsequent blog.
​

Liz Springford is a resident of Berhampore. This is her submission to Wellington City Council on the Newtown Connections consultation

I believe improvements are very important for people of all ages and abilities walking and biking (and scooting) around and through the Newtown Connections area.

I have lived in Berhampore for 30 years now.

1. I recommend that WCC ask Tonkin & Taylor to develop Package Z – which combines the best of Packages A, B & C, with some new possibilities.

Package Z is based on Package C ROUTES:

• Most importantly, choose Rintoul Street to connect comfortably and conveniently from Luxford Street to Adelaide Road.
• Russell Terrace to give SWIS students a more direct route to school - and other cyclists a direct route into Newtown
• Wilson Street, Owen Street, Wellington Hospital plus Hospital Road to conveniently and safely connect to cycle route up over Constable Street and into the Eastern suburbs.
• Both side routes to complement main commute routes – western Berhampore Golf Course, and eastern Wakefield Park, Stanley Street (pink), MacAlister Park, Hanson and Tasman Streets.

BUT the TREATMENTS are these: (NB: cyclepath is level with footpath – despite design tool limits)

• Adelaide Road (Dee to Duppa): one-way cyclepath west & east sides, carparks west side streetmix.net/adelaide-road-dee-to-duppa-west-side-carparks
• Adelaide Road (Duppa to Luxford): streetmix.net/adelaide-road-berhampore-village-carpark-sections and streetmix.net/adelaide-road-berhampore-village-sections
• Luxford Street: streetmix.net/luxford-street-berhampore-nz
• Rintoul Street: on both sides (east and west) - one-way cyclepath adjacent to footpath and at same level; one-side carparks on either west or east side.
• Riddiford/Adelaide Road to Basin: on both sides (east and west) – one-way cyclepath adjacent to footpath and at same level; carparks on both sides.
• Complementary east-side & west-side routes: ensure all the off-road paths are well-lit with energy-smart movement-sensing lighting to increase social safety and maximise use.
• Stanley Street: west-side cyclepath initially next to bank and protected from falling debris, then same level as footpath northwards. Southwards cycling (downhill) marked by sharrows to take the lane.
• Russell Terrace: Remember this is likely to be used by many 10-12 year olds to bike to intermediate school. One-way cycle paths adjacent and same level as footpath. Protected from traffic with vertical posts. Design to physically slow traffic as this is a speeding zone.

2. Principles:

• Do it right first time (rates, taxes and construction inconvenience are costly, also “dig once”). Over-riding rationale is safe cycling for all ages and abilities. Time to prioritise a safe same-level kerbside cyclepath through our Berhampore Village – ahead of Island Bay’s third cycleway version. Don’t waste rates and taxes putting in a dangerous traffic-adjacent painted cyclelane that resembles Island Bay’s original dangerous door-zoner of almost 20 years ago. Time to design for the next two decades, not recreate past problems.
• Safer for everyone – speed limits that work; cycleways, walkways and “raised table” intersections that are safer for all ages, all abilities. Safe cycleways (and walkways) are only as safe as the most dangerous section.
• Future-proof - width for new people-powered transport, overnight E-car charging, actively reduce private car reliance to decrease inefficient land use & population growth congestion. Scope to build more cycling/scooting capacity, ditto walkways, as population grows. One way streets for all traffic? Consider likely routes for light rail this decade and beyond. (Cycleway width examples: passing slower bikes etc safely/ children’s bike chariots/cargo bikes/motorised disability scooters/adult tricycles/faster E-scooters & E-bikes/motorised disability scooters/side-by-side tandems, bikes pushing wheelchairs, 2 bikes in parallel).
• Attractive Berhampore Village heart for everyone – regardless of income, culture & transport. Quirky creative features that invite lingering, sitting and chatting, inside or outside our cafes. Signage, plant boxes, art, seating, community noticeboards, native & fruit trees. Colour! Vision of our Village – not a drive-through, time to slow down, respect and enjoy.
• Build unity in Berhampore community – respect for differing situations and needs, but overall fairly sharing scarce land and air resources. Practise for more climate changes.
• Think outside the concrete mixer – reduce demand for car parks, increase supply. Rates of change matter, calculate volumes and timing carefully to avoid business impact.
• In depth consultation for the most affected streets – businesses and residents, to understand and better manage varying individual impacts, including during construction.
• Interim changes in January – cut-through pedestrian pinchpoints and ramp up & down wide footpaths, coupled with peaktime clearways along Wakefield Park, Skate Park/Cycle Park, and MacAlister Park sections of Adelaide Road. More sharrows in the narrows – including repainting please over summer. Public education about 1.5m safe cycle passing, 1m door zones, sharrows, not parking on footpaths and correct Island Bay cycleway car parking – with active monitoring, cameras and enforcement. Trial different treatments along Island Bay cycleway to make it easy for drivers not to park on the cycleway. Or start warning, then towing drivers that do park on the cycleway. Observation and photos suggest incorrect parking is unrelated to vehicle size.

3. More detail re “think outside the concrete mixer”

A. Reduce DEMAND for car parking:

• more people enjoying biking, walking, scooting more often and for longer distances
• car pooling for sports and cultural events bringing people into Berhampore
• special buses & minivans to zoo and other popular locations
• car pooling, minivans, “biking buses”, mixed mode movement etc for major employers such as the Regional Hospital, Wakefield Hospital, Village at the Park and Salvation Army
• promoting and actively recruiting to maximise car share vehicles in Berhampore, Newtown and Mt Cook (vouchers – especially for most affected streets and community services card holders). Each car share vehicle removes 10 privately owned cars off roads/out of parking spaces/garages
• interest free loans etc for discounted bulk purchased pushbikes, scooters, e-scooters and e-bikes. Further discounts for community service card holders and families buying multiple items.
• free prepaid Snapper cards to encourage trying buses, especially affected streets and community service card holders

B. Increase SUPPLY of car parking:

• diagonals on north-west stretch of Herald St, south-east Chilka St and other quiet wide streets?
• car-parking purchased from 25 Waripori Street apartment blocks – especially with carshare and interest-free loans etc as above.
• car-parking at Russell Terrace zoo overflow area
• apps/Berhampore Peeps Facebook to rent out unused garages and promote less parked streets

4. Do we have to go Green?

Sometimes “green” (painted cycleways) is over-rated – use natural colours to welcome into the heart of our Berhampore Village – or quirky bright colours? (But today’s bright quirky colours may date – so maybe leave these for features that are faster to recolour). Caramel coloured cross pavers clearly mark the space for cycling, but enable either walkers or cyclists to flow across if need-be and if clear. Also makes the shopping space more attractive.

I support Berhampore Village and Berhampore Community Association submissions calling for a Berhampore Village Project to give our shopping heart some well overdue love and attention – at the same time as developing safe cycling and walking infrastructure that is consistent with WCC’s Sustainable Transport Hierarchy in the Low Carbon Capital Plan (best updated to “No Carbon Capital Plan”?)

5. Finally,

I recommend this 10 minute video: vimeo.com/13499122 for an inspiring vision of how Wellington could grow as a people-friendly city, and meet our challenges of projected population growth, housing crisis and climate changes.

​
Read more about the feedback received during the most recent phase of the Newtown Connections consultation here: ​Newtown Connections packages engagement data analysis