Garden’s impact to be ‘minor’
Wellington’s proposed Chinese garden would have only a ‘‘minor’’ impact on views towards the popular park where it would be situated, an urban design specialist says.
The proposed $5 million garden – part of a planned $10.5m revamp of Frank Kitts Park on the city’s waterfront – is facing legal challenges from lobby group Waterfront Watch and former Greater Wellington regional councillor Michael Gibson.
Among the concerns raised about the enclosed garden are a loss of open green space, and an impeded view towards the park from the ‘‘view shaft’’ at the corner of Lambton Quay and Willeston St on the ‘‘Golden Mile’’.
The view shaft looks towards Frank Kitts Park and St Gerard’s Church and Monastery in Mt Victoria.
Graeme McIndoe, a director at design firm McIndoe Urban’s Wellington office, told an Environment Court hearing yesterday the proposed garden would have only a minor impact on the view from Willeston St.
McIndoe was part of a technical advisory group that reviewed the proposal for Wellington City Council, ahead of its resource consent hearing in 2016. That consent was subsequently granted.
‘‘There is a gain and a loss,’’ he said of the impacts of the proposed garden on the Willeston St view. ‘‘By my estimation, the extent of Frank Kitts Park in view is decreased by about 20 per cent, but the view of St Gerard’s is increased by the same amount.
‘‘There will be a stronger edge to Jervois Quay. However, the effect on the view is minor, and is mitigated by beneficial changes that occur elsewhere.’’
Such benefits included ‘‘opening up’’ the view towards the Oriental Bay escarpment, helped by the proposed removal of the park’s amphitheatre and a pohu¯ tu¯ kawa tree, McIndoe said.
The Chinese garden would also provide a more ‘‘memorable element’’ to the view down Willeston St towards the park and Wellington Harbour.
Architect John HardwickSmith, director of Athfield Architects, also said any effects the garden might have on views would be minor, and would be outweighed by other benefits.
However, when pressed by Waterfront Watch lawyer Morgan Slyfield, Hardwick-Smith acknowledged he had assessed only the north-south aspect of the proposed view, not east-west.
When asked by Slyfield if walls, such as the ones proposed for the garden, had the effect of ‘‘breaking up space’’, Hardwick-Smith said the primary purpose of walls was to ‘‘define’’ space.
Hardwick-Smith was involved in the early stages of the park redesign concept.
Under the proposed revamp, total green space at the 18,000 squaremetre park would drop from 6659sqm to 6477sqm. Planted areas would increase from 655sqm to 2802sqm. Flexible lawn space would increase but ‘‘limited use’’ lawn space would dramatically decrease.
Waterfront Watch is appealing against the decision to grant the proposal resource consent on three grounds: That the garden fails to protect or enhance the Willeston St view shaft, despite it being protected by the District Plan; openspace amenities will be significantly reduced; and current issues with the park, as well as proposed improvements, have been ‘‘greatly exaggerated’’.