Judicial review warnings as Wellington City Council decides on City to Sea Bridge future

Wednesday, 4 December 2024

The Wellington City Council has been warned to be ready to face a judicial review if it pushes ahead with demolition of the City to Sea Bridge.

The council’s environment and infrastructure committee is meeting on Thursday to vote on whether or not to go ahead with the demolition of the bridge and the nearby former Capital E venue next month, work it says is needed to strengthen the Town Hall loading dock in time for the completion of the wider Town Hall project in late 2026.

But two separate warnings have been fired across the council’s bow. Helene Ritchie, a former but long-serving city councillor and current chair of the Wellington Civic Trust, on Wednesday sent an email to the council, councillors, and mayor.

Part of her complaint was that the consultation out to public on the bridge’s future had two options. Both involved demolition rather than remediation of the bridge. She also alleged advice from staff to councillors was flawed.

“We reserve all our rights, including the right to seek judicial review of any decision to demolish,” she wrote. She also warned of seeking “interim relief to prevent demolition”.

Separately, Felicity Wong from Historic Places Wellington suggested the council could be open to judicial review – though did not threaten taking the legal action herself.

She cited a recent legal case the council faced in court over Thorndon Quay developments.

That legal finding said that “where reasonable arguments can be made that a particular proposal is reasonably practicable” those options should be put to decision makers even if council staff don’t agree with them.

Numerous options for saving the bridge have been made.

Council staff warned delays could delay and add large costs to the project.

Meanwhile, a just released review of the seismic risks associated with the bridge suggests they have been overstated and could be mitigated without having to demolish it.

Carried out by Wellington engineering firm Dunning Thornton, the review was based on documentation provided by the council and on its own experience of risk assessment and mitigation.

It is damning of the council’s evaluations, noting ‒ as campaigners who are fighting to save the bridge have ‒ that it is not subject to the earthquake prone provisions in the Building Act, hence there is no legal requirement to seismically strengthen it.

Further, it states the life-safety risk for people on the bridge itself could be considered lower than in a building.

“Experience from Christchurch and other earthquakes suggests that people on the top floors of elevated structures (in effect with nothing to fall on them), face lower probability of death or severe injury.

“On this basis, it is our view, that in reality, the existing risk of death or injury is lower when compared to typical concrete buildings and infrastructure with a similar level of [earthquake prone-ness]”.

While the council has made much of the route beneath the bridge being vital for emergency services, Dunning Thornton argued the likelihood of a City to Sea bridge collapse being the sole cause of blockage along the quays was relatively low.

“Daily traffic flows are unlikely to be an issue in the short-term aftermath of a major seismic event, and … demolition of the current bridge in the near future (with reinstatement of alternative pedestrian access) is far more likely to cause significant disruption to typical traffic flows and is not without its own risks.”

There were options to mitigate the risks from a potential collapse which were more cost-effective than full strengthening.

Dunning Thornton’s views were backed up by engineering consultancy Spencer Holmes, which undertook an assessment of a Hoffcon report to council in June that was used to inform its decisions.

Its view was that the risk ratings were “very conservative and misleading” and any concerns about the numbers of people using the bridge could be offset by the council controlling them.

“We are of the opinion that the bridge does not meet the criteria for an earthquake prone building. In a major seismic event, should the bridge cause disruption to Jervois Quay, then this is likely due to failure of the sea wall, combined with liquefaction and lateral spread. The disruption to Jervois Quay would be a likely outcome that would occur regardless of the performance of the bridge, or if the bridge has already been demolished.”

The reports come at the same time bridge campaigner civil engineer Alex Gray has been provided with a last-minute response to an official information request that shows the council has used undocumented estimates to support its case for demolition.

Consultation documents which provided two options, neither of which included keeping the bridge, have stated that strengthening it would come at a cost of between $90 million to $120m.

However, Gray has been advised those costings were provided following a workshop between structural engineers, the project management team and quantity surveyors, and were based on initial estimates.

The estimate was not recorded on a hard copy, meaning the council doesn’t have the details.

Gray was calling for a halt to the vote, and a new round of consultation. “I do not consider council should be making multi-million dollar decisions on ‘rough order of cost’ estimates and desktop studies.”

A council spokesperson said its team went through a highly structured and systematic process to determine the issues and options, and the estimates were considered robust to use.

Meanwhile Bruce McLean, a structural engineer who most recently worked on the Town Hall project, has labelled the consultation documents based on mis-truths.

‘It offered only two alternatives. The council now says 57% of submitters were in favour of demolishing the bridge. When the only options presented were demolition based on false cost estimates it is not surprising the public supported demolition. If keeping the bridge was offered based on realistic estimates, I am sure the pendulum would have swung in favour of keeping the bridge.

“The Te Ngakau consultation document is fraudulent and should be publicly withdrawn, apologies issued and be reissued corrected for a further round of consultation,” he said.

Spencer Holmes undertook a seismic assessment on the bridge in 2010, after which bracing was added to the bridge deck and the north abutment was strengthened with concrete frames and reinforced concrete.