NZTA in denial, says Save the Basin group
THE New Zealand Transport Agency’s inability to admit it got it wrong on the Basin Reserve flyover is why we are all still debating the project today, anti-flyover groups say.
Matthew Palmer, QC, lawyer for the Save the Basin campaign, told the High Court at Wellington yesterday that the decision last year to reject resource consent for the $90 million flyover should have been the final word on the matter.
But the Transport Agency made up its mind a long time ago that a ‘‘big bang’’ solution was needed to solve the Basin’s congestion problem, and it was sticking to its guns despite all the environmental damage that would do, Palmer said.
‘‘The real problem seems to be the agency’s belief that its proposed flyover should have gone ahead,’’ he said.
‘‘They continue to think they’re right . . . they’re having difficulty accepting the board’s decision.’’
Resource consent for a two-lane highway flyover, 20 metres north of the Basin Reserve cricket ground, was given the thumbs down by an independent board of inquiry in July last year.
It was the first time since boards of inquiry were established in 2009 that an application for a ‘‘nationally significant’’ project had been rejected in its entirety.
The agency turned to the High Court for a second opinion on that decision. It has been presenting its reasons why to Justice Brendan Brown since Monday.
Save the Basin is one of several opposition groups that will present a counterargument to the court over the next week.
Palmer began those arguments yesterday by reminding the judge that boards of inquiry did not exist simply to rubber-stamp major infrastructure projects.
Environment Minister Amy Adams sent the flyover to an independent board because of the effect it would have on the ‘‘recreational, memorial, and heritage values’’ of the Basin Reserve precinct – an area she said contributed to this country’s national identity, Palmer said.
‘‘It’s controversial,’’ he said. ‘‘There is no reason to downplay the importance of environmental effects here.’’
Palmer said the Transport Agency had struggled to find points of law upon which to argue its case in the High Court.
‘‘[The agency] seems particularly embarrassed that its consideration of [flyover] alternatives was not adequate.’’
It would be a ‘‘brave decision’’ if the High Court overruled a board of inquiry with a better understanding of the issues in question, he said.
The fact that independent transport experts who peerreviewed the agency’s plans could not work out how a flyover emerged as the preferred option was an important point, Palmer said.
‘‘What does that say about the adequacy of the [agency’s] assessment of options?
‘‘More worryingly, if other options could have been selected, was this just a paper exercise designed to select [a flyover] all along?’’