High Court, Wellington 28 and 29 April 2025.

Today was the first day of a two-day Judicial review hearing in the High Court in Wellington. The Wellington Civic Trust is asking the Court to quash Wellington City Council’s decision to demolish the City to Sea bridge.

Wellington City Council’s process of decisionmaking is under the microscope with a statement by the Trust’s lawyer, Tim Smith, that officers exercised too much power as if councillors “subdelegated” decisionmaking to them. The Council process of consultation is also under the microscope.

The Civic Trust says that the Council has not meet the requirements of the Local Government Act Section 77(1), failing to provide all practicable options to the Council and to the public, and failing to ensure meaningful consultation.

Barrister Tim Smith presenting the case on behalf of the Civic Trust told the Court that far too much power and “improper delegation” was vested in Council officers, adding that the respective roles and responsibilities of councillors and officers had to be clearer.

One of the key reasons that insufficient options were given, was outlined in an email by Dr Zamani the Council officer managing the project. In it he said that he would only put forward an option if there was first an indication of 75% support by the Council.

Tim Smith also said the officers “funnelled” information and process towards demolition, and gave the Council information that was “too little too late.”

He presented the important distinction between the standards for a bridge for cars and a footbridge which the City to Sea Bridge is. The distinction between an occupied building with a roof and a bridge as a pedestrian throughfare, was also raised, emphasising that the bridge is not an occupied building and therefore different and lower standards apply.

Diane Qiu lawyer, also making submissions on behalf of the Trust emphasised the need for a high degree of compliance relating to the consultation process because of the high significance of the decision of the Council to demolish the City to Sea Bridge.

She said that the Council was in breach of its consultation obligations, particularly but not only because the Council gave the public in effect only one option, i.e. demolish the bridge and replace it with a pedestrian crossing, or demolish the bridge, replace it with a pedestrian crossing, and build a new one (which the Council had not funded). The Council had prior to the consultation, eliminated a ‘do nothing’ option and a strengthening option. She was particularly critical of the lack of any information given in the consultation document relating to the cost of $90-$120 million to strengthen without any substantiation.

Finally, she emphasised the fact that the Council in its consultation had given the public a “fait accompli” – as if the decision to demolish the bridge had in effect already been made, prior to consultation.

I would be pleased to discuss after the end of the hearing tomorrow, and would prefer the following day Wednesday so that I can prepare.I not be able to return calls immediately after Friday because of my other commitments. 0274488669

Wellington Civic Trust established 1981.

© Scoop Media