Wellington City Council blasts ‘critical information gaps’ in NZTA SH1 plans

Monday, 2 February 2026

The Wellington City Council, in a cloak of diplomatic nicety, has ripped apart the paucity of detail in the government’s controversial State Highway 1 plans through the heart of the city.

The council “initial feedback“ to NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi lists key 12 issues with the up-to $3.8 billion project of two new tunnels and massive State Highway 1 changes.

Underpinning it is a common theme: With public submissions now closed and the council chance for feedback limited, information released by the transport agency has been too sparse to base proper feedback on.

Soon after taking power, the National-led government threw out the last government’s $7.8b Let’s Get Wellington Moving package for its own fast-tracked, road-centric plan, which did away with light rail but kept the planned second Mt Victoria tunnel and added a second Terrace tunnel.

Read More

• ​Clock ticks on $3.8 billion Wellington road push without key details

• Mt Victoria tunnel ground-breaking promise down to the wire

• NZTA wants Wellington highway changes in one fell swoop

• Wellington needs real solutions, not selective outrage over tunnels

Mayor Andrew Little said timing did not allow the submission, on behalf of the council, to be approved by newly elected councillors but he supported the work done by staff.

The council submission iterated, multiple times, versions of the statement: The project was a “significant city-shaping project” which could positively transform the city.

But it argued said NZTA information available as it wrote the submission did not “adequately demonstrate” how its roads would integrate with the council’s own networks and how much integration would cost the city.

The council argued there were “critical information gaps” – including detailed layouts, intersection designs and signal phasings. It needed full traffic modelling, details of what council and Town Belt land would be taken, and various other pieces of key information. Read the full breakdown of council concerns below.

It predicted “major disruptions for tens of thousands of daily transport network users” during construction with significant impacts on nearby businesses. There would be, during construction, a loss of on-street parking with heavy vehicles near schools and disruption to 8000 school students near the Basin Reserve.

“Given the project’s scale and impacts, engagement processes must be appropriate going forward as so far they have not been considered adequate,” it said.

This included technical information “not being provided in a timely or structured way”, “highly truncated” public and stakeholder engagement, “with very short timeframes and little in the way of detailed information provided”.

The feedback was sent by the council to NZTA in December and obtained, by Wellingtonian Alex Gray last week. Council spokesperson Richard MacLean on Sunday said the feedback was written by officers and based on existing council decisions. Nothing had changed since, he said.

An NZTA spokesperson on Sunday said it was “committed to ongoing and constructive engagement with councils, our mana whenua partners, landowners, the public and other key stakeholders”. It would talk to councils more before filing for fast-tracked consents.

The four-week community engagement period in late-2025 saw 840 people attend drop-in sessions. More than 2400 people responded to a survey. Feedback was now being reviewed and “key themes” from it would be published later in February.

Councillor Diane Calvert, who supports the NZTA plan despite some concerns about the initial investment case, generally supported the council’s submission but said updated NZTA communication had mitigated some of the concerns even if some details were still unknown.

Green Motukairangi/Eastern ward councillor Jonny Osborne said the submission made it clear the council and Government had not worked together as they should have.

“The result is a project that makes it worse to travel on many of our local roads, increases danger around some of our schools, and does nothing to reduce climate pollution,” he said.

Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop was approached for comment.

The council’s summary of “key emerging issues”:

Limited integration with Wellington’s Transport Network

The project improves SH1 capacity and efficiency and is overall very state highway-centric. However, it does not yet adequately demonstrate:

• Integration and connections with the local roading network;

• Integration with the public transport, walking and cycling network and

• support for these modes; and

• balanced approach to local accessibility, place, and city-shaping objectives.

Costs and financial impact on the City

Council seeks visibility over the costs to council of the project and the impact it will have on council finances related to:

• The need for unanticipated council-led projects as a result of the impacts of the project on the local roading network, and to integrate it with the wider transport network;

• The costs associated with the need to relocate, re-configure and accommodate a range of altered community, sports and recreational facilities and services;

• Loss of revenue from loss of on-street parking and rateable properties; and

• The financial impact on city businesses and services both during construction and due to permanent changes.

Critical information gaps affecting assessment

Council must be able to assess impacts on communities, the transport network, and urban environment. To do so will require further information including:

• Detailed layouts and intersection designs and signal phasing;

• Full traffic modelling outputs (all modes);

• Land-take plans for Town Belt, parks, reserves and other Council property;

• Urban design and CPTED assessments;

• Construction staging, haul routes and disruption planning; and

• Land-use, economic and development impact analysis.

Increased severance and reduced local connectivity

Across all four affected spatial areas, SH1 widening and grade separation risk deepening severance through the heart of the city as a result of:

• Widened road corridors through Te Aro prioritising state highway traffic;

• Many Te Aro streets having permanent reduced accessibility; and

• Mt Victoria, Hataitai and Kilbirnie residents facing more circuitous access

• and reduced connectivity with the City.

Multimodal connectivity impacted

While the new Mt Victoria Tunnel shared path aligns with council priorities, multimodal integration of the project remains unclear in relation to:

• ​Yet to be clarified active transport connections, routes and linkages between the Mt Victoria Tunnel, Hataitai, Kilbirnie, Te Aro and the Basin;

• Potential non-compliance of proposed shared path and active transport facilities with NZTA’s own guidance;

• Lack of clarity regarding continuous bus priority through the Basin and along Kent/Cambridge Terraces; and

• Lack of safe, coordinated crossing solutions in high-pedestrian areas.

Impacts on the Town Belt, parks and community facilities

Substantial land-take and disruption (including loss of green space) have been

foreshadowed but are not yet quantified including:

• Use of Town Belt land;

• Permanent changes to Hataitai Park and Kilbirnie Park;

• Use of green space and mature trees in the Canal Reserve;

• Use of Hataitai Kindergarten, Badminton Hall and Eastern Suburbs Cricket

• clubrooms; and

• Uncertainty around compensation, restoration, mitigation and statutory

• processes in relation to the above.

Impacts on utilities and other infrastructure

Major impacts are expected on a range of utilities and physical infrastructure located within or adjacent to the SH1 corridor vital to the running of the city.

Concerns relate to:

• The operation of three waters networks, particularly wastewater infrastructure;

• The costs associated with relocation and upgrading of three waters assets, and this being borne by ratepayers; and

• ​Disruption and cost implications associated with the relocation and upgrading of a range of other infrastructure assets and services.

Urban Amenity and Growth Risks

The Project risks impacting urban amenity and Wellington’s urban growth and place-making goals through:

• SH1 widening and increased traffic volumes through Te Aro reducing urban amenity, and potentially creating fragmented land parcels and affecting development potential and intensification;

• A range of permanent amenity effects for many inner-city, Mt Victoria and Hataitai residents;

• Hataitai village and Moxham Ave experiencing increased noise, severance and reduced walkability;

• Inadequate recognition of the importance of Te Aro as a regional growth node.

Safety and crime prevention through environmental design issues

Personal safety issues are a concern in many areas, especially for vulnerable users resulting from:

• Low-visibility, unsafe under croft or edge conditions around new structures and infrastructure;

• Increased traffic volumes on local streets;

• Increased traffic volumes risk safety on high-demand pedestrian routes throughout the central city; and

• The new Mt Victoria Tunnel shared path width and design not being suitable for all users.

Major construction disruption

Construction effects will be extensive including:

• Major disruptions for tens of thousands of daily transport network users;

• Significant impacts on businesses and services located within or adjacent to the project area;

• Loss of parking and on-street servicing areas;

• Heavy vehicle movements near schools and through residential areas;

• Disruption for over 8000 school students accessing the Basin Reserve area daily, along with Massey University students;

• Noise, vibration and dust affecting homes, parks and community facilities;

• Major implications for bus reliability and pedestrian and cycling access;

• Lane reductions and detours throughout Te Aro, the Basin, Mt Victoria, Hataitai and Kilbirnie; and

• Event-day disruption at the Basin; and

• The temporary loss of park and recreation facilities.

Misaligned with carbon reduction goals

Council is concerned the project may increase emissions due to:

• Expanded road capacity and induced private vehicle travel;

• Uncertain mode-shift improvements;

• Lack of emissions modelling; and

• Lack of evidence of compatibility with future travel demand management measure.

Appropriate engagement processes

Given the project’s scale and impacts, engagement processes must be appropriate going forward as so far they have not been considered adequate based on:

• Technical information not being provided in a timely or structured way in order to make best use of everyone’s time; and

• The highly truncated nature of public and stakeholder engagement, with very short timeframes and little in the way of detailed information provided.