Source: Radio New Zealand
Wellington Mayor Andrew Little. RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Wellington’s mayor has told a review panel “it is not your role” to consider whether the Golden Mile project to revamp transport in a corridor of the central city offers value for money.
In a council briefing on Tuesday, Andrew Little said he was concerned that the independent panel might be overreaching, after it presented its methodology for reviewing the project’s benefit-to-cost ratio.
He also twice asked about panel members’ ties to the Golden Mile project and to Let’s Get Wellington Moving, a now-defunct initiative which previously had oversight of the project.
But Jenny Chetwynd, Wellington City Council’s Chief Infrastructure Officer, said she was confident there was no conflict of interest with any panellists.
“One of the criteria in selecting the panellists was that they hadn’t been involved in the Golden Mile project, noting that some declared they had historical involvement with projects associated with Let’s Get Wellington Moving,” she said.
Wellington City Council voted in November to pause and review the project after cost estimates grew from $139m to $220 million.
Work had already begun at the intersection of Cambridge and Kent Terraces last year.
The upgrade of the Golden Mile, which stretches from the Lambton Quay to Courtenay Place, sought to remove cars from the latter during the day, widen foot paths, create a cycle lane and improve lighting.
It would also line the street with anti-slip pavement and new greenery, and replace old water pipes that are sitting under the throughfare.
The Transport Agency was expected to provide half of the funding for the transport aspects of the project.
The independent panel conducting the review, which was expected to cost up to $400,000, was instructed to tell councillors how much the project would cost to execute, and whether it was still viable.
‘Not redesigning the project’
In November, when the review was announced, Little said: “The review does not relitigate the benefits of the Golden Mile project.”
However on Tuesday Chetwynd told councillors the review was set up to “look at the value for money the project still represented and the strategic alignment the project still represented to your strategy and your goals”.
She insisted that the panel was “not redesigning the project”.
The panel’s presentation gave an overview of its methodology into assessing the project’s benefit-to-cost ratio and whether it could deliver on its objectives.
It said it would identify cost-saving opportunities or re-scope refinements in line with the project’s goals.
A mock-up made in 2025 of what Courtney Place will look like once the Golden Mile project is completed. RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
However, Little disputed that this was the panel’s responsibility, saying: “You seem to be going into highly value judgment-laden areas, which – with all due respect – is not your role.”
Little argued that finding the project to be good value for money would not be able to help the council if it still couldn’t afford to do the work.
Chetwynd said she had been clear with the panellists on the review’s terms of reference and scope.
“This was to look at if the project still represented value for money, it wasn’t to look at whether the project is affordable for Council. We appreciate the Mayor’s comments this afternoon and we’ll ensure elected members will have all the information they need to make their decision on how to progress.”
Councillor Nureddin Abdurahman concluded the briefing by asking the independent panel to consider the feedback it received, specifically over a possible conflict of interest over ties to the Golden Mile or Let’s Get Wellington Moving.
After the briefing, Little said: “The scope of the review set by councillors was to test, in the context of current economic conditions, whether the existing project remains viable and aligned with its original objectives in light of significant cost and risks escalation.
“During the meeting I raised a concern that there was an appearance of the review panel moving beyond that scope into the realm of making – or the perception of making – decisions that must remain with elected members.
“My expectation is that the review remains within the scope set by councillors and leaves political decisions to the council.”
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand