Skip to main content.

8 Movement findings

The following cases were reviewed that included references to the subject of movement in an urban context:

  • Canterbury Regional Council v Christchurch City Council (C169/02)

  • Canterbury Regional Council v Waimakariri District Council [2002] NZRMA 208

  • Intercontinental Hotel and Others v Wellington Regional Council and Waterfront Investments Ltd (W15/08)

  • Landco Mt Wellington v Auckland City Council (A35/07)

  • Roman Catholic Diocese of Auckland v Franklin District Council (W61/04)

  • The National Trading Company of New Zealand v North Shore City Council (A182/02).

Some cases also referenced other urban subjects and, accordingly, may or may not be referred to under those subjects. Each case is summarised in Appendix 1.

This section focuses on vehicle and other movement, such as pedestrians, within urban areas. It is deliberately referred to as ‘movement’, rather than traffic, to recognise that good urban design provides choice in the ways in which people (and their goods) are able to move to and from their chosen destination. Such movement may be a ‘commute’ but could also be for recreational purposes or for the enjoyment of ‘going out for a walk’.

8.1 Trip generation

The Court has recognised that land use and vehicle trip generation is an important consideration in the location of new activities – both at the scale of urban growth and the site of activities.

In terms of new growth areas, the Court has found (Canterbury Regional Council v Waimakariri District Council) that it can be appropriate to locate a new urban growth node away from a regional centre if there is a level of self-reliance associated with the node (there were other benefits in that case as well). That is, a level of amenity and facilities, employment, day-to-day services and easy movement can be accommodated within the node.

In Canterbury Regional Council v Christchurch City Council, the Court recognised it is important that any urban extension has an efficient level of connectivity to it. The Court found in this case that one potential growth area, though close to existing urban facilities ‘as the crow flies’, was inappropriate for urban expansion because the available roading connectivity was circuitous and thus inefficient.

In another case (Roman Catholic Diocese of Auckland v Franklin District Council), the Court considered that locating a school equidistant between two urban centres was efficient in terms of trip generation because it meant both centres would have relatively equal access.

8.2 Roads and their purpose

Although traffic planning traditionally focuses on maintaining the efficiencies and functionality of the roading network, two of the cases reviewed recognised situations where this did not outweigh other considerations. In Landco Mt Wellington v Auckland City Council, the Court found it was favourable to locate additional housing within an existing urban area regardless of local traffic congestion issues. The Court considered that locating the additional houses within the existing urban area was preferable to siting them elsewhere in the district, particularly because the trip generation would have created other adverse effects. The Court also recognised in this case that the ideal of free-flowing roads was no longer a realistic aim in Auckland City.

By contrast, in The National Trading Company of New Zealand v North Shore City Council, the Court upheld the North Shore City Council’s decision not to allow a new traffic generator in a congested location. The basis for this decision was the existence of a district plan policy that recognised capacity issues with the existing roading network, along with associated provisions to control the establishment of some land uses adjacent to congested locations.

8.3 Emissions

There are also cases where the Court has considered the way in which land uses generate movement trips and associated effects from vehicle emissions. At one end of the scale (Canterbury Regional Council v Waimakariri District Council), the Court found that even though a new town would not be entirely self-sufficient, and future residents would need to move elsewhere (by vehicle) for employment and some services, it was still acceptable. One of the grounds on which it was found to be acceptable was that longer trips did not necessarily equate to more adverse emissions because of warmer engine-running temperatures during longer trips and the capacity of the ambient air environment to ‘cope’ with emissions further away from Christchurch.

8.4 Movement and amenity

The Court has considered amenity associated with streets as places for people to walk or undertake other non-vehicular activities. In one case (Canterbury Regional Council v Waimakariri District Council), it balanced the effects of increased vehicle use associated with an out-of-centre residential development with the benefits of having streets and lanes designed to limit vehicle use and improve pedestrian amenity.

The Court has also recognised pedestrian amenity as being important relative to other considerations. In one case, a policy was considered that intended pedestrian amenity to have prominence over vehicle movements. However, because it had not been properly incorporated into the district plan, all related references in the plan were found to be ineffective. But, clear evidence presented on the pedestrian values appreciated by the public enabled the Court to place considerable weight on pedestrian amenity (Intercontinental Hotel and Others v Wellington Regional Council and Waterfront Investments Ltd).

 

[ |