transcript of proceedings board of inquiry basin … · transcript of proceedings board of inquiry...

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BOARD OF INQUIRY

Basin Bridge Proposal

HEARING at

BASIN RESERVE, MT COOK, WELLINGTON

on 5 May 2014

BOARD OF INQUIRY:

Retired Environment and District Court Judge Gordon Whiting (Chairperson)

James Baines (Board Member)

David Collins (Board Member)

David McMahon (Board Member)

Basin Reserve, Wellington 05.05.14

APPEARANCES

<GORDON FRANK SANDERSON, affirmed [9.42 am] ........................ 5988

<HARRY RICKETTS, affirmed [9.42 am] .............................................. 5988

<DONALD NEELY, affirmed [9.42 am] ................................................... 5988 5

<JOHN ANDERSON, sworn [9.43 am] ..................................................... 5988

<MARTIN COLIN SNEDDEN, sworn [9.43 am] .................................... 5988

<PETER CLINTON, affirmed [9.43 am] .................................................. 5988

<EXAMINATION BY MS ANDERSON [9.49 am] ........................ 5990

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONES [10.40 am] ................. 6009 10

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS ANDERSON [11.32 am] ........ 6020

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR SNEDDEN [11.38 am] .......... 6023

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR SANDERSON [11.50 pm] ..... 6027

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONES [12.15 pm] ................. 6037

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WEDDE [2.32 pm] ................. 6063 15

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS ANDERSON [2.38 pm] ................. 6066

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONES [2.50 pm] ................... 6070

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WEDDE [4.01 pm] ................. 6089

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS ANDERSON [4.04 pm] ......... 6091

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONES [4.12 pm] ................... 6094 20

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WEDDE [5.00 pm] ................. 6113

<THE WITNESSES WITHDREW [5.01 pm] .................................. 6114


[9.38 am]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good morning everybody. Welcome back. And

welcome to the array of witnesses on my right. All the witnesses 5

relating to the topic on cricket. Thank you all for coming today. I

know it’s not easy to get everyone together at the same time, but I do

appreciate it.

What we’re doing this morning is we’re going to have what we call a 10

contemporaneous witnessing or as they call it in Australia “hot

tubbing”. Whereby we have all of the witnesses on a particular expert

topic together at the same time and we have a set of topics that we’re

going to go through where counsel have sorted out a batting order for

the questions that will be asked on that topic. 15

[9.40 am]

We will come to a topic; say the first topic, which is “Council, the

Trust and the Relationship with the Applicant”. The first person who is 20

going to head off on that one is Mr Jones; he will get up and ask

questions first. He will identify a witness that he is going to ask the

question to and then he will ask that question to that particular witness.

When that witness is finished answering the question if any other of 25

you wish to add something if you just simply move on and perhaps if

you just sort of follow. If you wish to contradict anything then also

you are entitled to do that at the same time.

It means that we have an interaction between the expert witnesses and 30

it saves a lot of time because it means that you don’t have to have one

witness with a whole lot of questions and then another witness, and

then another witness, and each topic being gone over and over again.

Anyway, we will just take it quietly, we’ll be relaxed about it and we 35

take it step by step.

Now, also a number of you have prepared what we call opening

statements. They all arrived on our desk this morning and we haven’t

had an opportunity of reading them all so I’m going to get each one of 40

you who has made an opening statement to read it out.

So the first thing we’ll have to do is to have each of the gentlemen

sworn in, so Madam Registrar, if you could swear them in?

45


<GORDON FRANK SANDERSON, affirmed [9.42 am]

<HARRY RICKETTS, affirmed [9.42 am]

<DONALD NEELY, affirmed [9.42 am] 5

<JOHN ANDERSON, sworn [9.43 am]

<MARTIN COLIN SNEDDEN, sworn [9.43 am]

10

<PETER CLINTON, affirmed [9.43 am]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Now, those of you who have given

opening statements if you could simply – and we’ll start perhaps with

Dr Sanderson this end and then we can just do it one after the other as 15

we go down the table. If you’ve got an opening statement if you could

just, for the purposes of the record, say what your full name is and what

your area of expertise is and then read your opening statement.

MR ……….: I don’t have an opening statement to be honest. 20

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well if you don’t have – that’s fine. If you don’t have

an opening statement if you could for the record again, just state your

name and just say that you haven’t got an opening statement. That’s

fine. 25

MS WEDDE: Excuse me, sir. Just to clarify, Professor Sanderson does have

one short supplementary statement that he may like to read on Friday.

[9.45 am] 30

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see, well then that can be read as well at the same

time. So that will save counsel having to introduce each of you, and

you introduce yourselves and then I’ll ask Mr Jones to – I’ll identify

the topic that he’s going to start cross-examining on. At the end of 35

each question I will indicate if anyone else wishes to add or say

anything relating to the answer given by the other and then we will go

through any other parties or their counsel who wish to ask questions on

that same topic when Mr Jones is finished. So it is all pretty relatively

straightforward. 40

So Professor Sanderson if you could start the ball rolling.

DR SANDERSON: My full name is Gordon Frank Sanderson. I have a

supplementary statement which pertains to a fairly small aspect of my 45

original evidence-in-chief. This supplementary evidence provides

989


further information regarding the potential for light to reflect off cars

travelling on the proposed Basin Bridge and cause visual distraction to

cricket players within the Basin Reserve.

As mentioned in my evidence-in-chief in paragraph 3.6 I consider that 5

this may cause a transient visual distraction. However, I elaborate

further as follows:

(a) While a car windscreen or side window is made of glass it is not a

mirror and only a very small percentage, approximately 10 percent, of 10

the light which strikes its surface is reflected. Any reflection will be

further attenuated by the condition of the surface, a cleaner surface

providing the greater reflection.

(b) Further, the surface of the side window or windscreen in a car or 15

similar vehicle is generally curved. This has the effect of making it

behave as a “convex mirror”. Light rays from the sun or any other light

source will diverge when they strike the window and disperse in

proportion to the distance of the observer from the window.

20

(c) I observe that a batsman at the southern end of the pitch will be at

least 100 metres from the side window or windscreen. At this distance

the dispersion effect will be considerable. Fielders who face the Bridge

will generally be at a further distance where the dispersion effect would

be even greater. It is therefore my opinion that any reflection from cars 25

on the Basin Bridge will be transient and highly attenuated. I conclude

that the risk of visual distraction from this source is negligible.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, and if you could read your summary of

evidence or opening statement. 30

DR SANDERSON: Certainly.

MS WEDDE: Sorry, just to ensure we are not at cross purposes,

Professor Sanderson did not prepare a summary of evidence and his 35

original evidence was already quite concise.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, so this is just his original evidence?

MS WEDDE: So what he has just read is his supplementary statement which 40

was filed on Friday and in addition to that he has filed his evidence-in-

chief and rebuttal evidence but he didn’t file a separate summary of

evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, fine, thank you. Yes, very well, so we will move on 45

to the next person.


DR RICKETTS: Hello, I am Professor Harry Ricketts from the English

programme at Victoria University and I am a cricket enthusiast and a

write and I am going to read you an eight line poem as my brief about

the Basin. 5

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I can tell you, Professor, that will be a delight after

listening to transport evidence for some weeks.

DR RICKETTS: So it is called - - - 10

CHAIRPERSON: It is a lot better than looking at intersection capacities and

volumes.

DR RICKETTS: Thank you. So it is “Wellington Basin Reserve, late summer 15

2014”.

On the bank at the Basin the crowd applauds;

cicadas click-click their castanets,

Listen to the money’s slow, withdrawing roar. 20

On the bank at the Basin the crowd applauds. ‘

“Wellington is a city that’s dying”,

says the man with cold snapper eyes.

On the bank of the Basin the crowd applauds;

cicadas click-click their castanets. 25

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, professor. Mr Neely.

30

MR NEELY: My name is Donald Owen Neely and I am providing evidence

on behalf of the Basin Reserve Trust.

MS JONES: Mr Neely had a couple of questions to his evidence-in-chief.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MS JONES: If my friend doesn’t object to leading, it might just be easier to

take you directly to the paragraphs.

40

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, of course.

<EXAMINATION BY MS ANDERSON [9.49 am]

MS ANDERSON: Mr Neely, I think you had four corrections to make in your 45

original evidence-in-chief.


MR NEELY: Yes.

MS ANDERSON: If you could just take us through them I think your first

one is at paragraph 1.4 of your evidence-in-chief. 5

MR NEELY: Central to the Basin Reserve historic - - -

[9.50 am]

10

MS ANDERSON: Sorry, this is your evidence-in-chief, not your summary

brief. That is not what I have in front of me from last Friday.

MS ANDERSON: Yes, but do you have your evidence-in-chief with you?

15

Madam Registrar I wonder if this could be handed to Mr Neely so he

has a copy of his evidence-in-chief.

MR NEELY: Thank you.

20

MS ANDERSON: So paragraph 1.4B. If you could just deal with what you

wanted to correct in that. I understand the date is wrong in sub

paragraph 3?

MR NEELY: Sub paragraph 3, yes. It should be – “The first 50 tests was 25

2010”, not 2003.

MS ANDERSON: Thank you. And if we move to page 8, - - -

MR NEELY: Yes. 30

MS ANDERSON: I think you had a correction there in relation to the 1976

date.

MR NEELY: Yes, the 1976 dated should be 1978. 35

MS ANDERSON: That is the second row down is it, on that page?

MR NEELY: On page 8 there are two 1976s, it is the second one, February.

40

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, could you take me back to the previous one, Ms

Anderson?

MS ANDERSON: Paragraph 1.4B.3, instead of 2003, it should have been

2010. 45


Then page 8 was the 1976 date and then if we go to page 11, paragraph

1.27B - - -

CHAIRPERSON: 11, 1.27?

5

MS ANDERSON: Yes, sub paragraph B.

CHAIRPERSON: B. B or C?

MS ANDERSON: B. 10

CHAIRPERSON: B, thank you.

MR NEELY: “…is a world class test cricket ground the premier test cricket

ground in New Zealand, and recognised worldwide as a top test 15

venue.”

MS ANDERSON: If we could just go the end of that paragraph, the sentence

starting, “Further…

20

MR NEELY: “Further the ability to circumnavigate the boundary on the

promenade around the playing field is, as far as I am aware, a unique

and noteworthy feature.”

MS ANDERSON: So ‘parade’ should be replaced with ‘promenade.’ 25

MR NEELY: Promenade.

MS ANDERSON: And the last one is paragraph 1.29, again sub paragraph.

30

MR NEELY: “The Basin Reserve’s promenade allows free navigation of the

ground. Your entrance ticket into the Basin allows you to sit almost

anywhere within the ground and move locations at will.”

MS ANDERSON: Thank you. Parade should be changed to promenade. 35

MR NEELY: Promenade.

MS ANDERSON: Thank you and if you could just start reading your

summary. 40

MR NEELY: Central to the Basin Reserve’s historical and cultural

importance, is its status as New Zealand’s premier test cricket ground.

The reason why the Basin Reserve is New Zealand’s premier test

cricket ground are because of its history, its amenity both for players 45


and spectators and its cultural significance as the green heart of the

city.

The Basin Reserve’s unique character and attractiveness, can be

evidenced by comparison with other world class test cricket grounds. 5

From this comparison, it is evidence that no other ground have an issue

with views of moving traffic external to the ground.

Unless properly mitigated, the proposal will introduce the use of

moving traffic into the Basin Reserve. This has the potential to 10

severely damage the attractiveness of the Basin Reserve as a test

cricket ground and disrupt the unique atmosphere of the Basin Reserve.

[9.55 am]

15

This would result in irreparable damage to the historical and cultural

heritage of the Basin Reserve and potentially the death of test match

cricket at the Basin Reserve which would be a tragedy for Wellington

and cricket in New Zealand. Do you want me to go onto the history of

the Basin. 20

MS ANDERSON: Right to the end, thank you.

MR NEELY: Right to the end. History of the Basin Reserve. Paragraph 1.20

of my EIC sets out a summary of the history of the Basin Reserve. I do 25

not propose to replicate in my summary that history except to note the

following key dates.

7.1, 1857: A petition was granted by the Provincial Council to set

aside the swamp as a park and cricket ground. 7.2, 1866: The Basin 30

Reserve was established as the home of Wellington Cricket. 7.3, 11

January 1868: The first cricket match was played between Wellington

volunteers and the men of the HMS Falcon. 7.4, November 1873:

Wellington played its first first-class against Auckland at the Basin

Reserve. 7.5, 1875: The first international game at the Basin Reserve 35

was the game Wellington 22 played against an All England 11. 7.6,

1884: Basin Reserve Deed established that the ground was to be “for

ever used for the purpose of a cricket and recreation ground by the

inhabitants of the city of Wellington.

40

7.7, 1930: The Basin Reserve hosted its first test match against

England becoming the nineteenth test venue in the world. 1945:

Official VE Day celebrations were held at the Basin Reserve. 7.9:

New Zealand after 48 games over 48 years beat England for the first

time. 1979-81: The Basin Reserve underwent its most significant 45

changes in appearance since the 1855 earthquake. 7.11: Martin Crowe


and Andrew Jones put on a partnership of 467 runs against Sri Lanka.

This was the highest partnership in test cricket at that time for any

wicket. 7.12, 2005: The formation of the Basin Reserve Trust. 7.13,

2009: The Basin Reserve became the eleventh test venue to reach the

landmark of hosting 50 tests. 7.14, February 2014: Brendan 5

McCullum scored 302 runs for New Zealand against India and became

the first New Zealander to score a triple century in test cricket.

8.0: The first sporting ground in New Zealand registered with the New

Zealand Historic Places Trust, the Basin Reserve. The Basin Reserve 10

is an historic site. It has also been associated with many royal, civic,

sporting and other notable occasions and that story is a miniature

history in itself and offer of the mirror of time. Carry on?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 15

MR NEELY: Comparison with other international grounds. The Basin

Reserve’s primary use and reason for continued existence remains as a

test match and first class cricket ground. Cricket at the Basin Reserve

maintains the history and traditions of the ground, helps to add vitality 20

and a sense of purpose and contributes necessary financing for

maintenance and development of the ground.

[10.00 am]

25

11. As noted in the Cricketer Magazine, set out in appendix 1 of my

EIC, the Basin Reserve is recognised internationally as one of the

10 top test match grounds in the world.

Now there is an appendix which photographs of this article appeared in 30

the Cricketer Magazine, do you want them brought out at this stage?

CHAIRPERSON: No, you don’t need to do that, we have read those thank

you.

35

MR NEELY: You have seen those, thank you.

In my view, the Basin Reserve enjoys such a status because:-

The Basin Reserve has a rich history, it is the oldest first class ground 40

in New Zealand and one of the oldest international cricket grounds still

cited in its original position.

1. 12.2. It is a world class cricket ground. The premier test cricket

ground in New Zealand and recognised worldwide as a top test venue. 45

As opposed to other international test cricket venues that are stadia


surrounded by walls of concrete, the Basin Reserve as a boutique feel

to it. The green and enclosed ambience of the ground provided by the

embankment and the trees that separate it from the busy roading around

it, creates an enticing atmosphere from which to watch or play cricket.

5

Further, the ability to circumnavigate the boundary on the promenade

around the playing field is, as far as I am aware, a unique and

noteworthy feature. Players enjoy the atmosphere and spectators are

attracted to watching cricket there.

10

12.3 Its cultural importance. The Basin Reserve is the green heart of

Wellington. It is a notable public space with strong cultural importance

for all Wellingtonians and as a symbol for Wellington. Many

Wellingtonians have been involved in the Basin Reserve through

attending schools, colleges, professional sports events, or the sporting 15

events of their children or through enjoying it as a public space. There

is a widespread sentimental attachment to the Basin Reserve.

A comparison between the Basin Reserve and other international test

match grounds, shown in appendix 6 of my EIC, provides some 20

evidence of the interesting attributes of the Basin Reserve. When

comparing the Basin Reserve with other test grounds, you will see the

following.

Do you want that evidence? 25

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please, thank you.

MR NEELY: But do you want the photographs for it?

30

CHAIRPERSON: No, no.

MR NEELY: The Basin Reserve has significant green spaces and foliage

which helps create its attractive atmosphere. This can be compared

favourably with some of the other venues that are more traditionally 35

fully enclosed, and I quote, Waikiri (ph. 3.34) Stadium, Eden Gardens

or Melbourne Cricket Ground.

B. The basin Reserve’s promenade allows free navigation of the

ground. Your entrance ticket into the Basin Reserve allows you to sit 40

almost anywhere within the ground and move locations at will.

Other grounds are physically separated to zones that restrict spectator

movement.

45


C. Despite being surrounded by roading and noting that State Highway

1 has always passed around the Basin Reserve, at present none of the

grounds permit site line views of moving traffic at ground level.

The photographs in appendices 1 and 2 show that although other test 5

grounds are surrounded by roads, these are visually screened from

within the grounds.

Potential impact of the project on the future of the Basin Reserve. 14.

If the proposal was to be constructed without full mitigation, the Basin 10

Reserve would, as far as I am aware, be the only test match ground

where a busy road and traffic located outside of the ground, could be

viewed from the playing surface. I, along with other Friends of the

Basin Reserve, do not object to change per se at the Basin Reserve.

Part of the story of the Basin Reserve has been the process of change of 15

the ground over time rather I object to any change that could adversely

impact the heritage or the identity of the Basin Reserve which

necessarily includes its ongoing operation as a world class cricket

ground.

20

[10.05 am]

16: One of the impacts on the ground should a view of traffic pervade

into it is that spectators could decide to vote with their feet and choose

not to come to games at the Basin Reserve. If a shorter than 65 metre 25

stand or pavilion is constructed there would remain a large area of the

bridge that could be viewed from much of the spectator seating in

particular the southern end of the ground. This seating area is popular

with spectators because it is sheltered when there is southerly wind and

because it is well placed to capture the sun. A view of traffic on the 30

bridge as a backdrop to the cricket being played is likely to diminish

the attractiveness of this area of the ground. Further the view of the

traffic is in my opinion likely to detract from the enclosed feeling of the

ground and therefore from spectator enjoyment. Ultimately the Basin

relies on attracting spectators for its ongoing existence. 35

17: The Basin Reserve would lose its raison d’etre if cricket should

cease to be played there. Without the support of the cricketing

community and the vitality and purpose this brings to the Basin

Reserve it is hard to imagine a future for the ground. Nothing would be 40

sadder for Wellington than to see this important historical and cultural

symbol to become a faded a monument to the past. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Neely. Sir John?

45


MS NEELY: Sir John, I understand you have one correction to make to your

evidence in chief. Do you have your evidence in chief with you there?

And it was paragraph 1.15. Under the heading “History of the BRT”.

And the correction there I think relates to the date does it?

5

SIR ANDERSON: Yes, I think so.

CHAIRPERSON: You can lead Ms Anderson.

MS ANDERSON: Should it be 17 October 1884 rather than November? 10

SIR ANDERSON: Yes.

MS ANDERSON: Thank you. If you could start reading your summary from

the beginning. Thank you. 15

SIR ANDERSON: My name is Sir John Anthony Anderson. I’m providing

evidence on behalf of the Basin Reserve Trust. This document is a

concise summary of my evidence of the Basin Bridge proposal. My

qualifications and experience are set out in my evidence in chief dated 20

13 December 2013. My concise summary addresses the following

matters. The history, role and functions of the Trust, engagement with

NZTA in respect of the proposal, ICC requirements for the cricket

grounds.

25

History, role and functions of the Trust. By a deed dated 17 October

1884 the Basin Reserve was conveyed to the Wellington City Council

on trust to forever be used for the purposes of cricket and a recreation

ground by the inhabitants of the City of Wellington.

30

[10.10 am]

SIR ANDERSON: All right?

MR ……….: That’s better. 35

SIR ANDERSON: Okay. In 2005 council and Cricket Wellington established

and registered the Trust under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. The

Trust was created to manage and administer the Basin Reserve.

40

The objects of the Trust, set out in the 2005 Trust deed, included duty

to manage, administer, plan, develop, maintain, promote and operate

the Basin Reserve for recreational activities and for the playing of

cricket for the benefit of the inhabitants of Wellington.

45


In summary, the council owns the Basin Reserve in its capacity as

Trustee under the 1884 Trust deed. The Trust manages the Basin

Reserve and operates the ground in accordance with the 2005 Trust

deed.

5

Background to the Trust’s position on the proposal – The Trust has

been engaged with NZTA since 2011 in respect of the proposal. The

Trust has taken a pragmatic view in that it decided it would not

automatically object to the Basin Bridge provided it could be

sufficiently migrated to ensure the Basin Reserve is not adversely 10

affected.

Any such migration would have to be carried out in the manner

sympathetic to the history and unique character of the Basin Reserve

and would need to be sufficient to adequately screen the bridge from 15

the ground in order to both preserve the ground’s character and ensure

that it is able to retain its international test match and first class cricket

status.

It reached agreement with NZTA whereby the parties agree that the 65 20

metre Northern Gateway Bridge is necessary to avoid, remedy or

mitigate the potential adverse effects of the proposal on the Basin

Reserve, including the potential loss of its test match status.

The Trust, council and NZTA entered into a memorandum of 25

understanding dated 28 March 2013. This MOU set out the basis on

which the parties could work together to fulfil the respective objectives

in respect of the Basin Reserve thus ensuring the adverse effects of the

bridge were adequately mitigated.

30

As set out in its submission the Trust’s view is visual mitigation from

all areas of the Basin Reserve playing surface is required to 12.1 (ph

2.45) Prevent visual distraction of cricket players and other sports

people that could be caused by moving traffic on the bridge; prevent

loss of spectator enjoyment; protect the Basin Reserve from the risk of 35

losing its test match status; prevent the loss of character and ambience

of the ground including when it comes to attracting events other than

cricket, such as concerts and other sporting codes.

On 18 November 2013 the Trust, council and NZTA reached an 40

agreement over the division of costs in the construction of the Northern

Gateway Building. The parties to the agreement acknowledged that the

final form of the mitigation will be decided by the Board on the basis of

evidence provided and having regard to what is reasonably necessary to

avoid, remedy or mitigate the proposal’s adverse effects on the Basin 45

Reserve.


ICC Requirements – In 1997 the ICC initiated a venue accreditation

policy in line with the ICC stated strategic priority of providing a world

class environment for international cricket, an important element of

which is to ensure that venues of the highest possible standard are 5

presented for international matches. The accreditation policy sets out

mandatory minimum requirements for venues that host men’s tests, one

day and Twenty20 internationals.

At the time of the introduction of the accreditation policy the Basin 10

Reserve was automatically accredited, as was any ground that had

hosted a men’s international test or one day match prior to that date.

Once accredited there is no requirement for a ground to be re-

accredited unless it has not hosted a men’s international match within 15

the last five years or has undergone a major renovation.

When the cumulative effect of the Northern Gateway Building, the

transfer of the CS Dempster Gate and the landscaping around the Basin

Reserve, together with the construction of the Basin Bridge and 20

associated buildings is considered the proposal would likely be

considered a major renovation.

[10.15 am]

25

The accreditation policy provides some measures must be taken to

minimise the views of players being interrupted, which may not be the

case if the suggested 65 mitigation option is not accepted.

Although there are subjective elements to the accreditation process and 30

therefore the result is difficult to pre-determine there is a risk that

should the proposal proceed with a Northern Gateway bridge of a

length less than 65 metres the Basin Reserve may not retain its ICC test

match accreditation.

35

At present no traffic can be viewed by players at the Basin Reserve.

Without sufficient mitigation of the proposal the traffic on the bridge

will be viewable as a backdrop and a potential distraction for cricket

players. To my knowledge this issue of traffic being able to be viewed

from the playing surface will be unique in the major test match venues. 40

In summary, the approval of the proposal without sufficient mitigation

runs a small but very real risk of the ICC status of New Zealand’s

premier test ground being taken away.

45


In my opinion a 65 metre Northern Gateway Building, as set out in the

application, is necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse

effects of the proposal on the Basin Reserve.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Sir John. 5

SIR ANDERSON: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Snedden?

10

MS ANDERSON: Mr Snedden, I gather you have three corrections to make.

If we could start with paragraph 1.4 in your evidence-in-chief,

paragraph A?

MR SNEDDEN: If the - - - 15

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph?

MR SNEDDEN: This is the evidence-in-chief.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR SNEDDEN: 1.4A. If the final two words, “for Auckland”, to be deleted.

There’s 118 first class matches, that was for a mixture of different

teams, including Auckland. 25

MS ANDERSON: And then paragraph 1.27?

MR SNEDDEN: Actually there’s one over the page on page 2.

30

MS ANDERSON: Oh, sorry, 1.4F actually.

MR SNEDDEN: 1.4F. At the time I did the statement I was Chief Executive

for the Tourism Industry Association. I’ve finished that role, now my

current occupation is Professional Director and Consultant. 35

MS ANDERSON: And then finally 1.23C?

MR SNEDDEN: Just in the final line on page 6 of that, if you delete the

words, “moving in either direction”. I understand it’s a one way 40

flyover.

MS ANDERSON: Thank you. If you could now read your summary.

45


MR SNEDDEN: My name is Martin Colin Snedden. I’m providing evidence

on behalf of the Basin Reserve Trust. This document is a concise

summary of my evidence for the Basin Bridge proposal. My

qualifications and experience are set out in my evidence-in-chief dated

13 December 2013. 5

My summary addresses the effect of the proposal on cricket playing

conditions, including distraction and safety issues for batsmen and

fielders, the player’s voice, the effect of the proposal on the Basin

Reserve. 10

Effect on cricket playing conditions – In my view anything less than a

65 metre Northern Gateway Building extending from the current

player’s pavilion in the west to the concrete toilet block in the east and

fully enclosed on top and bottom stories during matches and events 15

would be insufficient to mitigate the adverse effects of the Basin

Bridge.

In particular, the designs for the 45 metre and 55 metre alternative

options do not extend all the way to the embankment and fail to 20

adequately screen movement of traffic at the eastern end of the

building.

The importance of a batsman’s line of sight – A fundamental part of the

playing of cricket is the acknowledgment and acceptance by all 25

involved that the batsman must be given a fair and reasonable

opportunity to face the bowler’s deliveries without other distractions

impeding him.

The nature of a cricket match makes this especially important because 30

if a batsman is distracted and as a result is dismissed this could affect or

even decide the outcome of a match.

The rules and culture of the game are designed to, as best possible;

avoid any chances of distraction of a batsman. This is why umpires 35

must stay motionless and silent as possible immediately before and at

the point of delivery. Fielders at mid-off and mid-on (whilst being able

to move in with the bowler) must not wave their arms around or try to

create a distraction. Field is closed to the facing batsmen and within the

batsman’s eyesight range must stay still. All the field and team and the 40

umpires must remain silent from the time the bowler is in his run-up

until the ball has been bowled and played.


[10.20 am]

The batsman’s line of sight extends far deeper and wider than most

onlookers would imagine. It is not just a line directly behind the

direction from which the ball is coming from, it extends into a 5

reasonably wide “V”, with the wider mouth of the “V” on the

batsman’s offside than onside caused by most batsmen taking a

relatively side-on stance when facing.

There are both left-hand and right-hand batsmen and right-arm and left-10

arm bowlers playing cricket and because bowlers can elect to

significantly change the angle of delivery by how wide on the crease

they bowl from, or by bowling either over the wicket or around the

wicket. The batting line of sight in the area in its totality covers a very

wide arch at the bowler’s end. The pitch used for cricket matches 15

changes from match to match, therefore the totality of the line of sight

of the area within a venue changes accordingly.

Dr Gordon Sanderson, based on my experiences as international

cricketer and official, my view is that the conclusions drawn by Mr 20

Sanderson suggesting that a 40 degree horizontal view is all that is

required to be screened to ensure that a batsman is not distracted by

movement of traffic on a bridge is incorrect.

In my experience, movement can be distracting in the area of a 25

batsman’s field of vision that is much wider than the 40 degree

horizontal view. Although it is true that the more central in the

batsman’s view the movement occurs, the more distracting it is,

movement anywhere within the batsman’s field of vision can be

distracting. For example, a fielder at mid-off is not permitted to wave 30

their arms when a bowler is preparing to deliver the ball despite that the

fielder would be well outside this 40 degree area.

Unless full mitigation is provided, traffic will periodically and

irregularly pass through a batsman’s line of sight in the gap between 35

the Northern Gateway Building and the foliage on the bank. The

sudden appearance of fast moving vehicles against the stationary

background, the sky, will be much more pronounced and distracting in

the sight and continuous movement of a crowd, when viewed from a

distance, which is generally more of a ripple effect like water in the 40

ocean. This is particularly true for the more subdued test match crowds.

As Mr Sanderson notes, “emergency vehicles and sunlight flashes on

windows could exacerbate the distraction potential of traffic

movement”. The knowledge that a distracting element will periodically 45

appear in the corner of your eye exacerbates the effects that this has on


you. A batsman will anticipate a distraction occurring, which will play

on a batsman’s mind and make concentration more difficult. This can

be mentally straining for a batsman and would certainly impact on the

batsman’s ability to function to the best of his or her ability during the

course of a long test match innings. 5

The fielding team. The Basin Bridge is also likely to distract fielders

during the game of cricket. Probably the most vulnerable fielding

positions for this are slip fielders in the position for fast bowling. These

are the fielders who stand at an arc next to the wicket keeper in an 10

attempt to take catches resulting from batsmen edging a bowler’s

delivery.

An example of a slip cordon is set out in Figure 1 in Appendix 1 of my

evidence-in-chief. It is not highly unusual for a slip fielder, who has a 15

poor line of sight background to completely the lose sight of a ball edge

by a batsman. Because slip fielders are behind the wicket, they are

attempting to catch a ball which is moving at the same pace, or

sometimes at a faster pace, as a ball faced by a batsman.

20

Slip and gully fielders and potentially the wicket keeper for a left-hand

batsman facing from the southern end would, due to their angle to the

wicket, have the Basin Bridge squarely in their field of vision.

Safety considerations. At around 22.5 centimetres in circumference, a 25

cricket ball is very small. The distance between the batsman and the

bowler at the point of delivery is typically less than 18 metres, the ball

delivered by fast bowlers travels at somewhere between 130 kilometres

and 160 kilometres an hour. Such is the minimal reaction time available

that the batsman must be able to sight the ball as quickly as possible. 30

[10.25 am]

Cricket balls are very hard. Impact on the human body of a fast

moving cricket ball can cause serious injuries or even death. 35

Ewen Chatfield, a former New Zealand test match player, was nearly

killed by being struck by the ball in the temple in a test match in 1974.

On 28 October 2013 a South African club cricketer was killed after

being struck in the head by a cricket ball. Therefore the issue of 40

preventing batsman distraction is not just a matter of the batsman

having the opportunity to succeed for his or her team, it is also very

much a matter of safety. These safety concerns are the very reason

umpires regularly suspend play because of bad light.

45


The players’ voice. Potentially more damaging than any officials’

reaction to the Basin Bridge could be international first class players’

objections to playing at the Basin as a result of the effects of the

proposal. The influence for first and international class cricketers is

profound in modern international and first class cricket. Over the last 5

decade or so players worldwide involved in international and first class

cricket found their collective voice in matters relating to the

management of the game.

As the game has moved into professionalism, and the livelihood of its 10

participants depend on their on-field performance, players began to

demand much better venue facilities. One issue players have been

united on is a significant improvement needed to ensure minimal

distraction behind the bowlers arm. Players at international and first

class levels know how vital it is that a facing batsman be able to 15

concentrate on early sighting of the ball without having to contend with

any other distractions in the distance behind the bowler’s arms or

within the batsman’s wider eye trajectory.

As a result the size of sight screens has steadily increased over time and 20

at international and many first class matches the venue managers

engage workers to rope off as much a wider area behind the bowler’s

end to prevent spectator movement.

While I was CEO of New Zealand Cricket (2001-2007) there were 25

many instances every international season where players or umpires

would stop play and refuse to resume until line of sight problems or

perceived problems were rectified. As a result playing facility

standards have risen dramatically right across the cricket world. If

things aren’t right quite often the views of the players hold sway. In 30

my view, and like the movement of members of the crowd, insufficient

mitigation of the Basin Bridge is also an issue that could not quickly or

easily be fixed. Once the reputation of a venue is damaged it is very

difficult to repair. Should international or first class players voice their

concern about playing at the Basin Reserve it could quickly become 35

untenable for New Zealand Cricket and/or Cricket Wellington to

continue to host matches there.

Spectator experience. If insufficiently mitigated the traffic passing on

the Basin Bridge would be able to be viewed from a large area of the 40

spectator seating within the ground. I am not aware of any

international cricket ground where a spectator at ground level will have

a view of moving traffic as a backdrop to the action occurring in the

ground.

45


This view of traffic from within the ground will potentially have the

following effects. The Basin Reserve is a unique sports boutique sports

ground. New Zealand Cricket and Cricket Wellington attract spectators

to the Basin Reserve in large part because of the peaceful and relaxed

atmosphere created by having an enclosed green space within the heart 5

of the city. The creation of this relaxing atmosphere is a necessary

requirement for a game that can last up to eight hours in a day for five

days. This is partly why New Zealand Cricket has moved towards

producing boutique test match venues in recent years.

10

Having a view of traffic as a backdrop would negatively impact the

spectator experience and general atmosphere of the Basin Reserve. It

will significantly reduce the attractiveness for spectators and therefore

the attractiveness of hosting test match cricket there. In a time where

many sporting codes are struggling to attract sufficient crowds this 15

could have a severely detrimental impact on visitor numbers and on the

finances of Wellington Cricket, the Basin Reserve Trust and

New Zealand Cricket as a major user of the ground.

Ultimately the Basin Reserve owes its continued existence as a 20

functioning cricket ground to its ability to attract spectators. Any

design of the Northern Gateway Building that fails to fully mitigate the

Basin Reserve puts this at risk. In my view it is likely that an extensive

view of traffic travelling on the Basin Bridge would impact spectator

numbers which could impact on the ongoing viability of the Basin 25

Reserve as a test match ground, especially when other grounds are

vying to catch up to catch a greater share of test match allocation.

[10.30 am]

30

Recent years have seen the emergence of excellent test match venues in

Hamilton, Seddon Park, and Dunedin, University Oval. Soon

Christchurch, Hagley rather than Hadley Park, will joint this group of

contenders for allocation of the four to six test matches played in

New Zealand each summer. 35

The continued status of the Basin Reserve as New Zealand’s premier

test ground, or indeed a test ground at all, depends on the Basin

Reserve continuing to meet the demands of the modern game.

40

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Snedden.

MS ANDREWS: Mr Clinton, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Clinton. 45


MR CLINTON: Good morning. My name is Peter Anthony Clinton, I am

providing evidence on behalf of the Basin Reserve Trust and Cricket

Wellington Incorporated. This document is a concise summary of my

evidence for the Basin Bridge proposal. My qualifications and

experience are set out in my evidence-in-chief dated 13 December 5

2013. My summary addresses the following matters. Current usage of

the Basin Reserve and potential impact of the proposal on the Basin

Reserve.

Use of the Basin Reserve. The Basin Reserve is primarily used for the 10

sport of cricket. It is recognised as New Zealand’s premier test match

cricket venue and is internationally recognised as being within the

top 10 test cricket venues in the world.

The cricket season runs approximately from the last week of October at 15

the beginning of summer until the first week of April at the end of

summer. During the cricket season the Basin Reserve is a very busy

cricket ground. During each cricket season there are either one or two

five day international test matches played. The International Cricket

Council requires that a test ground be vacant for test match 20

preparations for 12 days before the start of a match and for 24 hours

after the match. International test matches therefore may occupy the

Basin Reserve for up to 10 days during the year.

The international test match calendar is only notified from four to six 25

months in advance of the commencement of an international test

match. This is how much notice the Basin Reserve will have as to the

exact dates when the ground will be needed to be cleared for an

international test match.

30

In addition to international test matches the Basin Reserve usually hosts

five four day matches in the New Zealand first class four day cricket

competition. As well as the longer form of the game during the cricket

season the Basin Reserve usually hosts between three and six

provincial Twenty20 games, between four and six one day limited 35

overs first class cricket games and up to 10 college and club one day

limited overs fixtures. The Basin Reserve has in the past hosted one

day international cricket matches and may again be required to do so in

the future.

40

In summary, during a typical cricket season lasting up to 24 weeks

cricket will occupy the Basin Reserve for between 30 and as many as

45 days. In addition to the cricket schedule, if possible, the Basin

Reserve is also utilised during the summer months for other events and

activities. 45


The Basin Reserve is also used, primarily outside of the cricket season,

for other sporting events such as up to nine club rugby games per year,

Wellington Phoenix training sessions and AFL fan day events.

Recently the Basin Reserve has hosted a number of concerts and other

events such as the Summerset Music Festival, the Wellington 5

Symphony Orchestra, Balloons at the Basin, hot air balloon festival,

Carols by Candlelight and remembrance events such as the Vietnam

War commemorations.

The effects of the proposed Basin Bridge. The Basin Bridge will 10

impact the Basin Reserve in the following ways: Visual distraction for

sports persons, loss of spectator enjoyment, potential loss of ICC

accreditation and impact on its unique character and ambience.

At present no traffic can be viewed from the playing surface or 15

spectator viewing areas at ground level at the Basin Reserve. If the

Basin Bridge is constructed without sufficient mitigation then players

will be significantly and adversely affected. The impacts would be

particularly pronounced for cricket players who are traditionally used

to playing in sports arenas where there is little or no view of moving 20

traffic.

[10.35 am]

I am not aware of any highly rates international cricket ground 25

worldwide where traffic can be viewed from within the playing surface

including in the field of vision of the batsmen.

This is a distraction for batsmen and fielders and is inconsistent with

international cricket rules. Depending on the level of distraction, this 30

may impact on the test match status of the Basin Reserve.

In my view, anything less than a stand providing complete visual

mitigation between the current players pavilion through to the

commencement of the concrete toilet block on its eastern end, would be 35

insufficient to fully block the view from the playing field of traffic on

the Basin Bridge. The proposed stand just be of a height sufficient to

block the view of the Basin Bridge from ground level.

The Basin Reserve is a unique and boutique sports ground. Cricket 40

Wellington attracts spectators to the Basin Reserve, in large part,

because of the peaceful and relaxed atmosphere created by having an

enclosed green space within the heart of the city.


This atmosphere is a necessary requirement for convincing spectators

to come to the ground to watch a game of cricket that can last for up to

eight hours during a day.

Having a view of traffic which will be backdrop to the sports for some 5

spectators on the southern end of the ground, will negatively impact

spectator experience. In a time when many sporting codes are

struggling to attract sufficient crowds, this could have a significant

impact on visitor numbers and on the finances of Wellington Cricket,

the BRT and New Zealand Cricket as a major user of the ground. 10

The Basin Reserve markets itself as a boutique sports ground where

spectators come as much for the relaxed atmosphere and to watch a day

of cricket. This atmosphere is integral to the proper operation and

success of the Basin Reserve as a venue 15

Impact on character and ambience. In addition to sport spectators, the

enclosed nature of the Basin Reserve has a significant advantage when

it comes to attracting top level concerts and other events.

20

A view of the traffic from ground level anywhere within the ground

would have a significantly negative impact on the ability to market the

Basin Reserve as an events venue, and therefore the ongoing financial

viability of the ground.

25

Outside of the cricket season, it is the Basin Reserve’s unique character

as a small and relaxed venue that separates it from other potential

venues. Should a busy road become visible from ground level within

the Basin Reserve, either through the view shafts or on the raised

bridge, this would significantly detract from the ambience of the 30

ground.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Clinton. Thank you, gentlemen, we

will now move on to the next phase which will be the question time and

as I said before, we are going to do it on a topic by topic basis to try 35

and give some structure to it, and counsel and the parties who wish to

ask questions, will follow each of those topics and each party will be

given an opportunity of asking questions.

So the first topic is the council, the Trust and the relationship with the 40

applicant. And these topics have been identified by the parties by

consent and a memorandum has been filed, so the parties have had an

input into it so the first person who is going to ask questions on this

topic is Mr Jones.

45


MR JONES: Thank you, sir. First of all, I have a document to produce in

connection with this section. This is from the – and this has been

supplied electronically to the Board, it is the Basin Reserve Trust

2011/2012 report from the Cricket Wellington Annual Report 2011/12.

Initially this is for Mr Neely. Could I ask a point of clarification, sir, if 5

I have a number of questions about the same topic for the same witness,

should I pause after each one to see whether other witnesses wish to

answer after each question?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, after each question. 10

MR JONES: Right, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well after the answer to each question.

15

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONES [10.40 am]

MR JONES: So initially these questions are for you, Mr Neely and they relate

to the role of the Basin Reserve Trust as set out in clause 1.5 on page

three of your evidence-in-chief. I might have to flick between a couple 20

of documents here, can we call up at this point Mr Neely’s evidence-in-

chief 1.5, page three then we will come back to that?

Now these are the objects of the Basin Reserve Trust as set out in its

Trust Deed is that correct? 25

MR NEELY: Yes.

MR JONES: Now, I will just go through them because I think they are fairly

significant so 1A is to manage, administer, plan, develop, maintain, 30

promote and operate the Basin Reserve for recreational activities of the

playing of cricket for the benefits of the inhabitants of Wellington.

B, to establish a long term policy for the further development of the

Basin Reserve as a recreational facility and as a facility for the playing 35

of cricket and other sports.

C, to enter into management agreements and other contracts that are

necessary or desirable to achieve the objects of the trust.

40

D, to promote and coordinate the raising of funds to assist the

management, administration, maintenance planning, promotion and

further development of the Basin Reserve.

45


E, generally to do all acts, matters and things that the Trustees consider

necessary or conducive to further or retain the objects of the Trust set

out above for the benefit of the public of Wellington. Now if we could

pull up again that page from the Cricket Wellington Report that I

produced? 5

Now the second paragraph there, sorry not the second paragraph, it is

the first paragraph at the top right there bearing in mind this comes

from a 2011/12 document. The New Zealand Transport Authority

confirmed that the proposed flyover to the North of the ground would 10

proceed. The Trust had previously supported the flyover in the interest

of improved roading efficiency, now my question, Mr Neely, is where

in the objects of the Basin Reserve Trust is any reference to improved

roading efficiency?

15

MR NEELY: There is none.

MR JONES: May I ask in that case on what basis given its objects did the

Trust decide to support the proposed flyover?

20

MR NEELY: You have got to remember that this report that was in the

Wellington Annual Report 2011/12 I think that was the first time the

Basin Reserve had learnt anything about roading going around the

Basin Reserve and I think it would be fair to say that the four people

who are on the Basin Reserve Trust at that time were all of the opinion 25

they had never seen a nice attractive flyover.

They did not want to have a flyover jammed up hard against the

northern side of the Basin Reserve and so we were just thinking in

terms of what would a flyover like etcetera. That ended up being 30

flipped into that report which was for the members of Cricket

Wellington.

[10.45 am]

35

MR JONES: Are you saying that the statement that the Trust had previously

supported the flyover in the interests of improved roading efficiency, is

that statement correct or incorrect, is it in some partially correct but

doesn’t fully capture the discussions at that time?

40

MR NEELY: No, I don’t think it fully captures the discussions at that time

and I think I said in my summary of evidence that my friends in that

have always – part of the Basin Reserve has always been change

affecting the ground and we are not experts on roading, we know

nothing about roading, but we had been told it’s coming out the back of 45


you here and it’s going over the top there, and that’s as much as we

knew about it at that stage. 2011, 2012.

MR JONES: So was 2011/12 was that – this report implies obviously that the

Trust had previously discussed the proposed flyover. When did the 5

first discussion of the proposed flyover occur within the Trust?

MR NEELY: I have no idea.

MR JONES: And was any – within the Trust was it ever discussed that the 10

Trust might oppose the proposed flyover on the grounds of its impacts

on the Basin Reserve – the potential impacts as have been raised by a

number of the witnesses here?

MR NEELY: I think it would be fair to say, again going back to the Trust’s 15

opinion that they didn’t – nobody like the flyover, but they were all of

the opinion that if there was to be flyover there had to be a pavilion to

screen out all traffic that would be 23 feet above the northern part of

the Basin which stretches for 65 metres.

20

MR JONES: Presumably the Trust was aware of or was advised that there

would be some form of Resource Management Act consent needed for

such a flyover and therefore that there would be hearing or a Court case

so the opportunity existed for the Trust to decide to oppose the flyover

rather than support it in support. Even it wasn’t discussed earlier that 25

question must have arisen in the context of what attitude the Trust was

going to take at this hearing?

MR NEELY: I think it would be fair to say that we were only in early early

discussion with New Zealand Transport Authority. They came to us. 30

They initially went to the Board of Cricket Wellington and then were

directed to the Basin Reserve Trust for the various reasons that are laid

out in that trust deed. And no, I don’t think at that stage there was any

thoughts of this will proceed.

35

After all as a Wellingtonian how many various roading structures have

been run by newspapers and all things like that saying they’re going to

do this at the Basin? It’s been under attack by developers. It’s got a

history going back into the 1800s of people wanting to grab this land

and do something else on it. And so we were looking at all times to 40

improve the Basin Reserve which I think we can layout things that we

have done here which have made it ranked into the top 10 in the world.

MR JONES: So in that case, I will come shortly to the memorandum of

understanding and the agreement, is the Trust – the Trust has taken a 45

position of supporting in part the applicant’s proposal. Did you take


that decision because it gave the Trust the opportunity to have the

government pay for the construction of a new building at the Basin

Reserve?

MR NEELY: I don’t think so. I think it was just a matter of common-sense. 5

If you look at that beam that’s going across the room there and I’m

sitting in the southern half of the Basin Reserve that’s the view when I

look at Mr Cameron sitting there and he’s a batsman that’s blocking my

view all the time, something floating above my eye line. And so, no,

we were not in favour of that. And so therefore to obliterate that a 10

pavilion 65 metres in length which was agreed to by the City Council

and by the New Zealand Transport Authority.

MR JONES: Well this is probably a good time to turn to the memorandum of

understanding itself and that is in annexure 2 to Mr Blackmore’s 15

rebuttal evidence. That’s the document containing the memorandum of

understanding and the agreement. That’s the one.

[10.50 am]

20

Now this memorandum of understanding was signed – sorry I just

realise I’ve carried on without giving you the opportunity for the other

witnesses to respond. My apologies.

CHAIRPERSON: Does anyone wish to add anything to what Mr Neely has 25

said? No. Thank you.

MR JONES: So this memorandum of understanding was signed between the

New Zealand Transport Agency, the Wellington City Council and the

Basin Reserve Trust on 28 March 2013 and is it correct Mr Neely that 30

you and former councillor John Morrison signed this memorandum of

understanding on behalf of the Basin Reserve Trust?

MR NEELY: Yes, that’s correct. I came in at the last moment because Doug

Catley who was at that stage the chairman of Basin Reserve Trust was 35

suddenly ill and so I was told be there. There’d been a lot of meetings

from the 15th of March through to Easter of getting the various people,

Geoff Swainson in the City Council. There’s been a lot of meetings to

and fro with the New Zealand Transport Authority and I think it was at

that time that the Wellington City Council agreed to the pavilion and 40

they all agreed on 65 metres.

The other people who were in attendance at that – and so I came in in

place of Catley. The other people there were Rod Duke from New

Zealand Transport Authority, Garry Poole who was in his last week of 45

being the CEO of Wellington City Council and Geoff Swainson.


MR JONES: Can I just check, Sir John - - -

MR NEELY: Sorry, and Garry Poole was there.

5

MR JONES: Thank you. Sir John, were you involved at all in this stage of

the negotiations?

SIR ANDERSON: No I was not.

10

MR JONES: Thank you. Okay I’d like to – before we get into the

memorandum itself – understand the process. So you’re saying that the

intensive discussion on what would be in the memorandum took place

over a period between the 15 and the 28th of March 2013?

15

MR NEELY: That was the time when there was a lot of meetings going on,

yes. I think I recorded six meetings at that time.

MR JONES: I was expecting perhaps that there would have been a longer

period over which these discussions took place. 20

MR NEELY: No, in fairness there had been meetings going on during the

year but this was an intensification of those meetings. To bring it to the

memorandum of understanding.

25

MR JONES: So what led from the Basin Reserve Trust – from your

experience and opinion – what led to the development specifically of

what was put – of the 65 metre Northern Gateway Building option.

MR NEELY: I thought I’d answered that. 30

MR JONES: Let me phrase that another way. What discussion of options

other than the 65 metre Northern Gateway Building option were held

by the Basin Reserve Trust?

35

MR NEELY: I can’t recall.

MR JONES: Okay, let’s turn to the memorandum of understanding itself.

There’s two clauses in particular I want to refer to. They’re on page 3.

Clauses 3.3 and 3.6. 3.3 says, “the Wellington City Council and Basin 40

Reserve Trust will provide the necessary expert evidence to support the

65 metre structure during the national consenting process”. 3.6 “All

parties agree that they’ll support the proposed 65 metre structure should

the consenting authority seek their views additional to any expert

evidence”. 45


What I want to raise here is the question of whether or not that

memorandum of understanding contradicts your role as an expert

witness at this hearing. The code of conduct – as you’ve said yourself

in your evidence, 1.16, page 5 – you’ve read the code of conduct for

expert witnesses in the Environment Court practice note and you agree 5

to comply by this code. Now the code of conduct stresses the need for

expert witnesses to be independent as per clause 5.2 which states that

expert witnesses must assist the Court impartially on matters within

their expertise and must not behave as an advocate for the party that

engaged them. 10

[10.55 am]

Yet the MRU which you signed commits Wellington City Council and

the Basin Reserve Trust expert witnesses, to support the construction of 15

a 65 metre structure, the construction of which you do indeed support

in your evidence.

So I want to ask a few questions about that, and I would also like to ask

these questions also apply to Sir John, so I will ask Mr Neely first and 20

then Sir John.

Who asked you to be an expert witness at this Board of Inquiry?

MR NEELY: The Basin Reserve Trust. 25

MR JONES: So the Trust made a decision about which of its members would

appear as expert witnesses?

MR NEELY: Yes. 30

MR JONES: And when was this request made, it doesn’t have to be an exact

date?

MR NEELY: No, well it can’t be, I can’t recall. 35

MR JONES: Were there any discussions held prior to your being put forward

as an expert witness on the content of your evidence?

MR NEELY: Could you repeat that please? 40

MR JONES: Were there any discussions held by the Basin Reserve Trust, ie,

formally as a body or in informal meetings with its members, regarding

the content of the evidence that you as an expert witness should put

forward? 45


MR NEELY: I think there was general discussion at various meetings with

people who came to our meetings and particularly from the NZTA and

the workings we had with them but it just arose.

MR JONES: And when did you begin to compile your evidence? 5

MR NEELY: I suppose the first book I wrote was in about 1975, so it is all

part of a gradual progression through from there.

MR JONES: Sorry, I will rephrase the question. When did you begin to 10

compile the actual evidence, the evidence-in-chief, that you presented

to this hearing?

MR NEELY: I suppose November of last year.

15

MR JONES: You have mentioned that you came into the process of signing

the Memorandum of Understanding very late, that you replaced Mr

Doug Catley, were you fully familiar with the contents of the

Memorandum of Understanding, when you signed it?

20

MR NEELY: I think so.

MR JONES: When you were compiling your evidence, were you aware of the

requirements of the code of conduct for expert witnesses when

compiling your evidence? 25

MR NEELY: Can’t recall.

MR JONES: Well did you receive any advice, let’s say, any legal advice,

regarding what – regarding the stand which your evidence should take? 30

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think really, we are really interested in that. These

gentlemen have a dual role, they have a role as trustees but they also

are gentlemen who have had a lifetime knowledge of the sport of

cricket. Giving evidence on the effects on cricketers and spectators and 35

the matters relating to the ground for ICC purposes are all within their

areas of expertise. Because of their expertise they are also members of

the Trust and they shouldn’t be questioned because the Trust of which

they are a member and which they may have supported, had made a

decision on a matter. 40

I can’t see how there is a conflict because they have within their areas

of expertise, on a Trust, have made a practical decision to do something

rather than perhaps spend lots of money trying to oppose it so let’s be

careful here. 45


MR JONES: Okay, sir, I am happy to move on from that.

CHAIRPERSON: What we are really interested in is the need for a 65 metre

building and whether there are possibly other areas of this project

which could have an effect on the cricket or on the Reserve, I should 5

say, it is not just the cricket, it is the wider aspect for which the Reserve

is being used, they are the sort of matters we are interested in, and

whether mitigation can assist in that.

[11.00 am] 10

MR JONES: I am certainly happy, sir to move on to that. I just have one

remaining point of clarification in that case regarding Sir Anderson’s

evidence, if I may.

15

Sir Anderson, I just want, and this is purely a matter of fact, in your

evidence in 1.5 in your evidence-in-chief, perhaps I can just read it out

because it is a relatively small point.

So Sir John, in 1.5 in your evidence-in-chief, it says, “I am currently 20

one of two Wellington City Council appointees to the Basin Reserve

Trust, a position that I have held since January 2013.”

And in 1.20, it notes it says, “I did not become a trustee until January

2012.” I just wanted to clarify whether became a trustee in January 25

2012 and then became a Wellington City Council appointee in January

2013, or whether in fact, one of those facts is mistaken?

SIR ANDERSON: One of those dates is definitely a mistake and it will be the

2013 date. 30

MR JONES: So it is in fact 2012?

SIR ANDERSON: Yes – actually I need – either one of those dates could be

incorrect actually - - - 35

MR CLINTON: Excuse me, sir, I believe the date is 1 January 2012 for Sir

John’s appointment.

MR JONES: I am very happy to accept that. And I just have a couple of – 40

now, you are one of the – in the document we were looking at earlier,

the annexure 2 to Mr Blackmore’s evidence, you are one of the

signatories to that agreement which in your evidence, you have given

the date of 18 November 2013, is that correct?

45

SIR ANDERSON: Yes.


MR JONES: Yes. The agreement divides the cost or proposes to divide the

cost of building the proposed Northern Gateway Building between

NZTA which would pay the build cost and the Basin Reserve Trust

which would pay the fit-out cost. What is the currently expected fit-out 5

cost?

SIR ANDERSON: The actual agreement says, ‘will arrange the securing of

funding of fit-out cost’, it doesn’t say it will pay - - -

10

MR JONES: That is a fair point.

SIR ANDERSON: To clarify that, the ground and the buildings in the Basin

Reserve are owned by the Wellington City Council. As such, and they

are party to that deed, they are not underwriting the situation, but 15

effectively how much that fit-out will be and how much it costs and

who will fund it, will still have to be determined between the Basin

Reserve Trust and the council.

MR JONES: So there is no current budget or estimate for those fit-out costs. 20

Is that correct?

SIR ANDERSON: There is no formal current budget or estimate, there has

been informal amounts given but they have ranged from modest

figures, if I can say it that way, to larger figures but it was determined 25

that until we actually get the building up and what actually needs to be

involved inside, that that would come in due time. We did not want to

formalise that, rather we wanted to formalise the agreement between

the council and us with the NZTA.

30

MR JONES: Is it possible to give an indication of what, let us say, the upper

range of those figures is, I realise you can’t give a precise figure?

[11.05 am]

35

SIR ANDERSON: No, because they are not accurate. If for example, if I

wanted – if you take the second floor of that building, that is for

community use. Now, when we get, if this building goes ahead, down

to that stage it may be, in consultation between the Trust and the

Council, that that could be used for something different. For example, 40

in one of the discussions we had there was a thing about could the

university hold various lectures there, could that be an outsource

situation? It is definitely not a grandstand, it’s there for the

community. It would be able to be used at times when cricket matches

are on because you get supporters. Where the ground, the first ground 45


floor really came back to what is the use of that and a number of

options there.

So it is sensible, we felt, that we do these things in stages. So, firstly, if

mitigation is obtained by a 65 metre building, and that goes through the 5

proper processes, then we can sit down with Council and sport, Cricket

Wellington particularly who manage the ground on behalf of the Trust,

the Trust itself, to work out which they want to take forward and how

much that is going to cost.

10

MR JONES: Thank you, I just have one final question in this section, which

either Mr Neely or Sir John could answer. Subsequent to the

agreement, which is dated 18 November 2013, have any further

arrangements or agreements been reached between the Wellington City

Council, Basin Reserve Trust and NZTA or the Basin Reserve Trust 15

and any other party regarding the proposed mitigation?

SIR ANDERSON: Not to my knowledge.

MR JONES: And that is also the case for you, Mr Neely? 20

MR NEELY: The same.

MR JONES: Thank you, that is all my questions.

25

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Jones. Now, Ms Jones, you are going

to ask some questions?

MS JONES: No.

30

CHAIRPERSON: You are not?

MS JONES: No, I notified the Board via the EPA that I would be conferencing

with Mr Jones and in terms of the smooth flow of the process that I

would be passing questions to Mr Jones and most of that has happened 35

already.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS JONES: So that for the majority of the time I will not be speaking to this. 40

I am also still suffering from the fact that the machinery of working on

the Memorial Park has been going all night and I have been having to

sleep with air plugs so I am not very clear at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Anderson? 45


MS ANDREWS: Thank you, sir, I have no particular questions on that topic

by way of re-examination, is that what you are asking?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. Ms Wedde?

5

MS WEDDE: No, we have no questions on that topic either.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. So that’s that topic completed. Mr Jones,

I just want to make it quite clear that parties are entitled to enter into

side agreements and we have no jurisdiction over that as a Board. We 10

only have jurisdiction in relation to the Resource Management Act,

which is the effects of the proposal on the ground, so I just thought I

would make that clear.

MS JONES: Thank you, sir. 15

CHAIRPERSON: And the other thing is, of course, before that we have to

differentiate between these gentlemen’s role as trustees and their role as

experts, they are separate.

20

MS JONES: I appreciate the clarification there, sir, and I know that the issue

has arisen already in this hearing of whether some witnesses may also

have a role as advocates - - -

CHAIRPERSON: I know that has been raised. Yes, I know and I also know 25

that some of the submissions have raised these issues but they are not

issues that we, as a Board, can address.

MS JONES: Thank you, sir.

30

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will take the morning tea adjournment now before

we move on to the next topic, thank you.

MR CAMERON: I think to assist all parties I would have no objection to

these gentlemen speaking with each other or anybody else. 35

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don’t think we – has anyone got any problem with

that? No, we have a cross-examination rule which is when you are on

cross-examination you are not allowed to discuss the case with other

people involved in it so we will just ask you not to discuss the case but 40

we are not going to stop you from speaking to each other. What was

that Mr Clinton?

MR CAMERON: Apart from Sir John Anderson and Mr Snedden, they appear

to be enjoying each other’s company. 45


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, good.

ADJOURNED [11.10 am]

RESUMED [11.31 am] 5

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you everybody. Now we come onto the second

topic, which is, “Visual and Auditory Distraction and other Effects on

Cricket, including Effects on all Players, Match Officials and

Spectators”. And, Ms Anderson, you are going to start the batting on 10

this.

MS ANDERSON: Thank you, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 15

MS ANDERSON: All of my questions really relate to Dr Sanderson for this

part and a bit like Mr Jones, I’ve done them in probably a little series,

and if you’re happy with that I’ll then pause because it’s all one issue

within the topic. If that’s okay? 20


<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS ANDERSON [11.32 am]

25

MS ANDERSON: Dr Sanderson, turning to your analysis that you did on

visual distraction, putting it briefly your view is the 45 metre building

plus some screening on the western end would be sufficient to

eliminate batter distraction. Is that a fair summary?

30

DR SANDERSON: That’s a fair summary, yes.

MS ANDERSON: And you focus on this, I think what you call the “central

field of view” but not the periphery view, is that right?

35

DR SANDERSON: That’s true, yes.

MS ANDERSON: However in your original report and your evidence you do

recognise that it’s possible for some movements outside that central

field to cause distraction? 40

DR SANDERSON: That’s correct.

MS ANDERSON: And the examples that you gave (and I’m looking at your

original visual distraction analysis) were, “emergency vehicles, 45

vehicles of vivid colours, those equipped with flashing lights, may


cause a visual distraction beyond the proposed area to be screened”.

Was that your original evidence?

DR SANDERSON: It was, yes. Words to that effect, yes.

5

MS ANDERSON: And in your evidence-in-chief you seemed to retract that a

little bit and say there won’t be really any emergency vehicles on the

bridge - well, you say you understand that. Whose evidence are you

relying on for that?

10

DR SANDERSON: That came from the Land Transport Authority, that the

direction of the emergency vehicles was not likely to be the direction

that is currently envisaged by the flyover. I regard that as local

knowledge and I wasn’t aware of it when I wrote that originally.

15

MS ANDERSON: I just wondered whether you were relying on a specific

expert for that comment?

DR SANDERSON: Well I can quote Greg Lee as the source of that

information. 20

MS ANDERSON: Are you aware that the Free Ambulance headquarters in

Wellington are in the suburb of Thorndon?

DR SANDERSON: I wasn’t aware of that and until you’ve just pointed it out 25

to me I wasn’t aware of that, no.

MS ANDERSON: I take though, just as a matter of logic, you would accept

that aside from what emergency vehicles may or may not use the bridge

there will be trucks that use the bridge? 30

DR SANDERSON: Indeed, yes.

MS ANDERSON: And there will be large vehicles such as busses that will

use the bridge? 35

DR SANDERSON: Correct.

MS ANDERSON: And I take it that you would accept those vehicles are

obviously large, could have vivid colours, the sorts of things you 40

originally talked about that might cause distraction outside the 45 metre

building?

DR SANDERSON: Quite right, yes.

45


MS ANDERSON: That’s probably a suitable point to pause, sir, if anyone

else would like to comment on that particular issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Does anyone wish to add anything to what the

Professor has said at this stage, or contradict what he says? 5

[11.35 am]

MS ANDERSON: Now turning to your mapping of the 40 degrees, and there

is a picture which might be useful to bring up on the screen attached to 10

Appendix 3H of Technical Report 3, and it’s Appendix 4 within that

appendix which is page 41, 42. If we could turn, Mr Cooper, to page

41.

Now I take it, Dr Sanderson, this is your mapping of the 40 degree 15

horizontal view?

DR SANDERSON: This was provided by the people who made the image.

They, at my request, put the 40 degree box on there.

20

MS ANDERSON: It’s a reflection of your 40 degrees that you are referring

to?

DR SANDERSON: It is, yes. Correct, yes.

25

MS ANDERSON: And in terms of your starting point for that 40 degree box

was that a middle stump to middle stump line that you were drawing

there to create that box?

DR SANDERSON: Well not in that image, no. I mean, it’s a 40 degree view 30

but to middle stump would vary depending on which pitch they were

using.

MS ANDERSON: So where are you lining up the batsmen line of sight, just

maybe in lay person’s perspectives? If you’re doing 20 degrees either 35

side of wherever the batsman is facing what point are you using to set

that 40 degrees?

DR SANDERSON: I’m not clear what you’re asking. Are you saying where

was it centred? 40

MS ANDERSON: Yes.

DR SANDERSON: Well that particular image is centred to the right of the

stumps. 45


MS ANDERSON: So what is the significance of that red circle?

DR SANDERSON: Well that’s indicating the five degrees in the centre, that’s

the central five degrees of the individual’s vision.

5

MS ANDERSON: So if you were the batsman standing at this end are you

basically looking at that red circle just to get a feel for what your - - -

DR SANDERSON: If that was the position of the bowler’s hand - and there

seems to be a dark area right in the centre there which I’m not quite 10

sure what it represents – if that was the position of the bowler’s hand at

the moment of point of delivery that would be what the batsman would

be looking at.

MS ANDERSON: Sorry, I’m not sure which dark patch you’re referring – 15

maybe if I put this another way.

DR SANDERSON: Yes?

MS ANDERSON: If you had a left handed bowler - - - 20

DR SANDERSON: Yes?

MS ANDERSON: - - - coming from the far end, around the wickets, are you

happy that that 40 degrees would stay where it is shown on that picture 25

or would it move further to the right?

DR SANDERSON: I think if it were a left handed bowler bowling around the

wicket that would be a fairly true representation of where the hand of

the bowler would be. I mean that wasn’t done for that reason but I 30

think that’s not a bad representation of it. And I notice there’s some

nods to my right which would suggest that the cricketers involved

agree.

MS ANDERSON: Maybe if we pause there for any further comment, sir? 35

Anyone wish to comment on that?

MR SNEDDEN: Dr Sanderson, is that based on the bare pitch that is in that

picture? 40

DR SANDERSON: Well that’s what I’m assuming of course.

MR SNEDDEN: Yes.

45

DR SANDERSON: I mean the pitches, I’m sure, move.


MR SNEDDEN: They do. A pitch is used for one game. If it’s a one day

game occasionally it’s used for two games in a row but what happens is

that the games keep being shifted across the block so that you are

getting a fresh pitch, and what the groundsman tries to do then is 5

resurrect the pitch that’s been used for use. It usually takes about two

or three months to resurrect it.

But what you can see in that picture next to the bare brown pitch (which

is a used pitch immediately to its right as we’re looking at it) – that’s 10

another pitch so that would be used for another match. So again, the

positioning of where the bowler is releasing the ball from would shift

across to line up with whatever that pitch is.

[11.40 am] 15

So it sort of keeps the arc that a batsman, and I said this when I talked

about the ‘V’ that a batsman is looking in, the arc changes in the ground

itself depending on which of the pitches you are actually playing on.

20

CHAIRPERSON: And does that representation reflect what you said in your

evidence about a right hand batsman looking slightly towards the off

side?

MR SNEDDEN: Right, so we’re moving into that area – can I just stand up 25

and demonstrate something?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR SNEDDEN: And I am told that the microphone has to pick up this, but I 30

will speak loudly. If we imagine that the black table is the pitch and

that the bowler is bowling from up there, the batsman, if you like, is not

standing direct on, in other words, it is not a doubled py vision, a left

handed batsman stands that way, and a right handed batsman stands

that way, so what comes into the vision of the batsman who is facing 35

this way, is actually it opens up quite a bit further.

I don’t disagree with some of what Dr Sanderson says by the way, that

some of it is within your central vision, in other words, the thing you

are really concentrating as best you can on the tiny little hard thing that 40

hurts when it hits you, but because of the way you are facing, I guess it

moves from being central to a little bit less than central to gradually

more and more peripheral, but the fact is when you are a right handed

batsman, there is a fair vista that is captured in your line of vision out –

some batsman, and this is why they become really good – is they are 45

really good at zoning in on that little red ball.


Other batsmen which categorised me, not so good at that, and so you

are captured by a little bit more, your skill is not as high and you don’t

cancel as much out but yeah, sure, but if you are there and there is

activity happening, it can cause significant irritation and hence, when I 5

talked about the protocols of the game where the fielders are under

strict behavioural rules not to move other than – a fielder at mid- off or

extra cover which are the two fielding positions that probably fall in

this area, they are allowed to move in but they move in on a straight

line and they do so without deviation and it is a slow move in. 10

Whereas they are not entitled to move in waving their arms around and

causing all sorts of things because it is generally understood to do that,

is to upset the concentration of the batsman. So that is a protocol that

the players adhere to, go beyond the boundary line, it is a protocol that 15

people who understand cricket understand the importance of staying

still, and those that don’t, there is usually the ground has put in place

people that are there to monitor that sort of thing, and it is not unusual

at all in any game of cricket for batsmen who are getting distracted or

irritated as a bowler is running in, to actually pull away from this and in 20

fact, if you watched the recent Ashes series in Australia, the tensions

between the teams really got high because of this very thing, is that

what was happening is that the English batsmen were pulling away

quite a bit and not long before the bowlers were releasing the balls so

the bowlers were pretty committed to bowling and it was causing them 25

an intense amount of tension between the teams

And it all comes down to the fact that a batsman is entitled to have the

best background he can possibly have to try and survive.

30

Are we moving on to the fielders, because while I am standing here, so

that is a right handed batsman, and a left handed batsman, you change

that over and it is nowhere near the same problem for a left handed

batsman.

35

[11.45 am]

However, that brings into play is the people who are fielding behind the

batsman, and there is a photo that is attached to my statement of

evidence, which was from us batting against the West Indies who 40

tended to be the hardest guys to face because they had the fastest

bowlers and they had generally loaded slip fielders, but it is pretty

common in test cricket, particularly when the ball is new, to have an

array of fielder behind the wickets and they have got the same problem

that the batsmen have got, in that they need to be able to sight the ball 45

and yes, they are standing a bit further back but if the ball hits the edge


of the bat, it flies and I don’t know scientifically whether it gets faster,

but it flies, and so slip fielders – this is still the pitch and the batsman is

batting there and I am a slip fielder and I am fielding back here, I don’t

have the benefit of the sides screen behind me, I am looking –

depending on where you are, going from first slip around to what is 5

called gully which is 45 degrees around, I don’t have the benefit of that

background, so that causes problems in itself.

But again, cricket culture and crowd understanding generally, is that it

is not too bad. But there are plenty of times when you see fielders 10

completely lose track of the ball in that situation but you know, if you

have the bridge in behind them with that irregular movement, I suppose

you would call it, up the top, then there is risks that happen there.

On some occasions if the ball hits the edge of the bat, the ball comes 15

through quite low so that is less of a problem because you are looking

downwards, but edges come at all sorts of heights and quite often they

come at head height or above head height, so anything that raises your

eyes up and forces you to look at whatever is happening there, is a

potential issue. 20

CHAIRPERSON: And just before you sit down, you mentioned the number

of wickets in the block, you called them, how many wickets are there in

the block?

25

MR SNEDDEN: It varies from venue to venue.

CHAIRPERSON: But in this one?

SIR ANDERSON: I was going to make the point sir, if you took that block 30

outside, if you get a chance at lunchtime or something and look at that

block, there is something like 12 to 13 wickets and they go right from

over there, to right over here.

MR SNEDDEN: 13 I just counted. 35

SIR ANDERSON: And so from that right hand side, this is absolutely

irrelevant this picture here, that is for up when you are in the middle

running down this line, but when you go to the right hand side playing

a first class game, you have actually got a completely different visual 40

going that way.


MR CLINTON: Sir, there are 12 playing strips on that wicket block and one

practice bowling strip, there are 13 strips across here. I am not sure

that that picture there is actually now – we always play the test cricket

on either strip 6 or 7 or maybe both if we happen to have two test

matches in a summer, which are the two centre wickets and that is 5

primarily due to Sky Television and its camera angles. Now that

depiction there is not actually, I don’t believe, doesn’t look to me to be

the centre wicket, it looks to be more eastern than the centre wicket

because my experience, I don’t think we would see the side screen that

farm around to the right so I suspect that that might be about wicket 7 10

or 8, just as a point of reference for you in terms of what Mr Snedden is

discussing there.

MS ANDERSON: I think back one page shows the central wicket, Mr Clinton,

if you wanted to – page 41. 15

MR CLINTON: Yes, so there is probably test match strip number 6, and as

you can see, that looks – in that depiction there it is left of the side

screen itself, so that is probably 6 and 7 that we have been looking at I

suspect. But we will play – here we will play first class cricket all the 20

way across to strips 10, 11, and 12, which are the extreme eastern side

of that wicket block.

DR SANDERSON: Sir, if I could ask the physician again, I would like to 25

demonstrate something else about the vision which he seemed to sort of

brush over in my opinion, I could be wrong, would you mind facing the

bowling from this end.

If you are a right handed batsman, would you show me your head 30

position at the point of delivery.

MR SNEDDEN: It varies quite a lot from batsman to batsman depending on

the style - - -

35

DR SANDERSON: Could you show me yours?

MR SNEDDEN: Just trying to remember it, I was – I think it probably would

be somewhere around here, I mean, in recent years what happens is that

– 30 years ago, 50 years ago batsmen tended to crouch more, now as 40

time has gone by, they have lifted themselves up so they are a little bit

more uprights I think than they used to be.

DR SANDERSON: I was more concerned about, or interested in the rotation

of your head, would your head ben in the same direction as your body? 45


MR SNEDDEN: I think that again varies a little bit from batsman to batsman.

DR SANDERSON: So if you wanted to look at me and your head was in the

same direction as your body, I mean, pointing towards the - - -

5

MR SNEDDEN: I wouldn’t be looking at you – if you were bowling on the

other side of the stumps - - -

DR SANDERSON: Yes.

10

MR SNEDDEN: - - - then yes, I would adjust my stance to do that.

DR SANDERSON: But your head?

MR SNEDDEN: Well, I guess adjusting the stance would take the head 15

around a little bit more, so as you are sitting now, you would be

bowling over the wicket, depending on whether you are right handed or

left handed bowler.

DR SANDERSON: I am left handed. 20

MR SNEDDEN: Left handed, so you would be bowling over the wicket to me

- - -

DR SANDERSON: Okay. 25

MR SNEDDEN: - - - and I would open up my stance a little bit to get a better

view - - -

DR SANDERSON: I think you are missing the point, what I am trying to 30

suggest is that you would actually aim both eyes, you did say at one

point, a monocular view I think, or a one-eyed view, I am not sure what

your terminology was, what I am suggesting is that you would actually

turn your head or your eyes so that they were both directed at the ball?

35

MR SNEDDEN: No, that doesn’t really happen in batting, most of the time

you are relying more on the leading eye than you are on the other.

DR SANDERSON: How are you going to define the leading eye?

40

MR SNEDDEN: If you are bowling at me now, I would call that the leading

eye.

DR SANDERSON: Okay, any particular reason why you would?

45

MR SNEDDEN: Mainly because – it is a side on game.


DR SANDERSON: I understand that.

MR SNEDDEN: Some batsmen open themselves up a lot more and that is

really unusual. Most keep themselves reasonable side on - - - 5

DR SANDERSON: Are you talking about their body or their head now?

MR SNEDDEN: I think – the teaching we have had is connected with the

head as well and it is, generally speaking, if we are adopting the stance 10

we are now, my cricket instinct would be relying far more on that than

that.

DR SANDERSON: Okay. I mean, as you look at me you are definitely

looking with both eyes, both eyes will - - - 15

MR SNEDDEN: Yes, but predominantly I am looking at you through this

eye.

DR SANDERSON: Well, you may believe you are but your brain doesn’t, 20

your brain is getting in from both eyes.

MR SNEDDEN: Yes, okay, well I can’t argue with you on that point.

Common terminology in cricket is that it is a side on game, not a front

on game and part of that is, there is a reason, the ball swings and some 25

bowlers are good at swinging it, others aren’t, but you are better placed

to cope with it if you are side on than you are – as a batsman I am

talking about – than if you are front on.

I can’t be scientific about it, all I can do is say what I have been taught 30

and practice, I guess, but yes.

DR SANDERSON: Could I follow through - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly. 35

DR SANDERSON: Another cricketing term.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why we have this time for contemporaneous

witnessing. 40

DR SANDERSON: The point I was trying to make is irrespective of the head

or the eye position, if the batsman’s eyes are directed at the same point,

ie, the back of the bowler’s hand, there would be a fielder view 90

degrees to either side of both eyes. The sum total is a fielder view, 45

binocular of 180 degrees.


It is not 40 degrees, or 50 or 65, it is 180. So anything within that

180 degree circumference, is a potential distraction, any movement and

the peripheral retina is exquisitely sensitive to sudden movement so if

somebody suddenly leapt up, or as Mr Snedden has indicated in his 5

brief, waved their arms, the eye would be immediately drawn to it, it is

the nature of the peripheral retina.

That is why we have a peripheral retina, to alert us to sudden

movements. Regular movements of a consistent nature we can adapt 10

to, it is part of the ambience of vision, you get used to that, but sudden

irregular movements, erratic, shifting of an object, is what our

peripheral retina is designed to observe and that I think is being

overlooked in this discussion.

15

[11.55 am]

MS ANDERSON: I was just noting down what you had said there,

Dr Sanderson, that anything within the 180 degree view is a potential

distraction but I think the reason we are all focusing on 40 degrees is 20

because that’s what you say is the only bit within which batters will be

distracted, is that right?

DR SANDERSON: I think that’s a misinterpretation of what I said. I was

trying to equate what I know about the human visual function with 25

Mr Snedden’s allegory or analogy rather of the V of the vision, that

was where the 40 degrees was derived. Binocularly we have two eyes,

well, most people have two eyes, both eyes function together

simultaneously. In other words as I look at you I am seeing you with

both eyes or seeing whatever is within that 40 degree area with both 30

eyes simultaneously. Beyond the 40 degrees I am seeing on the left

with my left eye and on the right with my right eye, that was the

principle behind the 40 degrees.

MS ANDERSON: But, just to be clear, I take it from what you have said that 35

you accept you can be distracted by things outside of the 40 degrees?

DR SANDERSON: Well, beyond, yes, to 180 degrees in total.

MS ANDERSON: And then moving to the topic of how this affects fielders, I 40

take it from your evidence that you think the risk of visual distraction

for fielders, from movement on the bridge, is inconsequential I think

were the words you were used, is that right?

DR SANDERSON: Correct, yes. 45


MS ANDERSON: And your visual analysis that you have done hasn’t done

any analysis of the different fielding positions and what their field of

view may be?

Have you read the evidence of Mr Snedden? 5

DR SANDERSON: Yes, I have, yes.

MS ANDERSON: And I take it from the discussion that you have just had

you understand which positions are the slip and gulley fielders? 10

DR SANDERSON: I do.

MS ANDERSON: And would you accept his evidence that for a left handed

batsman, obviously facing the southern end, those slip fielders and 15

gully fielder will have the bridge squarely in their view?

DR SANDERSON: Yes, I do.

MS ANDERSON: So while you accept that a batsman concentrating on a ball 20

from a bowler needs screening from distraction, you don’t accept that a

fielder concentrating on catching a ball needs the same protection from

distraction?

DR SANDERSON: Well, nor do the rules of cricket. If we look out of this 25

window we will see the sight screens which are there specifically for

the benefit of the batsman. They may also benefit the slip fielders but

that’s incidental. Those things are designed specifically to screen the

batsman from any distractions behind the bowler’s arm.

30

MS ANDERSON: I am asking for your view though in terms of if a batsman

is distracted, in your opinion, within that 40 degree sphere, then surely

a fielder should also be distracted within that same degree of vision?

DR SANDERSON: Well, they will be the distractions are arbitrary. There is 35

no reason why they should be any more distracted than the batsman or

any less distracted. They are both subject to the same level of

distraction. My argument is the sort of distraction that the traffic would

cause is of a very predictable nature whereas a sudden, you know, a

bird flying through the individual’s visual field or an object blowing 40

across the pitch is much more of a distraction of a sudden nature and

therefore much more likely to disrupt their play.

MS ANDERSON: But if you are saying they are not more or less distracted

than a batsman, then I don’t understand why you recommend 45


protection for the batsman’s view but not protection for the fielder’s

view?

DR SANDERSON: Okay, I see the point. My initial thought, when I was

confronted with this problem, was it really isn’t relevant, it’s not 5

actually all that significant. Moving traffic is something which one can

adapt to but when offered the prospects of some sort of mitigation in

the form of a building or a screen I thought, “Well, it can’t do any

harm”. It doesn’t necessarily fulfil the requirements that I would have

put up for a visual problem, if you like, or purpose but there is no harm 10

in it. And when it was put to me as a possible solution I said, “Go with

it, no problem at all”. I don’t think it’s necessary, that’s why my

original contention was a 45 metre building was quite sufficient. 55 is

better, 65 better still but there is no real need for any mitigation of slow

moving traffic on a flyover such as the Basin Bridge. 15

[12.00 pm]

MS ANDERSON: So you say there is no need for any mitigation at all

although you have recommended a 45 metre building? 20

DR SANDERSON: It is certainly better than none but it’s not required. I

mean if we look out of this window here there is traffic moving along

the other end, and there is no attempt to mitigate that. As I was sitting

earlier on I actually saw a fire engine go past the sight screen. There 25

was a cement truck with guys in high vis jackets running up and down

ladders. An obvious distraction to somebody who is standing at this

end, nothing to do with the discussion we are having at the moment,

but a perfectly clear example of the sort of distraction that can easily

take place in this ground. I don’t think the high level traffic passing 30

over the flyover will make any difference at all.

MS ANDERSON: Maybe that’s a good point to open for comment, sir.

MR SNEDDEN: I had a look at that very point and it’s a good point. What 35

we see from here is quite considerably different than what the players

on the ground in the middle of the pitch out there can see from their

height. If you look down at that area, on a test match day, for instance,

a lot of that gap is simply filled in by broadcasting scaffolding, the

sight screens and so it hasn’t been a problem in the past. And even 40

when I was standing there yesterday and a fire engine and a bus, Go

Wellington, came around, you are just capturing the top of them and it

just didn’t feel significant and it is quite a small gap.

CHAIRPERSON: And they also have kiosks over here as well? 45


MR SNEDDEN: Yes, that’s right. It was interesting as I was standing there

and I was looking from this end down to the Adelaide Road end, on a

Sunday where there is no sport happening, you can actually see through

the gates of the entrance over there, the John Reid entrance. And that

was, you know, I put myself in the shoes of a right handed batsman on 5

the test match pitch and I guess I was thinking about it too much but I

could I – you know, it was in my visual, it was capturing my attention

as cars would pass back.

Now, that doesn’t matter on test match day because that gets filled in 10

and whatnot. But that was probably at an angle which is perhaps even

wider, where the toilet blocks are if it was reversed to the other end but

it may be an unfair test because, of course, I was getting ready for

today and so I was thinking about it as opposed to a batsman out there

who is thinking in the moment about what is coming down on him. 15

MR BAINES: Just while we are on that, can I?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

20

MR BAINES: Mt Snedden, you said that on test match days because they

close those gates but surely those are the gates that spectators pay to

come through.

MR SNEDDEN: Yes, but what I mean is they have got turnstiles in them, the 25

ability to see through them is virtually non-existent through to any

traffic that’s moving behind them.

MR BAINES: Right. Can we come back to this other one here because in fact

until last week all the scaffolding was up for the Sky TV so we know 30

exactly where that is there, and so if you are looking at this view from

this end of No 6 or No 7 southwards. Look, I mean there is a truck

going right there right now and I am just interested to know whether

that has been part of the normal experience up until now or whether

there are things outside – I can see where the sight screen is and I know 35

the sight screens are moved but am I right in thinking the sight screens

are primarily to make sure that immediately behind the bowler you

have got a white screen?

MR SNEDDEN: Well, it depends, venue to venue changes, the width that’s 40

used. In this instance don’t forget, go back to what I said before, is you

are looking at it from our height. Now, go back down into the middle

of the ground.

MR BAINES: We have been down there, we have stood at the end of that 45

pitch.


MR SNEDDEN: You are only occasionally capturing – it doesn’t capture cars

at all.

MR BAINES: No. 5

MR SNEDDEN: And it’s the odd - - -

MR BAINES: It is higher vehicles, it’s trucks and buses and so on.

10

MR SNEDDEN: Which is much more irregular.

MR CLINTON: Excuse me, can I just urge a small note of caution as well.

The sight screen, to look at both these pictures that we are viewing and

also to look out across the ground, the ground can actually be quite 15

different facilities-wise during a large scale test match.

For example, that sight screen at the southern end, there is actually a

new sight screen built down that end for test cricket, so I can’t recall

off the top of my head what the height of that is but we build a 4.5 20

metre tall structure with scaffolding and so forth and it can be as wide

as 13 to 14 metres wide as well. So I am just noting that to look out the

window and imagine certain visual impacts just looking at what you

see now it can be quite different at game time as to how we actually set

the ground up. 25

[12.05 pm]

MR BAINES: I guess what I’m simply trying to get at is on this matter of

visual distraction I’m trying to get a sense of what has been accepted 30

for a very long time and how does that compare with what is likely to

be seen when you’re at that end looking this way with traffic on the

bridge? Now if in fact – and it seems to me that that actually is the

most critical area in terms of potential existing visual distraction –

there’s a little bit over here by the Wakefield – but that seems to be 35

one. Now are you saying that typically in the past that has been

screened in one or another with stalls or with something or typically it’s

as we see it now? What’s been typical?

MR CLINTON: We’re talking about the southern end? 40

MR BAINES: The southern end, yes.

MR CLINTON: The southern end would have a large – I’ll see if I can get

some photos if that’s helpful – but the southern sight screen would be a 45

large erection both height and width. There’s sometimes a marquee


erected on the top of that southern toilet block, that concrete toilet

block as well. So that would be a further screening of any particular

traffic or the top of traffic you might see. And then as Mr Snedden

mentioned in terms of the – that’s the John Reid gates down the

southern end, J R Reid gates. 5

While they are open the passage through those gates is slow, people

purchasing tickets, there’s bag searches going on and so forth so there’s

not the immediacy of people coming through and high distraction

through there is a rather more slow filtering process there. So I think 10

what I’m trying to describe is for a match time anyway, there are a

number of temporary structures up which actually have the outcome of

screening the tops of that traffic as it goes around the Basin there, at

that southern corner.

15

SIR ANDERSON: The southern end view looking north – we mustn’t think

of the ball coming along the ground because if a ball is bowled from

this end and bounces one short a batsman will turn and hook it. Or if

the bowler’s coming from the south, bowling to someone north, they’d

loft the ball into the air. And it’s picked up more graphic on TV, we 20

see they try to hit over the fielders’ heads, but when a fielder comes to

catch it his eyesight actually has to lift to that ball coming up. And

lifting that if you have distinct buses and trucks in the air as a

distraction from the ball suddenly it makes a tremendous irritation as to

whether you can catch the ball or not. The ball is going at lots of speed 25

as Martin pointed going to slips and it could come face high again not

just knee but face high and you catch the ball around here or up here.

So there’s a very important thing of the fielder and distractions going to

cause to an area right around that wicket, wherever the wicket might be

down that end. 30

MS ANDERSON: Just on that southern end question whether we might able

to get up on the screen appendix 2 of Mr Neely’s evidence because

there is a picture of Basin on test match day there and Mr Clinton might

want to comment on. 35

MR CLINTON: Perhaps as a background – just wait for this image. Can I

continue? The issue of side screens is easily the most resource

intensive matter to take care of before a big test match and as Mr

Snedden has mentioned in his evidence the players are increasingly 40

stronger and more vocal about the need for the elimination of all or as

much distraction as possible.

[12.10 pm]

45


So we have for many years, at least 30 I would suggest, have these

older style rolling side screens which on their own just simply wouldn’t

serve the purpose of test cricket. So as I say for those test matches we

erect a full scale side screen at the southern end. For this northern end

we can’t do the same but we have in the past when we’re run into 5

difficulties – we can’t do the same but if you look out the window right

here you’ll see that there are some additional metal arms if you like

which we actually put panels into for test cricket which have a special

film on them. Very expensive film from Europe which allows the

spectators in here to see through it, but the players obviously to see a 10

white image on the other side. So at quite some considerable effort and

cost we’ve been able to meet the players’ demands at this northern end

along those ways.

But it’s not uncommon for a team to arrive and say these side screens 15

aren’t large enough and we race around, literally, and actually extend

the side screens both width and height just to meet the demands of

either the New Zealand or the visiting team. It can be either. It’s quite

a significant as I say resource, intensive issue.

20

Yes so as you can see – I’m not sure which match this is. A rather full

game. 2008. That’s England. Okay so that’s probably the Basin at a

reasonably high capacity in terms of it can cope with.

CHAIRPERSON: Which? 25

MS ANDERSON: Sorry, that Mr Neely’s evidence in chief, the first picture

in appendix 2. After the cricket magazine.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ve got it on the screen now. 30

MR CLINTON: So yes, that’s 2008. That’s the England touring party. As I

say that’s the ground probably near capacity actually so there’s not a lot

of land, available land, to fit too much else in, either spectators or

structures, kiosks, etcetera. But as you say that southern end there, 35

there is the replace of the scoreboard, directly alongside that is the

replay screen structure which has a LED replay screen fitted in it for

matches and then round to the toilet block with a marquee on top which

is relatively common for test matches and then we have the side screen.

40

Which doesn’t look that wide for that match. It’s certainly wider now

days, but my recall for that game in particular was that the England

team at the time had one left-arm bowler I think but it several

extremely tall bowlers and at the request of the New Zealand team we

had to build a very tall structure because the bowlers, if you understand 45

cricket of course, they’re not delivering from 6 foot, they’re delivering


from arm’s length above so possibly 9 feet high the ball is coming

from. So quite some effort to actually build a tall enough structure in

that case.

MR SNEDDON: If you had a problem down that end I can’t recall there 5

having been one it’s a really easy fix because you could be quickly

erect just a temporary fence to a height of a metre or two going along

the top and you’d block out the problem. The problem we’ve got with

the bridge, if we get it wrong and it isn’t mitigating the visual problem

then what are you going to do? You’re going to be left with a much 10

more major problem. That’s an easy temporary fix. That side isn’t.

MR BAINES: I guess my point was has it been customary practice up until

now to in fact – see there’s a gap between that sight screen and the tent

on top of the toilet block, there’s a gap there and it seems to me that 15

either side of the sight screen the fence is at a height only of the fence,

the picket fence, that we see around here. And I think Mr Snedden

you’re saying it would be possible to and I accept it would be a very

straightforward matter to put some screens there but typically I guess

has it been done in test matches - - - 20

MR SNEDDEN: I think Mr Clinton’s already dealt with that. I’m saying that

if whatever was being done in the past for that had been adequate the

players would have let you know within two minutes and a temporary

fix would have been able to be achieved. 25

MS ANDERSON: I have no further questions on that topic, thank you, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Jones, have you any questions on this

topic? 30

MR JONES: Yes, I do.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONES [12.15 pm]

35

MR JONES: I’d like to start with a couple of questions to, Mr Neely. In your

evidence - that’s 1.13 in your evidence-in-chief, page 4, you say, ‘The

Basin’s unique character and attractiveness can be evidenced by

comparison with other world class cricket grounds. Further from this

comparison it is evident that no other grounds have an issue with views 40

of moving traffic external to the ground”.


And if therefore the proposed Basin Bridge was built it would make the

Basin Reserve unique among current test cricket grounds in having an

elevated roadway just outside the ground from which the roadway and

traffic on that roadway would be visible. Is that correct?

5

MR NEELY: That was – could you give me the number again please?

MR JONES: Sorry, that was 1.13 on page 4. My question in regard to that is

just to confirm that if the proposed Basin Bridge was built it would

make the Basin Reserve unique among current test grounds in having 10

an elevated roadway immediately outside the ground?

MR NEELY: Yes, it would be.

MR JONES: Thank you. Now, furthermore that this would remain the case 15

unless the roadway and traffic on it were completely screened from the

view of those inside the ground. Is that correct?

MR NEELY: Yes, that’s right.

20

MR JONES: And you refer indeed in your evidence-in-chief at 1.29C and

also Clause 14 of your summary you refer to the need for full

mitigation of that view?

MR NEELY: Correct. 25

MR JONES: Right, okay. So, if screening of that roadway and traffic was

less than complete do you agree that that would mean that a busy road

(and to quote your 1.29C again) that would mean, “A busy road and

traffic outside the ground can be viewed from the playing surface 30

unless there is full mitigation”?

MR NEELY: I would think, as we’ve said, the players probably would not

play if they were going to have cars running behind that area visible to

them at all times. And also not only the players, the spectators – the 35

people who sit basically from the Wakefield Memorial in the southern

end to the Basin Reserve Pavilion. That’s about a third of the ground.

MR JONES: So it would be unacceptable for both the players and spectators

for there to be that view of moving traffic? 40

MR NEELY: Yes, we went over that this morning earlier.


MR JONES: Sure, thank you. Okay, I’d like to move on now. We have a

number of sub-topics here in terms of the effects on different players

performing different roles within the games, also match officials and

spectators.

5

I’d like to come back first to the question of the effects on batters, and I

have some questions for you, Mr Snedden, regarding Mr Sanderson’s

evidence.

Are there any other witnesses who wish to comment on that initial 10

section of questions to Mr Neely?

Okay, then I’ll continue. So just – I know we’ve already had some

discussion of Mr Sanderson’s views about what mitigation is adequate,

but just for the record, Mr Snedden, do you agree with Mr Sanderson 15

that a 45 metre Northern Gateway Building would be more than

adequate mitigation to avoid visual distraction to the batter?

MR SNEDDEN: No.

20

MR JONES: And what is your reason for that?

MR SNEDDEN: It’s set out in the statement.

[12.20 pm] 25

MR JONES: Okay. Now, moving to – again, with Mr Snedden, moving to

1.23C in your evidence, which is on pages 6 and 7, you've said, ‘The

motion of cars” – this is C, sorry – “The motion of cars on the Basin

Bridge will not be regular and predictable. Unless full mitigation is 30

provided traffic will periodically and irregularly pass through a

batsman’s line of sight and the gap between the Northern Gateway

Building and the foliage on the bank. The sudden appearance of fast

moving vehicles against a stationary background will be much more

pronounced and distracting than the slight and continuous movement of 35

a crowd when viewed from the distance.”

Now, Mr Sanderson has said that he views that the motion of traffic on

the proposed Basin Bridge – I believe you said, Mr Sanderson, (correct

me if I’m wrong) that it would be at low speed and would be regular. 40

Is that a fair summary of your views?

DR SANDERSON: That’s correct.

MR JONES: Yes. Do you agree, Mr Sanderson, with either of those points? 45

Sorry, Mr Sneddon?


MR SNEDDEN: It doesn’t sound right to me. I mean, it’s a roadway. I guess

it depends what the traffic controls are, the traffic lights etc. that exist

around, but I wouldn’t have thought that regular would be – I mean

already what we see going around the Basin is not regular, it hits in fits 5

and starts and different types of vehicles all over the show. And I

guess on a flyover, you know, depending on the degree of continuity is

drivers will feel able to drive a bit faster than others might.

So it just strikes me that we’re not going to get something that is spaced 10

regularly, predictable. We’re going to have things happening as you

would normally happen, I would have thought, in traffic, and as already

happens around the Basin in fairly irregular spurts.

MR JONES: So in terms of them (since we’re considering at this point 15

batsmen) any appearance – and I note here that Mr Sanderson has

referred to the possibility of distraction anywhere within a field of

vision of 180 degrees, not just the 40 degrees that was being discussed.

So any appearance of moving vehicles in the proposed flyover that was 20

in the batsman’s field of vision could be distracting. Is that correct?

MR SNEDDEN: It could be. It doesn’t mean it absolutely will be but it could

be.

25

MR JONES: Okay, thank you. Now, could we call up please Figure 7B45?

Perhaps while that’s being done I could just check if any other witness

would like to comment on that last sequence? Well that’s at this stage

for Mr Snedden. Thank you. Now, this shows – it’s a very similar

figure to the one we were looking at before, it just doesn’t have that 30

central visual field marked on it.

So again, this is one of the Truescape images, and I should note here

that there have been questions raised about the applicability of viewing

those Truescape images in the way that we’re now viewing them but 35

they do seem to be the best we can manage.

Could we back please to the one that we had before which had the

central visual image showing? And I apologise because I didn’t – that

is the one with that little 40 degree field of vision. It was a bit easier to 40

see the path of the proposed flyover on that one. If anyone is able to

assist with the number of that image?

MS ANDERSON: It is Appendix 3H, page 41 in the TR3.

45


[12.25 pm]

MR JONES: Thank you. That’s the one. Yes, thank you. Just blow it up a

bit. Now this image shows the proposed 65 metre Northern Gateway

Building. I think that is still the 65 metre in that one. And although it’s 5

a little hard to see the way it’s lit to the east of the proposed Northern

Gateway Building you can then see a portion of the proposed flyover.

There are pohutukawa trees shown partially obscuring the view. The

cut-off line of green behind it is the proposed green screen which is on

the far side of the flyover so it is not blocking the view. So the 10

question I’m going to ask in relation to this is am I correct then that in

the mitigation that’s currently proposed there will still be views of

traffic on the proposed flyover which will be passing through that gap

where there aren’t pohutukawas and before the Northern Gateway

Building. Is it your view that that’s the case? 15

MR SNEDDEN: Well, I can only go off what’s in the photographs. The

photograph is the photograph and it looks like here are views of it.

MR JONES: Right thank you. And I just want to ask you – sorry I will carry 20

on. Mr Sanderson I have a question for you. Would you agree that

from the position of the batsman as we previously discussed and as

Mr Snedden demonstrated that that portion of the flyover is within the

180 degree field of view?

25

DR SANDERSON: From the batsman at this end very definitely.

MR JONES: Thank you. Now I just want to turn briefly Mr Sanderon to your

supplementary evidence. We’ve established that with the mitigations

currently proposed there will be a view of traffic on the proposed 30

flyover from the playing surface including the pitch. The question was

raised whether there might be an additional source of distraction from

reflections from vehicles and I just want to ask whether your

supplementary evidence at 1.3, whether that derives from a specific

modelling of this situation or whether it derives from the general 35

knowledge of the behaviour of reflections from traffic?

DR SANDERSON: Certainly the latter. I was provided with a specific model

of the situation. I didn’t think it was helpful to the purpose I had in

mind which was to point out that the reflections would be of a minor 40

nature anyway and transient at the best. So I felt that my evidence

would be better to concentrate on the nature of the reflections rather

than the source.


MR JONES: So I can ask is – in general terms now I’m not talking about the

specifics at the moment, is that problem of reflection such as it is likely

to be different at different times of the day.

DR SANDERSON: Very definitely. The sun obviously in a lower position 5

would be more likely to reflect directly into the pitch.

MR JONES: And so potentially especially as we get towards the end of a

day’s play then what problem there is may increase. Would that be a

fair comment? 10

DR SANDERSON: The likelihood of reflection occurring may increase but

the problem in my opinion is minor anyway.

MR JONES: Okay. And so just one more question on that specific topic. So 15

am I right there has been no study done on the specific issue of the time

of day for example at which reflections might fall onto the playing

surface?

DR SANDERSON: No, that’s not correct. I was provided with a diagram 20

which illustrated the position of the sun in various angles throughout

the day. But I chose not to use that.

MR JONES: So it’s not in evidence at this hearing?

25

DR SANDERSON: Not to my knowledge.

MR JONES: Thank you for that. Anybody else want to comment on those

issues?

30

[12.30 pm]

MR SNEDDEN: Just one. I’m just not whether we’re covering it under this

topic or not. We’ve looked at the effect that it has on a batsman.

We’ve looked at the effect that it has on fielders. But are we covering 35

within this particular topic the effect that it has on the overall feel and

ambience of the ground having a - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Indeed on spectators, yes. No one’s raised that at this

stage. This is the time to do it, yes. 40

MR SNEDDEN: I stood out there yesterday and I was picturing what it would

be like to have this concrete flyover there. We’re not involved in

traffic management and hopefully the solution that the experts in that

area are coming up with create a real benefit for Wellington traffic so 45

I’m not in the slightest bit arguing against that.


I’m simply looking at what is – if this thing gets built what does it look

like from inside the ground and in my mind’s eye picturing it and

having had access to some of the sorts of things we’re looking at now,

in the absence of any mitigation at all it looks hideous and imposing, 5

and Don touched on it in his evidence before. One of the things that is

special about the Basin is there is a lot of greenery around. It’s an

informal ground. It’s got a different flavour than a whole lot of

sporting venues that have now emerged in the professional age around

the world where concrete has taken over. Much as I love the stadium 10

down the road. That’s a product of the modern era.

What we’ve got out here is a product of history and suits the type of

game that is played in the arena down to the ground. And the two

things come together to create something really special. And we saw 15

that only a couple of months when we had that fantastic test against

India and McCullum had his special moment where basically on the

morning of him getting to 300 the city cleared out and came down here

and participated in something that was just magnificent.

20

And so I was standing out there yesterday looking across at this and

thought all right, so I’ve got a view whether it courses problems for the

batsmen and I’ve expressed that, likewise for the fielders, but actually

in terms of the ground itself, for the people who love the ground, the

people who come here to watch and who really value what this 25

ground’s about and to suddenly have this concrete highway right on the

edges of it – because it is right on the edges. It’s not pushed back 50

metres or whatever. It’s right there, just outside the perimeter.

And that is going to have an enormous impact on the look and feel of 30

the ground. So mitigation becomes so incredibly important because of

the history of the ground, because of the flavour of it, because of what

it is. To make sure that that mitigation is right, because we don’t get a

second crack at this. Unless NZTA has an open chequebook that says

all right, if we don’t get it right the first time we’ll have a crack and get 35

it right the second time. It won’t happen that way.

So I think all of us cricket people that are sitting here and those that

have submitted who aren’t here are saying, please whatever you do

don’t take away from what the specialness of this ground is because 40

that’s why it has people who are prepared to give up a whole lot of time

to turn up and express their views. That’s why it is what it is and so I

think going back to some of the questions of Mr Jones before which

were sort of in some ways trying to test why would the trustees agree at

all to anything. I think what the trustees are saying well we realise we 45

44


don’t live in our own bubble in our world life has to go on and traffic is

a bit of an issue for Wellington.

So if better things can be done, fine, but those sort of making that sort

of progress must also respect what is here and what has been here for 5

more than 100 years and why that is so important to Wellington and

must do everything they absolutely can to make sure that whatever the

end result is that, yes, it captures the benefits of the traffic management

guys think can exist but likewise it doesn’t undermine what exists here

now. 10

MR JONES: I’d just like to follow up – I will be coming back to some

questions about the effect on spectators. I just want to follow up with a

couple of questions to you Mr Snedden. Firstly you’ve said that the

flyover would look hideous and you’ve said it’s important to mitigate 15

it.

[12.35 pm]

Anybody coming to the grounds, certainly from the seaward side will 20

be seeing passing underneath, possible even passing along that flyover.

So is it not the case that placing a flyover outside the ground will have

an effect on the spectator experience because it’s there regardless of

whatever mitigation happens inside the ground?

25

MR SNEDDEN: Yes it will, but that’s where I go and say we don’t just live

in our own little bubble in this world. Everything’s got to co-exist and

so you have to find a balance and I guess this process itself is about

trying to find the balance between all sorts of valid, important and

competing interests. I said a flyover looks hideous everywhere around 30

the world they look hideous. That’s just a fact of life. Bunch of

concrete and, yes, it has the potential to impact on a moment in time in

the experience of the spectators who are coming into the ground.

But those spectators might have been able to get to the ground a lot 35

easier because of the traffic management improvements that maybe the

flyover produces. I don’t know the answer to that. Swings and

roundabouts. So I’m most concerned about the fact that if this is

validly important to proceed based on the experts – the areas I don’t

have any expertise in is equally valid for those who have the decision 40

making authority to ensure that they protect what is here and what is

also valuable to Wellington.


MR JONES: So just one more follow up question on that. So if a traffic

management solution was found that did not involve the construction of

a flyover that would be preferable from your point of view? In your

expert opinion as a cricket expert?

5

MR SNEDDEN: You’re taking me well beyond – I don’t know what the

options are on the table.

MR JONES: I’m not asking you as a transport expert, I’m saying that as – to

the view of the effect on the Basin Reserve itself would it be preferable 10

if the flyover was not built.

MR SNEDDEN: Yes. But likewise we’re not living in a bubble. There are

other things happening in this life and we all benefit from improved

traffic flows so you learn to live with some things on the basis that it 15

provides you with benefits in other areas.

MR JONES: Well I think it’s fair to say that that’s obviously a question of

some debate here at the hearing. Would any of the other – I think this

is a good time to ask whether any of the witnesses - - - 20

CHAIRPERSON: That’s a real understatement.

MR JONES: I didn’t want to go too far. I’m thinking particularly

Professor Ricketts if you’d like to comment on the issues of the effect 25

of a flyover on the overall ambience of the ground and spectator

experience.

DR RICKETTS: Well I don’t purport to be a traffic expert either, but it’s

clear to me that if there were a different option from a flyover form an 30

aesthetic cricket watching point of view that would be a better option.

So I mean it seems to me that this issue depends on what weighting you

give to different priorities. And we don’t have to be experts in either of

those fields to have a reaction to that.

35

If you think that cities are created for people, not people for cities, then

you will probably think like I do that preserving something as beautiful

and special as the Basin Reserve should be given a very high priority

and that things which are likely without very marked and obvious

benefit to the community should be of a lower priority. 40

MR JONES: Anybody else want to comment on that point? Okay. Thank

you very much for those comments. In that case I will refer back to

figure 7B.45 – sorry we don’t have 7B.45 but the similar figure which

we have up there at the moment. Now just referring – looking again at 45

that area to the east of the proposed Northern Gateway Building the


applicant proposes to transplant and plant additional pohutukawa

beyond the eastern end of the proposed Northern Gateway Building to

provide screening of this portion of the proposed flyover from the

ground.

5

[12.40 pm]

Now under cross-examination Ms Megan Wraight stated that these

trees will offer only partial screening and that even this screening will

take between five and 10 years after construction ceases to reach its full 10

extent. Those comments are in hearing transcript day 31, pages 3580 to

3581. Unless we need to, I don’t feel the need to call them up but we

can if you like.

CHAIRPERSON: No. 15

MR JONES: Okay, so I wanted to ask, and this was particularly to the

members of the Basin Reserve Trust here Basin Reserve Trust here, so

Mr Neely and Sir Anderson, I wanted to ask were you aware that the

65 metre Northern Gateway Building if built, would provide only 20

partial screening of the playing surface from a view of traffic on the

proposed flyover?

MR NEELY: Yes.

25

MR JONES: And what was your, what is your reaction to this, and in

particular, what is your reaction to the fact that the mitigation, (a) is

only partial and, (b), will not be in place full at the time construction is

completed.

30

MR NEELY: If the 65 metre pavilion is built, then it will be fine and the two

pohutukawa trees that we planted two years ago when we first got the

feeling of this, there was a slight gap in between the two trees, you

have to look at those trees and think, they have been there since – 30

years ago – 30 years ago is their growth there, and so we thought by 35

placing two more trees on the bank in the holes you can’t see, just to

the outside of the one on the right as I look at it, there are two sets of

trees placed in there which given that they cost us about two and a half

thousand each to put in there, they were planted so they were older

trees then, but they will those sort of size in about 10 years’ time which 40

will just complete the ring of the pohutukawas at the Basin which takes

that up to, I think there are 59 pohutukawa trees inside this ground.

MR JONES: Just to check, are you saying that those two pohutukawa which

you are referring to now, would form part of the screening of the 45

proposed flyover?


MR NEELY: No, well, if you go outside the remaining pohutukawa tree you

can see there on the right, they take place there and you can just see

part of it, we were of the opinion that mitigation, we didn’t want to go

right around, that area of 65 metres was satisfactory to cut off the 5

majority of the traffic that we did not want seen inside the ground.

MR JONES: We have heard today from Dr Sanderson, that in fact batsmen

can be distracted within 180 degree visual field. Given that we have

heard this, do you still feel that the 65 metre Northern Gateway 10

Building represents adequate mitigation for batsmen?

MR NEELY: Yes, I do, and I think you have got to take into effect the fact

that the batsmen are used to practising, training, eye hand co-ordination

is all about batting and if you are distracted by something that far away 15

from you, well, that is your problem.

The other thing I found interesting is to say, batsmen facing a fast

bowler there, have something like .08 of a second to see that ball onto

them. They have got to get their brain ticking over to get their feet 20

moving, get their shoulder to the ball, all the other things they do to

handle the ball. I thin, when I hear that something slow moving on a

roadway, 30 kilometres, let’s say everybody in Wellington is keeping

to the rules of the road, 30 kilometres is going like a rocket when you

are trying to pick up something and you have got .08 of a second to 25

pick it up. They are trained to do it and that is why we see, when you

see your grandchildren playing games, their remarkable eye hand

co-ordination, you try and do it, you can’t, you haven’t had 40 years of

playing these games. Batsmen, if they are at test level, have had at

least 20 years of very fine practice. 30

MR JONES: Just a point of clarification here, it perhaps is not a question for

the witnesses, so I will raise it, I am not sure if it is the right way.

Can I just clarify what the proposed speed limit is on the flyover? 35

MR McMAHON: 50 kilometres, but it is designed for a 60 kilometre

environmental speed, I understand.

[12.45 pm] 40

MR JONES: Thank you. So perhaps, Mr Snedden, I will also ask you the

same question. Given that we have heard that batsmen can be distracted

within 180 degree field of vision, and given that Dr Sanderson has

confirmed that that area of the flyover to the east of the Northern 45

Gateway Building falls within that 180 degree field of vision, would


you agree that there is a risk of distraction to batsmen from visible

moving traffic on the flyover under the proposed mitigation

arrangements?

MR SNEDDEN: Yes, but I think the degree of risk probably is reducing as 5

you go further around from the central vision of where the ball is

actually coming from, as you are moving around the circumference of

the field I think that the distraction is probably cumulatively reducing if

that is the right phrase.

10

It is an interesting one because I looked at this photograph and

probably initially hadn’t realised about the gap that we are now

discussing, and I think the ability to mitigate it probably does depend

quite significantly on those pohutukawa trees doing what they are

meant to do as quickly as that can be done. 15

It would leave probably a slightly bigger gap than I had envisaged

myself. And I am now talking not so much about distraction for

batsmen or fielders, but actually the feel of the ground and obviously

the more you can see of this thing, the less welcoming it is in the 20

ground itself.

So I guess we are pretty dependent on those pohutukawa trees doing

what they need to do as quickly as possible.

25

MR CLINTON: Sir, might I say, we have in the past, the southern toilet block

which is in fact the gap, I think, that we are all focusing on for this

point of discussion anyway, so that was discussed by the Trust

previously as well. If there is any visual distraction reported by players

or indeed, by spectators, as Martin said, just to protect the ambience of 30

the ground, then a temporary structure such as a marquee would fit in

nicely in terms of the overall feeling and look of the ground and will

also have a screening impact.

MR JONES: Now that is all my questions about visual distraction for batsmen, 35

is there anybody else who wants to comment in that area.

I would like to turn briefly to oral distraction. In his evidence,

Mr Mike Donn, notes that an elevated roadway, he was one of the wind

witnesses, notes that an elevated roadway will lead to road noise being 40

more widely audible at the Basin. And I am referring here to

Mr Donn’s evidence-in-chief, 3.3 page 6.

He refers to some figures in his evidence, and says, “They illustrate the

general principle that lifting the road noise up in the air is likely to 45

distribute the noise further into the neighbourhood. This phenomenon


is likely to lead to further noise penetration from the street into the

nearby housing areas of Mount Victoria and across the Basin Reserve.”

So what effect can distraction by noise have on batsmen, if any?

5

MR SNEDDEN: I hadn’t considered this at length, but I suspect generally the

noise from traffic would be pretty muted, don’t forget there is traffic

going around the Basin anyway, so there is traffic noise in the Basin.

I think the more important point would be is it of such a nature that it 10

would impact detrimentally on the enjoyment of the spectators, or

perhaps everyone inside the ground, not just batsmen distraction, but

actually the whole enjoyment of what is happening in the ground.

MR JONES: And do you have a view on that? 15

MR SNEDDEN: Well, the more the noise intrudes, the more likely it is to

impact on the enjoyment of the spectators, but you have to go back to

the starting point and say, I am not an expert about noise so I don’t

know what impact in an oral sense that this is going to have, but if it 20

does, then there is a risk.

MR JONES: Yes, I think the point Mr Donn is making and of course he

hasn’t yet appeared, is that lifting the road noise up in the air, will

disperse it more widely, which of course will be the case if an elevated 25

roadway was built.

I would like - - -

CHAIRPERSON: I think, Mr Jones, that questions the effect of the noise 30

should be addressed to Mr Donn when he gives his evidence?

MR JONES: Certainly, I can do that.

CHAIRPERSON: And of course the other, the other noise experts as well and 35

they don’t agree, like they all don’t seem to want to agree.

MR JONES: I just have a brief point here now, I will perhaps ask your

guidance to the way it is best addressed. Mr Donn again, has raised the

issue of the effect of the Northern Gateway Building on air patterns 40

within the Basin Reserve which may affect the ability of the ball to

swing. I should clarify that.

Mr Donn has not raised the issue of the ball swinging, he has raised the

disturbance on air patterns, I am now referring to the possibility of that 45

affecting the ball swinging. Would that be better discussed here or


under the Northern Gateway Building discussion. If you are happy for

me to raise it here, then I will.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn’t matter, we will have it now and get it out of the

way. 5

MR JONES: So as Mr Snedden referred to earlier, the ball swings and often

the ball swings very well here at the Basin Reserve, I have seen it

happen myself such as Simon Doull, 7 for 65, against India in the 1998

Boxing Day Test. So I ask Mr Snedden, why is swing important to the 10

bowling side?

MR SNEDDEN: It is like any attributes that a bowler has in his armoury, I

mean, if he can use different things to fool the batsmen, then all the

more chance of succeeding and dismissing the batsmen. 15

MR JONES: And what factors in your experience can affect whether the ball

swings and how much it swings?

MR SNEDDEN: That is a question that has been asked by millions of people 20

for 100 years and more, it is one of those things that sometimes can

happen, sometimes doesn’t. Like you, I learnt Simon Doull out here or

Chris Martin, amazing, but some days it happened, some days it

doesn’t, sometimes it is because of the moisture in the ground, on a

warm day it starts to rise and that creates a humidity, it is a mystery. 25

MR JONES: Can the wind have an effect?

MR SNEDDEN: I think it is probably one of a number of different factors

that does have an effect, yes. 30

MR JONES: In his evidence-in-chief, Mr Donn has stated and this is 2.3 page

5, in his evidence, the NGB seems likely to lead to an increased area of

shelter within the Basin Reserve but will move the area on the pitch

where the wind is made more turbulent flowing over and around the 35

structure of the RA Vance Stand return to the ground.

It seems possible that this area will be near the cricket pitch area in the

middle of the ground. If Mr Donn is correct in that view, would it be

reasonable to expect that if the Northern Gateway Building was built, it 40

might affect the performance of the cricket ball with regards to swing?

MR SNEDDEN: I did read his statement this morning actually, and I thought,

yes it is possible. Wind is something that changes from venue to venue

and it is something players just learn to adapt to and so yes, it can have 45

a performance effect. One of the worst things ever here, is when you


are a medium paced bowler and you have to bowl into a wind that is

looking like it is going to be later this afternoon, it is just a fact of life.

MR JONES: Okay, so there may be a cricket effect but you don’t view that as

being a concern? 5

MR SNEDDEN: I don’t think – I did think about it when I read Mr Donn’s

statement this morning and I thought that it probably wasn’t something

you would describe as detrimental, instead you would probably just

regard it as one of the idiosyncrasies of the venue that you have to learn 10

to adapt to as a player.

MR JONES: Mr Ricketts, I believe you are also a swing bowler, or former

swing bowler?

15

MR RICKETTS: Not quite at that level, but I mean, the ability to swing the

ball, as Martin said and much more professionally, he says, you know it

varies from day to day, conditions to conditions, and I think it were to

affect the conditions that the players would just sit out, I mean, I don’t

think there is any mileage in the point really. 20

[12.55 pm]

Some bowlers might find that they derive some advantage or not, some

batsmen might find it presented extra problems. It would just be within 25

ordinary expectations of the game.

MR NEELY: Excuse me?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Neely? 30

MR NEELY: I’d just like to point out that the Basin Reserve is unique in the

world for wind. We all played here and have been blown around, and

particularly in the days when the ground wasn’t as well manicured as it

is today, sand in the eyes when you’re fielding down, looking in the 35

northerly all day long, is very difficult. But it’s one of the unique

things that makes test cricket being played at the Basin quite different

from being played anywhere else.

As a New Zealand selector for 14 years I know that every time we 40

picked a team to play at the Basin Reserve it took us about half an hour

to an hour longer to just discuss the fact that though they’re in a good

run of soft sun and ideal playing conditions you had to think of Day 2,

Day 3, Day 4, Day 5, with the wind. Who is going to do, as Mr

Snedden described, the work into the wind? 45


And if I tap my memory enough the performance you saw, Mr Jones,

when Simon Doull got his wickets that day, the wind was a soft, gentle,

southerly and it was a nice sunny day. The only other time I’ve seen

the ball move as much as that was Lance Cairns in the 70s bowling

against India in the same sort of conditions and he bowled the 5

unbowlable Sunil Gavaskar and Vensaka (ph 1.49) within three balls of

one another by bending the ball into a soft southerly.

Yes, wind – it’s part of the unique features of this ground.

10

MR JONES: Thank you. Should I move on to, “Effect on Fielders”?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, no. We’re just about on 1 o’clock so before you

move onto a new sub-topic we’ll adjourned for lunch.

15

ADJOURNED [12.57 pm]

RESUMED [2.02 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Jones. 20

MR JONES: Now, before I proceed, sir, I have been advised that I should

have placed the Basin Reserve Trust Report that I referred to earlier

formally into evidence, which I didn’t completely do. So I would like

to propose that that be labelled Neely 01 since it was in relation to 25

questions I was asking in relation to Mr Neely and that that be formally

entered into evidence.


30

EXHIBIT # NEELY 01 – BASIN RESERVE TRUST REPORT

MR JONES: And I then have, if there is no objection to that, I then have a

further document to formally enter into evidence and a question about

this. Again, this has been supplied electronically, is figure 3, Fielding 35

positions from Mr Ricketts’ book “How to Catch a Cricket Match”.

Now, in regard to that I wanted to check whether I should enter merely

the specific figure into evidence of the entire book?

CHAIRPERSON: No, you just need to enter that part that you want to ask a 40

question on.

MR JONES: Certainly so I propose that that be Ricketts 01 in the case.

45


CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Ricketts has given us his book and we have read

it. I must say it has been quite an enjoyable little book to take on the

aircraft backwards and forwards to Auckland and I must say I didn’t

realise there were 10 ways a batsman could go out.

5

MR McMAHON: It’s probably fair to say most batsmen don’t know that

either.

CHAIRPERSON: But, Professor Ricketts, it reflects the genre of cricket

writing, it was really delightful. 10

MR JONES: So my question is to Mr Ricketts in fact. So is it possible to call

that one up on the screen?

DR RICKETTS: Now I am worried that I have left something off. 15

MR JONES: I am sure there is an opportunity for a revised edition based on

the recent endorsement. Perhaps I could – oh, there we go. I don’t

need to worry longer.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Should we call this Rickett 1, shall we?

EXHIBIT # RICKETTS 01 – FIGURE 3 “FIELDING POSITIONS”

FROM “HOW TO CATCH A CRICKET MATCH”

25

MR JONES: Yes, that’s right.

MR BAINES: If you must.

MR JONES: Now, a question - we’ve already had some discussion this 30

morning about which fielding positions are those both that require the

best – no, that’s not the right thing to say – the fielding positions that

are particularly likely to come into play, especially when fast bowlers

are in operation, and we’ve already had the cordon for the slips around

to the gully identified there. I think, Professor Ricketts, that would be 35

positions 2 through 6 or perhaps 7 in that diagram?

DR RICKETTS: Yes, including wicket keeper 1 round to 6. But I guess 7

and 8, depending on where they were put could come into that.

40

MR JONES: So we’ve got backward point and point, which can also be

catching positions?

DR RICKETTS: Yes.

45


MR JONES: Yes. And on the other side we potentially have positions 12 and

13 (short leg and backward short leg)?

DR RICKETTS: Yes.

5

MR JONES: So the reason I bring this up is to show that – and of course

those positions will be reversed for a left handed batsman. The reason I

bring this up is to establish that in fact there are quite a number of

fielding positions, which in the basis of figure 7B45 (which we looked

at earlier) would have a view – depending again on the handedness of 10

the batsman – would have a view of traffic in the gap to the east of the

Northern Gateway Building?

DR RICKETTS: And not forgetting 20 and 25, who are obviously much

further away but would also potentially (depending on where they were 15

standing). So they are the deep field, long leg, fine leg, third man.

They could also receive catches or they could also be affected.

MR JONES: Yes, certainly.

20

DR RICKETTS: Okay, so yes, the ones that you were mentioning are the

ones close around the bat and there are potentially quite a lot of those,

particularly if it is a fast bowler bowling. But the longer field ones

could also potentially be affected too.

25

MR JONES: Certainly. You mentioned earlier catches off hawks and so

forth?

DR RICKETTS: Yes.

30

MR JONES: Or it was mentioned, yes. So bearing this diagram in mind –

sorry, a couple more things before that.

The leg side catching positions aren’t always in play of course – not in

the – or those slips necessarily? 35

DR RICKETTS: No.

MR JONES: But would agree that those short catching positions on the leg

side are most likely to be in use when a fast bowler is operating? 40

DR RICKETTS: Yes, normally, but an off rate bowler might well have some

of those. Maybe, not more than a couple, but might well have one or

more close catches.

45


MR JONES: Certainly. When a fast bowler is operating obviously the ball is

coming faster than it would be from a slow bowler so therefore those

close in fielders would have the shortest – would need a quicker

reaction time to be able to catch the ball?

5

DR RICKETTS: Yes.

MR JONES: And what effect might it have both on the safety of those players

(and also on their ability to sight and catch the ball) if they were

distracted by a view of traffic on the proposed flyover? 10

DR RICKETTS: It wouldn’t be ideal.

[2.10 pm]

15

MR JONES: Do you know of any – have you been in the situation yourself

where you have been going to take a catch and have been distracted by

some external element?

DR RICKETTS: I certainly used to play at the level where that was quite 20

possible.

MR JONES: So this is the sort of thing we might normally think of as a worry

where, for instance, this is something I have seen myself, you have two

games next to each other and in fact the fielders from one game are 25

overlapping the fieldsman - - -

DR RICKETTS: Yes, your gully in one and square leg in the other.

MR JONES: I have in fact seen somebody hit on the side of the head in that 30

situation. Would you agree therefore that it would be preferable to

avoid any such distraction especially in the context of first class cricket

or international cricket?

DR RICKETTS: Yes, it would be, it would be preferable. 35

MR JONES: Okay, does anybody else want to comment on that particular

topic? Okay, well, if not I would like to move on to - - -

MR SNEDDEN: If we are being strictly honest here there’s some positions 40

there that don’t get caught up in what you are saying and it would be

unwise for anyone to take an assumption that, you know, all the dots

you were referring to actually get caught up in this thing, they don’t.

45


Someone, for instance that are fielding 11, 10, 12, you know, usually

they are so close to the batsmen their vision isn’t behind, it’s actually

what’s in front of them and they are not catching a fast ball, their job

there is to catch a ball that’s nicked and goes – sort of lobs up in the air

so it’s not an issue. 5

And their safety issue is when the bowler is not bowling so well and

they have to dive for cover, that’s not going to be mattered by what’s in

the background, that’s just getting out of the way of where the ball has

been hit. 10

DR RICKETTS: Yes, that’s true.

MR SNEDDEN: So I think, you know, for strict honesty here, your slip field

gully cordon is the relevant area far more than most of those other 15

positions.

MR JONES: And would that be also the case for leg slip if posted?

MR SNEDDEN: Well, it depends if it’s a right handed or left handed batsman, 20

it just depends again on the angle. I mean you said before left

hand/right hand, well, remembering the right handed slips here aren’t in

the vision of the bridge, it’s only if it is a left handed batsman. So, you

know, if you are in the particular standing position on the field where

the bridge is in your vision, yes, but a lot of those won’t be. 25

MR JONES: Sure, but it would be, for instance, for a right handed batsman it

would only be, let’s say, a leg slip and for a left handed batsman it

would be the slips cordon, would that be fair?

30

MR……….: Yes.

MR JONES: Okay, thank you. I will move on then, I want to ask about any

effects on match officials and here I am referring to the on-field match

officials, in other words the umpire. We have one standing behind the 35

stumps at the bowlers end and the other standing at square leg or

sometimes point and that umpire is looking for stumpings, run outs and

whether catches have carried. Are there ways in which oral or visual

distraction can make an umpire’s life more difficult in terms of their

job in a cricket match? 40

DR RICKETTS: Yes, obviously there are. Whether they would arise in this

case would depend on something that we can’t probably quite know,

well certainly I don’t know, which is how much the sound is likely to

kind of carry. At the same time you would have to say now that, unless 45

we are playing India, the technology has increased to a point where


umpires are given a lot of assistance with making decisions but it’s true

that they might not pick up. I suppose if there was a lot of noise they

mightn’t pick up a snick, that’s true, but then there are referrals. So the

game has sort of changed in various ways which are probably going to

perhaps make that less of a problem. 5

MR JONES: So just a couple of follow up questions on that. You mentioned

that unless it’s involving India, not everybody may understand what

you mean by that.

10

DR RICKETTS: That’s because they just like to have the umpire making the

decision, they don’t allow technological assistance.

MR JONES: And the decision review system is currently at least only

available in international cricket, is that correct? 15

DR RICKETTS: Yes.

MR JONES: So, in other words, in domestic cricket the issue might – there is

no option for a referral? 20

DR RICKETTS: Sure.

MR JONES: Okay, thank you for that.

25

MR CLINTON: Excuse me, can I just comment, can I make a comment? Just

to pick up on your point, the common practice of the ICC is actually to

send around officials before a tour to actually inspect the grounds

before they host matches, and that’s the sort of thing I think that would

be picked up well before the game itself. 30

[2.15 pm]

And they are all very experienced obviously, many of them have been

former umpires themselves, certainly players, and so in the past they 35

used to travel around with the touring matches that go from Auckland

to Wellington to Christchurch or whatever it was, and that always

created a problem because they would arrive only a day or two before

the game and they might highlight an issue, from an official point of

view, from a match official point of view, that required some 40

addressing and there was often little time to do that.

So now what they do is they actually do that inspection at the start of

the tour and they highlight any issues they see or they foresee and that

gives the venue authority, in this case the Basin, plenty of time to 45

actually come up with some sort of solution for that. So I think my


answer, to some degree I think to the issue you are raising, is that it

would be unlikely to see an impact upon match officials, which was a

surprise to everyone, it would actually be raised and probably

addressed before the game.

5

MR JONES: Just to clarify that, you are talking there about international

cricket only or about domestic cricket as well?

MR CLINTON: Well, it’s interesting because last season was New Zealand

Cricket employed three match managers for the first time so now those 10

people do exist at New Zealand domestic cricket level as well and they

themselves, all three of them, I think in fact all three of them have been

former international umpires, very familiar with the grounds, particular

characteristics of the ground, the wind, the noise, everything so we

would expect that any issues like that would be actually picked up well 15

in advance of matches.

MR JONES: So let’s say, obviously this is hypothetical, let’s say that one of

these umpires or panels comes, assesses the ground and says, “Sorry,

now you can hear the noise of traffic it’s too loud”, presumably one 20

option is to find a way to mitigate it, another option is in fact the game

can’t be played at the venue, is that correct?

MR CLINTON: Yes, but that’s a rather extreme example, particularly for the

Basin which, as we know, has a lot of traffic noise already. I was 25

thinking more along the lines of like my example earlier about the size

of the sight screen, for example, causing problems for either the

officials or the players, so that would be mitigated in advance. And

there has been other examples but that’s how we would identify the

issue and we would look to resolve it before the day. 30

MR JONES: Okay, thank you for that. We have talked about it but I would

just like to ask briefly about safety. Now, at this stage, we haven’t got

on to spectators yet so that’s safety for players. Now, this has been

referred to already I know so I will just touch on it briefly. I just 35

wanted to ask Mr Snedden, you say in your evidence, which is 1.28 to

1.32 pages 8 to 9, that cricket balls are very hard and they not only can

cause but have caused cases of serious injury and even deaths in cricket

matches, fortunately death is rare. Is there anybody who is not at risk

from injury, I mean in the context of the players or, to put it another 40

way, who is most at risk?

MR SNEDDEN: The batsman facing is most at risk. The degree of risk I

think reduces. In terms of serious injury the batsman. In terms of more

minor injuries slip fielders, any sort of fielder. I mean broken fingers 45


are a normal sort of occurrence but I think the batsman is the one who

is most in the firing line.

MR JONES: And would you agree that visual distraction could lead to an

increased risk of injury? 5

MR SNEDDEN: In the context of how I put it in the evidence-in-chief, yes.

MR JONES: Yes, okay. So where you say in your evidence at 1.32, “In my

opinion, to the extent possible, cricket administrators should work to 10

reduce anything that could distract a batsman or fielder from properly

sighting the ball. A view of traffic moving on the Basin Bridge

potentially presents a hazard and should be completely screened from

the view of the batsman”. Do you also hold that a view of moving

traffic should be completely screened from the view of fielders? 15

[2.20 pm]

MR SNEDDEN: Certainly the closer fielders need more protection I think.

The guys that are out in the outfield generally have much more time to 20

react. If you remember what Don Neely was saying before about the

reaction time that a batsman has, likewise the reaction time that a

wicketkeeper slip fielder has is just a little bit longer but still very short.

Whereas if you’re fielding in the outfield you’ve got longer to react.

25

MR JONES: Okay, just to reiterate. If possible or it’s your belief that those

close infielders should be completely screened from the view of

moving traffic on the flyover is that correct?

MR SNEDDEN: That’s what you’d like to have, yes. 30

MR JONES: Thank you. Any other comments on that section. Okay, I’d like

to move on now to effects on spectators and again we’ve had some

discussion of this already. Now again going back to Mr Neely who I

seem to keep starting with for some reason, you mention that one of the 35

attractions of the Basin it is not a stadium surrounded by walls of

concrete. Would you agree that building a Northern Gateway Building

in the proposed location will increase the degree to which the stadium

is enclosed by buildings rather than by the green ambience which you

praise in your evidence? 40

MR NEELY: No, I think it’s quite a nice balance. After all we’re talking

about a building 65 metres, a pavilion. And a pavilion is associated

with cricket grounds. Most large cricket grounds in the world have two

or three quaint funny buildings perhaps named after somebody who 45

played there in 1860 or maybe somebody who played there 1990s.


They have a need for a building and they tend to be light and ornate

pavilions and that would cover that space perfectly. And would add to

the Basin Reserve.

MR JONES: So on that point in the joint witness statement on urban design 5

heritage and landscape which is BB.75 – sorry, I’m actually skipping

ahead in my evidence here so I hope I’ve got the number right.

Actually sorry I’ll return to that point. It would be too difficult to find

it at this stage.

10

Do you agree that the new building will reduce the amount of sunlight

that reaches the playing surface?

MR NEELY: No. The sun that hits there will hit there at about 8.30 /

9 o’clock in the morning and will start tracking around over the top 15

here and the photograph that was up on the wall of that sort of view of

the Basin Reserve that was taken about 1 o’clock in the afternoon as it

tracks down and drops down over there. So, no, the only thing that

there may be because of its low slung appearance and everything like

that and it’s the first floor up is where the players are kept or sit and 20

enjoy the game there, they may get some late afternoon sun, but

perhaps that would only be around about March/April.

MR JONES: But in fact it’s March that the second and usually major test

series of the year is normally played. Is that correct? 25

MR NEELY: That won’t prove to be any difficulty. Nobody has ever

complained of having too much sun at the Basin Reserve.

MR JONES: Will there be any shading of the playing surface? I’m not talking 30

necessarily about during the time matches are being played. Will there

be any increased shading of the playing surface as a result of the

construction of the Northern Gateway Building?

MR NEELY: None. The only shading that comes is behind from the large 35

museum stand and that starts getting sun coming out towards the

ground around about 5.00 / 5.30 and as the summer goes on maybe at

6 o’clock there’s a bit of sun comes across around there, but otherwise

no, this one at the northern end will not affect the ground with sun.

Unless there’s reflection off windows. 40

MR CLINTON: I might add to that too that turf received a full upgrade two

years ago so any issues around – I think you might be driving at issues

around the drying of the outfield?

45

MR NEELY: That’s correct.


[2.25 pm]

MR CLINTON: That’s not an issue any longer with the sand based high

performance turf that’s been installed. If there was any shading – 5

Don’s told us that there won’t be, but it won’t be an issue because the

drainage will be so significantly improved.

MR JONES: So the drainage problems which as we know have been an issue

here in the past are no longer an issue? 10

MR CLINTON: And won’t be an issue with any shading either. That’s

correct.

MR JONES: Thank you for that. Just returning to Mr Neely, would you agree 15

that the proposed Northern Gateway Building will reduce views

through the ground by which I mean views into the ground from

outside and from inside the ground to the outside?

MR NEELY: I haven’t read all the evidence by the urban designers. I did 20

hear some of it and some people were stressing the fact that the very

bottom ground of the pavilion should be open to show off to people

walking down the road the views they would get of the ground inside.

I can’t think of another sports ground in the world where you weren’t

having to go through high fences, big solid structures that meant you 25

couldn’t see into the ground. And yet we were talking with some of

our urban designers about leaving it open. For what purpose? I could

not understand. But then I’m not an urban designer.

MR JONES: So just on this specific point. I hear what you’re saying, but 30

would you agree that having it closed would – firstly the construction

of the NGB which obviously blocks the space that’s currently open, in

terms of the skyscape, and having it closed on match days would you

agree that it would reduce views through the ground? As I said I’m not

asking whether you think it’s a good thing I’m asking whether it would 35

reduce views?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but aren’t we getting into the landscape, townscape,

urbanscape evidence which we have spent I think nearly two weeks

listening to witnesses on views? If you could confine your questions to 40

the technical cricket issues we’d be grateful.

MR JONES: Certainly, sir. Okay well the point I was leading up to was again

taking your comment, which I agree with, about the green and boutique

nature of the ground do you agree that the project, which of course 45

places a large concrete flyover just outside the grounds plus the


Northern Gateway Building, plus the additional screen between the

R A Vance Stand and the Northern Gateway Building, do you agree

that that lessens the boutique nature of the ground?

MR NEELY: No I don’t because the photos I’ve seen or the artwork I’ve seen 5

means that when you’re walking down from the Embassy Theatre shall

we say you walk down there you struggle to see the ground in the first

place because there are trees in the middle which block that view, there

are cars stopping that view. But when you see what they are intending

to do there’s a little forest out there. It will be very very attractive with 10

the things I’ve read of what they are going to plant there and it will

make it a so much more attractive place to come to.

MR JONES: Perhaps again that’s a question for our landscape experts.

15

MR NEELY: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you asked it.

MR JONES: So I’d like to move onto Professor Ricketts. What in your view 20

would be the effects of an elevated roadway, in other words a flyover,

just outside the northern and north-western boundaries of the ground

and as we’ve heard visible from parts of the playing surface and

certainly from many parts of the spectator area? What in your view

would be the effects of that on the spectator experience of the ground? 25

DR RICKETTS: Well it would lessen the aesthetic experience.

MR JONES: There’s been some discussion of the fact that people could so to

speak vote with their feet and choose not to come to games at the 30

ground if the proposed flyover goes ahead because it will in fact make

the ground less attractive. Would you agree that that’s a risk?

DR RICKETTS: I suppose so although you could argue that cricket addicts

like me would probably come anyway. It’s an imponderable. You 35

can’t know that. But you probably – I do think you could say that the

presence of that does lessen – I mean I that’s not just a subjective view

that the presence of such a flyover would lessen the aesthetic context

and experience of going to the Basin. I think you could say that.

40

[2.30 pm]

MR JONES: Thank you. And I’ve also got a question in the same area for

Mr Snedden. You’ve said in your evidence, and I’m referring here to

1.35B and C on page 10. “Having a view of traffic as a backdrop 45

would negatively impact the spectator experience and general


atmosphere of the Basin Reserve. This will significantly reduce the

attractiveness for spectators and therefore the attractiveness of hosting

test match cricket there”. And in C you’ve said “ultimately the Basin

Reserve owes its continued existence as a functioning cricket ground to

its ability to attract spectators. Any design of the Northern Gateway 5

Building that fails to fully mitigate the Basin bridge puts this at risk”.

Is it your belief Mr Snedden that anything less than complete screening

of the proposed flyover from the playing surface and the spectator areas

would affect both the spectator experience at the ground and spectators’ 10

willingness to attend matches at the ground?

MR SNEDDEN: I just stand by what’s in my evidence really and the

discussion we had before lunch when we had the photograph up when

it showed the gap between the end of the 65 metre structure and the 15

toilet block I think it was. So you actually had a period there and my

comment then was the pohutukawas have got a pretty important job to

do to mitigate that visual risk. That risk remembering, in my opinion,

was more about the ambience of the ground as opposed to visual

interference for the batsmen or fielders. 20

MR JONES: Certainly, I just want to add one more point there. Of course

that gap is the issue when we come to – I should say if the Northern

Gateway Building were to be built that gap would be the issue when it

comes to visual mitigation for players but am I correct in fact that you 25

get a large number of spectators on the banks and that those spectators

would then be close to an elevated roadway which admittedly would be

behind them. They wouldn’t be looking at it, but you would have a lot

of spectators close to the roadway and other spectators on the southern

side of the ground who’d also have a view of the roadway. 30

MR SNEDDEN: Yes, so I think the pohutukawas have got an important job to

do just in terms of ambience and spectator enjoyment.

MR JONES: Thank you. That concludes my questions on this section. 35

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much, Mr Jones. Ms Wedde, have

you any questions?

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WEDDE [2.32 pm] 40

MS WEDDE: Thank you, sir. Mr Snedden, just staying on that issue of the

view above the toilet block on the northern side, just to assist the Board

I’d like to go through some images just to clearly go through the

planting there just to make sure that’s understood. So could we start 45


with 7B.43, please? 43. Have you got them in front of you, Mr

Snedden?

MR SNEDDEN: Yes.

5

MS WEDDE: Thank you. And in the top right-hand corner you’ll see that

shows the existing view?

MR SNEDDEN: Yes.

10

MS WEDDE: The text in the top right-hand corner shows that that is the

existing view. Do you see that?

MR SNEDDEN: Yes.

15

MS WEDDE: So that shows behind the toilet block one tree, do you see that?

MR SNEDDEN: Yes got you.

MS WEDDE: And then we can see the other existing trees to the right. 20

MR SNEDDEN: Right.

MS WEDDE: So if we then flick forward to 7B.45.

25

[2.35 pm]

MR SNEDDEN: 45?

MS WEDDE: Yes, please. Do you see that in fact the only new tree that is 30

proposed is that one to the extreme right, the other trees are all existing

pohutukawa?

MR SNEDDEN: Which ones are proposed and which are existing?

35

MS WEDDE: If we go back to 7B.43, this shows the existing trees and 7B.45

shows the view with the project and do you see there is only one new

tree to the extreme right of that image?

MR SNEDDEN: Okay. 40

MS WEDDE: And we have also - - -


CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just while we are on that, Mr Neely, can you -

Mr Snedden, could you just show that to Mr Neely for a second. Oh,

you have got it on there, sorry, yes, can you explain to us where those

two trees that have just recently been planted are?

5

MR NEELY: If they are able to move the image further this way - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, it is further round.

MR NEELY: It is further round. 10

CHAIRPERSON: I see, so it doesn’t affect that area with the green screen

behind the bridge?

MR NEELY: Mr Clinton mentioned that the green screen there is in front of 15

the toilet block and invariably, the toilet block has a marquee on it so

there is, (1) the apartments, that tall building is the apartments across

the road, then there is a gap covered by the building, the pavilion, then

that gap, the next gap, that is all in front of this toilet block there which

normally has a white marquee on it. 20

CHAIRPERSON: I see, thank you.

MS WEDDE: Thank you, and that was my next question. Still with you,

Mr Snedden, we have just discussed the impact on spectators, would 25

you agree that spectators sitting on the embankment at this point in

time, if they turn away from the cricket ground, have a view of traffic

heading up towards the Mount Victoria Tunnel?

MR SNEDDEN: Sorry, which embankment are they on? 30

MS WEDDE: Sorry, the embankment on the eastern side of the ground,

spectators sitting there as it stands today, if they turn around, do you

agree that they have a view of traffic heading up towards the Mount

Victoria Tunnel? 35

MR SNEDDEN: So it is some of those sitting around the top of that

embankment do you mean?

MS WEDDE: Yes, precisely. 40

MR SNEDDEN: Yes, the ones lower down wouldn’t, they would just be

looking at the embankment.

MS WEDDE: That is all I have, thank you, sir. 45


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Ms Wedde.

MS ANDERSON: Sir, I just have one question here and I don’t have any

further comments. When Mr Jones finished his topic on spectator and

sort of ambience of the ground, I wasn’t sure that anyone had a chance 5

to comment outside the two that did.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

MS ANDERSON: In case anyone wanted to comment further on that topic. 10

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to re-examine?

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS ANDERSON [2.38 pm]

15

MS ANDERSON: Was there anything additional other than what has already

been raised in relation to spectator experience, atmosphere of the

ground, that anyone wishes to add?

MR CLINTON: I wouldn’t like it to be understated to be honest, I mean, we 20

have heard from Mr Snedden about the emotional value and attachment

to the ground held, not just by cricket fans but Wellingtonians and

sports fans, and I would full endorse that statement that it runs very

deep that the sense of ambience and character that goes with the

ground. 25

We, Cricket Wellington, surveyed members in 2010 and asked them

what the best thing about coming to domestic cricket, domestic cricket

was and 59 percent responded that it was the Basin Reserve itself,

no-one responded about the cricket, quality of the cricket, six out of 10 30

said that they just enjoyed coming to the Basin, and since that time we

have been reasonably careful in our marketing of domestic cricket to

market domestic cricket as an event at the Basin as opposed to the

Wellington team or whoever might be playing against Wellington.

35

[2.40 pm]

So that is just an example if you like, that backs up the very real sense

of character and ambience as a sports ground, as an elite sports ground

that the venue actually attracts. 40

And the other point I made too, is that the New Zealand Cricket Players

Association, the CPA which is a body that is not particularly old, it

surveys its members annually on all manner of matters, but it asks them

for the best performing ground in the country, these are all of our 45

professional cricketers in New Zealand, and the Basin this year, they


have just released this year’s results, the Basin is the foremost the

premier ground, the number one ground among those professional

cricketers. Last year it was number two, so we are pleased that it has

come back to number one, the years before that it was number one, so it

has been in the top two for the last three years, it has been first in both 5

of those season, two of those seasons.

And so I think that is a testament to not just – well, I have spoken about

the spectators enjoyment of the ground, but also very much so the

players as well, the players very much enjoy the venue. And I would 10

suggest that that is not just wicket and the performance of the ground

out in the middle, it is actually also the characteristics of the venue that

they enjoy as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Which was the one that eclipsed it last year? 15

MR CLINTON: I believe it was Colin Maiden Park actually which is

Auckland, which was online because of Rugby World Cup at Eden

Park, I believe, I might be going back two seasons, but they don’t host

first class cricket any longer at Colin Maiden Park, so we shouldn’t 20

have any problems being number one now for the next four or five

years, thank you.

MS ANDERSON: I think that moves us to the next topic.

25


MS ANDERSON: The next topic on the list is risks to hosting cricket

including seats on ICC status, and domestic cricket, and really I just

had one question, maybe two, to Sir John, whether anyone would like 30

to add to what they have already said in their evidence or

supplementary about risk to hosting cricket.

SIR ANDERSON: Well the first key is accreditation from ICC and there is

112 test grounds around the world and the key – this ground has 35

accreditation and automatic obtained in 1997 when it became formal.

The key is in actual fact, when there is a tour or as covered by

Mr Clinton, that you actually get ICC people coming out and viewing

the grounds, and if they find that the ground is not fit for purpose

anymore through distractions or through any matters that could arise 40

from the flyover and the effects of the flyover, which are under

different subjects, they would ask that they be fixed or you have a

reaccreditation.

45


I know in the West Indies when they held the World Cup and I was on

the ICC Board then, the accreditation process resulted in two or three

grounds being unable to be played on – one of those in particular was

due to the condition of the pitch and the ground, rather than a view to

the ground. 5

So this is not a trivial process, is the point I am making, it is a very

serious process carried out by ICC.

In terms of accreditation and reaccreditation, that while there is a top 10

down process, and like New Zealand Cricket do accreditations for first

class match play, there is almost a bottom up process as well because as

my colleagues have pointed out as have I, the ambience and actual

condition of the ground is a vital part as well as the cricket, the game

being played, to people along enjoying it. It is more than – when I was 15

president of Wellington Cricket for example, here, I arranged a

sponsorship of three days and this is just to local matches and that bank

was just packed.

Now I am going back to 1989 there but the same principle applies, that 20

through the years that has been a wonderful draw card, it is a

community ground that has terrific attraction and the spectators will

move with their feet.

[2.45 pm] 25

So while they are terribly important, the people at the end of the day

will decide and really make sure it is (INDISTINCT 0.28) and not the

other players, and we have had a terrific, I was going to say nonsense,

but, harm and interruption to matches when, for example, I think it was 30

2003, when Tendulkar arrived with the Indian team and we had to raise

the screen outside and literally it just about covered the whole front of

the pavilion here, that is why Tendulkar liked to have the backdrop

because he could always see the bowlers arm and the ball come out of

the bowler’s arm as well as removing distraction behind it. 35

And I know in this room, we had to put the floor up by about three or

four feet which we did again in 2007 if I remember rightly, and it just

sort of wrecking the premises and people wanting to come and be

involved spectator wise because of the way the players did. 40

Secondly, the players who say we won’t play. If it is a risk to us, and

harm, which Martin has, I think, covered very well, that it is not

whether you play a game or not it is how you play the game and that

applies on the field, how you play the game, you don’t do interference, 45

how you play the game, it is a good sport, how you play the game is


you want the conditions to be right, you stand still, Martin has covered

all that and that ties into this whole aspect of this particular issue.

MS ANDERSON: And in terms of that ICC accreditation, what is your view

on the risk to keeping that if the bridge was to proceed and there wasn’t 5

a 65 metre Northern Gateway Building?

SIR ANDERSON: I can’t say definitely they would say, no, or yes, I can’t

answer that question because it would have to be done by them but

there is no question there is a risk. If we find that that visual 10

impairment and there are other minor impairments, like sound and

whatever else, but it is really the visual impairment which distracts the

batsmen and the fielders, it is a risk, so basically to ensure that it is

kept, and this applies to first class cricket, as Martin Said, you don’t do

half mitigation, you do whole mitigation, don’t go halfway basically. 15

MS ANDERSON: Does anyone else have any comments on that topic.

DR SANDERSON: I would just like to mention that the term visual

impairment is a very specific one and I am not sure that that is quite 20

what Sir John intended.

SIR ANDERSON: I suppose I did really because Martin’s examples and there

are numerous examples of it, if a person moves behind the bowler’s

arm, that is in a crowd in the backdrop. The batsman always stands 25

back and if you found there was a lot of movement and the batsman

had to stand back because there is that peripheral vision that –

remember you are standing side on so you are facing there and your

head comes around, so you have actually got a really strong peripheral

vision from the southern end if you are a right hander. 30

You automatically would stand back if a red bus comes pounding

around the corner at 50 or 60 kilometres. So suddenly the game of

cricket, it is not how you play the game, the batsman, draws away,

draws away, doesn’t’ play, the ground is not fit for purpose. You 35

would say, okay, we will play at a different ground so New Zealand

Cricket would not get the crowds, we can’t play the game properly.

We have got other grounds that are boutique even those this is, you

know, number four in the world. I am sorry, it is impaired. 40

MS ANDERSON: I have no further questions on this topic, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Anderson, yes, sure - - -

45


MR McMAHON: Sir John, I have got a question of clarification if you don’t

mind. Ms Anderson said, or asked you whether the risk of proceeding

with no – what would the risk be of proceeding with no building and

you quite rightly didn’t want to give a categorical answer one way or

the other. 5

Would you have an answer on the degree which that risk might be

reduced if the building was in place?

SIR ANDERSON: I would say it was materially helpful to reduce the risk. I 10

mean, very material. It takes out that, particularly in a period, in a bit, I

know in negotiating with NZTA in agreement with the council, there

was always recognition that corner was at a peripheral stage, but that

was always going to be a problem to anyone. Now, pohutukawa trees

might cover it but that to me is a risk you can accept but without any 15

mitigation there, I think it is a huge risk.

MR McMAHON: Thank you, that’s useful.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jones. 20


MR JONES: So surprisingly my questions in this section will mainly be to

Sir John. I want to set the context of New Zealand receiving 25

international cricket tours and how easy that is to arrange.

From your national and international cricket administration experience,

is it your general observation that it is easy for New Zealand to arrange

incoming cricket tours, in particular, those from the countries that we 30

particularly wish to host?

SIR ANDERSON: If I could go back in history, if I go back to 1995 when

Chris Doig and I were first on the International Cricket Council, we

were having tours from Sri Lanka, from Zimbabwe, from Pakistan and 35

of course those are the sort of lesser tours which you don’t particularly

want to have, even West Indies, was not a particular – it’s good, sure

you had a cricket match but from a New Zealand Cricket point of view,

and the development of the game of cricket, it is not only the revenues

of the ground to help support cricket, it is actually selling the TV rights 40

and TV had changed the nature of cricket at that stage, and that is when

we both, on behalf of New Zealand, put up the new system for every

team playing everyone.

45


So there became a future tours programme and that was accepted

around 1999, wasn’t it – yes, 1999. And then we could know we

would play England which is absolutely the star track, India which, an

India tour, I don’t mind giving the figures, these days if we had

Zimbabwe here we would get TV rights of a million, less. 5

India we are talking 30 to 50 million dollars, just for a tour. It makes a

huge difference, England is the same. Australians are a bit irrelevant,

we don’t get the same TV money out of them but then we want to have

them here playing so the game has changed hugely from that point of 10

view.

At the current stage it has now got much more difficult and

Mr Snedden may or may not comment, but he is very capable to

comment, that future tour programme has been under review with the 15

big three, that is India, England and Australia, who have been at the top

of the world ladder for a long time and of course, India fund the game,

saying we now want to control the tours and you can follow up with

Martin, but Martin, is I understand, on behalf of New Zealand Cricket

has negotiated that in fact we can keep our tours but that is, you know, 20

that is about 2020, 2025, that has been an extremely difficult process

now in comparison with what it was.

So it is very tentative then if your ground is not right, or your grounds

aren’t right, that will affect your tours. 25

Now I will finish up with an example, that when India came just in the

2000s, John Wright was coaching India and New Zealand beat them on

the Basin here and Tendulkar came off the ground and went to Dalmiya

who was the Indian president or chairman of the board and said, “We 30

will never tour New Zealand again, I will not tour”.

[2.55 pm]

So we did not have a tour for something like eight years because we 35

gave a green track.

MR JONES: I apologise, I must admit I was a little distracted there, I missed

all that. 40

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I missed it as well.

SIR ANDERSON: Should I say again?

45

MR JONES: Yes, if you would.


SIR ANDERSON: Right, in the early 2000s India toured New Zealand and

we played a test match here and New Zealand beat India on this ground

and Tendulkar – it was on a green track. A green track means that the

ball will fizz and it will cut, you know, a lot of movement off the 5

wicket and the Indians don’t particularly like that because they play on

very dry dusty grounds which take spin but it doesn’t necessarily take

cuts of the ball.

So that was a terrific win but Tendulkar then went back to Dalmiya 10

who was the chairman of the board and said, “We do not want to play

again” and in fact you heard that conversation. Dalmiya was saying to

the ICC CEO, “We want to take New Zealand off the programme on

that”. So this is how careful you have got to be when you are having

touring sides and even what grounds you prepare let alone the 15

ambience of it.

MR JONES: And certainly I would like to follow up with Mr Snedden in a

moment but am I right that in fact in January this year you wrote to

Mr Ehsan Mani, the former president of the ICC, expressing your 20

concerns about the proposed big three takeover of the ICC?

SIR ANDERSON: I wrote to Ehsan Mani, I agree with that. Yes, the concerns

I had was about governance and I was appointed by ICC in 96 to do a

governance review of ICC and that changed the whole management of 25

cricket worldwide and ICC, so had a proper governance process and

board meetings and committees and so on and so forth. So I was

writing to him about the governance involved, not necessarily the big

three because the big three had so much pressure anyway, they could

do things in a proper governance manner, but in this move it appeared 30

to me that they were throwing governance out the window.

MR JONES: Thank you, thank you for that. Now, I would like to perhaps, I

will move on to Mr Snedden but before I do does anyone else have

comments on that set of questions? Well, obviously we are not here 35

primarily to discuss international cricket politics but what I am

endeavouring to do is set the context within which the Basin Reserve

operates.

Mr Snedden, is your expectation that, as a result of the recent 40

negotiations, it will be easier or harder or indeed the same as it has

been to arrange inbound tours, particularly from India, England and

Australia?

MR SNEDDEN: Now we are where we are right now we are okay. The 45

schedule is pretty much set in concrete, there’s loose ends to tie up but


I imagine within a month or two we will be able to do that, announce it

and the schedule that we have got for the next 11 years or so is

certainly no less valuable than what it’s been in the past and, in some

respects, is better.

5

MR JONES: So have there not been issues, I believe in fact it happened with

the most recent Indian tour to New Zealand in which the originally

proposed number of tests have not been played, is that correct?

MR SNEDDEN: Yes, that’s right. 10

MR JONES: And might that happen again in the future or is there a reasonable

likelihood that that might happen again?

MR SNEDDEN: The arrangement that is being put in place at the moment 15

should hopefully remove some of the grey area that might have existed

in recent times. There’s a bit of work to be done yet but I think we’ll

get that far.

MR JONES: I obviously don’t wish you to say things that you can’t say in the 20

wider context but one of the issues is seen to be for New Zealand and

in general New Zealand would like to arrange three match – certainly

with the bigger and more remunerative countries would like to arrange

three test match inbound tours but sometimes they have got reduced

down in practice to two test match tours. Do you think that that is still 25

a possibility?

MR SNEDDEN: That will happen tour by tour. You know, looking forward

there’s some tours, say by India to New Zealand next time around that

will be three tests instead of the two tests they were this year. Likewise 30

I think the last tour by England to New Zealand was three tests I think.

We have got a number of tours coming up from England but I’m not

sure, I just can’t quite recall but maybe not all of them a three tests.

[3.00 pm] 35

The issue you have got now is the amount of cricket that’s played and

there’s three forms of cricket now which wasn’t the case a few years

ago, so you are having to fit in test matches, one dayers and

Twenty20s. I was looking at the ICC rankings yesterday and the 40

amount of test cricket New Zealand is playing is very comparable to

what is being played by the other major countries in the world. We’re

not missing out.


MR JONES: So within the context of the Basin Reserve itself, is it is true to

say that the Basin Reserve has to compete against other grounds in

New Zealand to stage test matches?

MR SNEDDEN: Yes, and that’s in my evidence-in-chief that that’s absolutely 5

the case. We have seen the development of really nice test match

venues in Hamilton, University Oval in Dunedin. Right at the moment

the development of Hagley Park in Christchurch. The re-emergence of

Eden Park, which I will probably talk when we get on to player voice a

little bit later, but there are now a lot more venues for New Zealand to 10

choose between to stage their matches. But as Mr Clinton said, the

regard of the players is that this is the top test match venue and I am

sure that after the test match we had here a few weeks ago that that

position is probably even further entrenched in people’s minds. And

that’s what’s at risk with the flyover if it is not sufficiently mitigated. 15

MR JONES: So just to pursue that slightly further, what is the actual process

of allocating games to grounds, is there a committee that says, “Right,

these three can have it”, is it a bidding process, how does that work?

20

MR SNEDDEN: The process is run by the management of New Zealand

Cricket, the chief executive with his cricket manager. It has to go

through sign off by the New Zealand Cricket Board. The six major

associations, the six provincial associations are involved in discussions,

consultation but not in the decision making process itself. And there 25

are a number of factors that are taken into account and some of those

factors are relevant to this process, so the sort of things we have been

talking about earlier in terms of the risk of visual interference for

batsmen, for fielders, the general ambience of the ground, all of that is

relevant to it. 30

MR JONES: Thank you for that. Now, I have one more document I would

like to place into evidence and this was supplied electronically last

week, so I will ask for leave to do so. It is the report of the Economic

Growth and Arts Committee of Wellington City Council of 29 April 35

2014 and, in particular, the section discussing the draft statement of

intent for the Basin Reserve Trust. So I would like to propose that be

entered into evidence, I think it probably should be entered as

Neely 02.

40

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Neely might not want to have anything to do with

it. Let me have a look at it.

MR JONES: I am very happy to have it described in any other way.

45

MR……….: Should this be me or should it be Peter Clinton?


CHAIRPERSON: I don’t know. It is just a matter of getting it in, whoever is

- - -

MR JONES: Whoever it would be most appropriate in terms of the 5

relationship between the BRT and Wellington City Council.

CHAIRPERSON: So we will call this Clinton 1, shall we.

MS WEDDE: Sir, I wonder, just before we assign a number and put it into 10

evidence if perhaps we could explore the document and Mr Jones can

put questions to establish if it is in fact relevant. It’s not clear to me on

what basis the document is relevant at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 15

[3.05 pm]

MR JONES: I am happy to do that, yes. The section I was planning to refer

to is section 5.1, which begins on page 3. 20

CHAIRPERSON: Just to put you in context Mr Jones, if everyone consents

we can put it in no problem, but if one party may have a problem with

it you’ve got to establish its relevance.

25

MR JONES: So the reason I consider this document relevant is that it relates

to the discussion - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Well you just ask questions on it, yes.

30

MR JONES: I ask questions, okay, certainly. I only have a couple of questions

about this. Paragraph, sorry can we just go over to the next page?

There we go. It’s the same paragraph there. The one that begins, “with

respect to arranging a multi-year deal for New Zealand Cricket for test

matches at the Basin”. I just wanted to ask for confirmation that there 35

is currently an informal agreement for the use of the ground for at least

one test match for inbound tour over the next two seasons?

MR ………: (INDISTINCT 1.17)

40

MR JONES: Yes. Was the possible construction period of the Basin Reserve

flyover if consented taken into account in that informal agreement?

MR CLINTON: Yes it has to the extent that there has been some informal

discussions as part of that tripartite group, Basin Reserve Trust, 45

Wellington City Council, NZTA, around the timetabling of any


construction to take reference of not just a cricket timetable but

predominantly the cricket timetable, but also any other usage of the

ground so as to minimise any impact on the usage of the ground.

Construction to minimise at a time to minimise any impact on the

ground. 5

MR JONES: So is it the intention in that schedule therefore that test matches

will proceed during the construction period?

MR CLINTON: No, it would be the intention at this stage that there – that the 10

construction has been concluded before test matches are undertaken,

are played.

MR JONES: And that would include since it says “for at least one test match

for inbound tour over the next two seasons”, that would include at least 15

one test played in the next season, is that correct?

MR CLINTON: That’s correct. Thank you for that. And one other point I

want to refer you to there. However there is also a caution that the

recent changes at the ICC governance level could have an impact on 20

future touring schedules. The reason I want to mention – I just want to

ask – Mr Snedden’s given an assurance that basically – I don’t know

that I can say this, but it seemed to me that you were giving an

assurance that those problems had been sorted out whereas this seems

to suggest there’s still some uncertainty over that. 25

MR SNEDDEN: Well, I’m on the ICC as well as New Zealand Cricket. I

think the guys who are writing this aren’t and also they wrote it –

what’s the date of the document?

30

MR JONES: 29th April 2014.

MR SNEDDEN: It’s pretty recent. The information I know is not in the

public domain and I guess am I giving an assurance? Well until things

are absolutely signed off, no. But am I saying what I think will 35

happen? Yes. And what I think will happen is that we will end up with

no lesser quality of international playing programme over the next

11 years than we’ve enjoyed for the last – since the introduction of the

future tours programme a decade or so ago.

40

I think if I get where you’re driving what you can take from that is that

it’s likely the Basin will be in strong contention, all things being equal,

strong contention to host test matches here at least once a season,

sometimes twice a season. Next year’s quite an unusual year because

the cricket will truncate other cricket that’s played so that’s a different 45

situation but if you’re just talking about normal years then you can


make a safe assumption that there’ll be international cricket for the

Basin Reserve Trust to bid for and they’ll be a very strong contender

for.

MR JONES: Just in reference to the Cricket World Cup am I right, currently 5

there’s no intention to play any Cricket World Cup games at the Basin

Reserve?

MR SNEDDEN: No, they’re all played at the stadium.

10

MR JONES: And does that include warm up games?

MR CLINTON: There’s no warm up games. Sir, I can provide a bit of

context. I wrote the document so hopefully I can explain. First of all it

was filed I think in late February. 15

[3.10 pm]

The date you’re referring to is the date of the Council committee and I

think at that time there was still quite a lot of communication and 20

decision to be made at ICC level and what the Trust is doing there is

simply signalling to the Council that it can’t guarantee necessarily that

it’s going to get test cricket. It certainly hopes to do that. And it wants

to do that and it’s following that course of action, but it’s just make a

small qualification there at the end that even with best endeavours it 25

may actually not get the number of test matches that it would like to

get. That’s all that’s referring to there.

MR JONES: Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions on that

aspect? 30

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Wedde do you have any difficulty with this?

MS WEDDE: Sorry, sir, no objection.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Clinton 1.

EXHIBIT # CLINTON 1 -

MR JONES: Okay well in that case I’ll move on. Now here I’m referring 40

specifically to the issue around the ICC venue accreditation policy

which Sir John has already outlined to us. I just want to confirm there

are two grounds on which the – the Basin Reserve is one of those

grounds which gained its test status by which we might call

grandparenting because it had an existing test status. There are two 45

grounds under which the ICC can review the grounds accreditation.


One is if a major renovation is carried out. The other is if it has not

hosted a men’s international cricket match within the last five years. Is

that correct.

SIR ANDERSON: Yes except for the actual clause, has undergone major 5

renovation, more than 25% of the venue has been renovated. That is

actually in the ICC accreditation which really covers a whole lot of

things about playing cricket basically, test cricket.

MR JONES: And I understand from your evidence – is it your expectation 10

that the proposed project plus associated works such as the proposed

Northern Gateway Building are likely to be viewed as a major

renovation?

SIR ANDERSON: I can’t answer that question. 15

MR JONES: Well let me rephrase that. Is there - - -

SIR ANDERSON: What I mean is I don’t – that’s not my expertise. And to

the extent of the – note in there that there’s sort of a fine line because 20

they say “of the venue has been renovated”. So do you include a

flyover that’s outside the venue? If you go to the letter of what this

says you wouldn’t include the flyover. However – and then you’ve got

to judge whether the 65 metre if that is approved to be built relates to

65% and how that affects the ground - - - 25

MR ……….: 25.

SIR ANDERSON: and the situation. So it really needs an expert to say and

just if I was giving an opinion in that regard it would seem that 30

65 metres is a small section of the whole of the ground. So you’re

drawing a low bow to say it’s 25 percent of the ground.

MR JONES: I understand there are other actions planned such as for instance

the relocation of the C S Dempster Gate to the other side of the ground. 35

SIR ANDERSON: Yes, that’s true.

MR JONES: And also further planting, so.

40

SIR ANDERSON: Yes I wouldn’t take planting as renovations. The

C S Dempster Gate I agree with. And again that’s where you’d need an

official sort of evaluation if that was going to happen. If ICC want to

do that they could do that.

45


MR JONES: So if – you’ve raised a point that I was actually going to ask you

about which is am I right that there is at least a question that whether

the construction of the proposed flyover without taking into regard any

mitigation works would in fact constitute a major renovation. Is that

correct? 5

SIR ANDERSON: That’s right. I can’t answer technically whether that’s right

or wrong.

MR JONES: Right. So potentially it might be the case that if the flyover was 10

constructed but no – but the Northern Gateway Building was not built

that might not constitute a major renovation in the view of the ICC and

therefore would not trigger a review of the venue’s accreditation. Is

that a reasonable statement?

15

[3.15 pm]

SIR ANDERSON: It’s sort of like you’ve got two questions there not one. If

you narrow it down to say will that particular flyover not trigger it, if

there’s no mitigation, because of the flyover but then there’s a larger 20

question around that if there’s no mitigation there’s flow on effects

which could then destroy the ambience, spectators the whole lot, which

then could mean that we just lose accreditation. Or NZC say you might

be accredited but we’re not going to do games. And that’s the strongest

bid actually. 25

MR JONES: Right. I’m just trying to tease out what elements there are in the

accreditation process.

SIR ANDERSON: Right. 30

MR JONES: So would it be true to say – again, I’m talking here about we’re

raised a number of inputs into the status of the ground including

spectator views, players views etcetera, but in this context I’m talking

about the ICC venue accreditation process that if the proposed Basin 35

bridge does not go ahead there is no reason under the venue

accreditation policy for the ground’s accreditation to be reviewed?

SIR ANDERSON: That is correct.

40

MR JONES: I do have some more questions here but this might be a good

time to stop and just check whether anybody else would like to

comment?

45


MR SNEDDEN: I think Sir John touched on a point that shouldn’t be lost

here and it’s probably the most important point here. You’ve got ICC

accreditation. Then you’ve got the judgment calls made by New

Zealand Cricket which in part will be influenced and quite possibly

influenced quite heavily by the view of the players, but also of others 5

that have a stake holding interest and I just want to refer to one

example I think might be relevant to this.

Now Eden Park in Auckland is a major stadium. It’s been used for

cricket since the early 1900s and rugby since just a little bit after that. 10

Its facilities are good. It’s got a good cricket pitch, it’s got good player

facilities, broadcasting facilities, media facilities, the works. New

Zealand Cricket made a decision around 2007/8 to not allocate test

matches to Eden Park for the time being and the reason they did that I

think was basically that the feel of the ground, the nature of the ground 15

as a concrete jungle wasn’t what they wanted for overall experience

from test matches and so they placed test matches into the Basin

Reserve, into Hamilton, to Dunedin rather than allocate them to

Eden Park even though Eden Park’s our biggest stadia, biggest

population base. In part I think the decision of New Zealand Cricket, I 20

wasn’t on the Board at that stage, was based on strong feedback from

players that it just didn’t feel right as a test match venue compared to

those other venues and I think that was a view that New Zealand

Cricket regarded as being pretty important in that mix.

25

Now the last two years they have – we have conducted experiments and

they’re now regarded as experiments sending test matches to Eden Park

and the jury’s still out on that I think and both of those two matches,

one against England one against India, great games of cricket but

received fairly mixed reviews because of the ambience and the feel of 30

things in a ground that has a capacity of 50,000 but an attendance of

3 to 5,000 on a day.

And so when you’re thinking about what is possible here and whether

or not there is the threat of losing international cricket if the end result 35

of this process is to destroy the ambience of the ground then

Eden Park’s a really good example of the fact that this is a very real

threat, that international cricket could be taken away from the venue

despite the fact that the venue has 80 years of test cricket behind it

because that was the case in Auckland. 40


[3.20 pm]

But, you know, the feel of a venue is really important to all of this and

that, for me, is again when I was standing out there yesterday and just

visualising this flyover and thinking about it in this context of threat to 5

international cricket, to me that was the risk.

ICC accreditation is there and I think Sir John has made it clear that it’s

not a given that they would interfere in the accreditation process. The

accreditation process is constantly evolving and particularly in the 10

professional era the rules and regulations comprised within

accreditation keep being reviewed, and often they are reviewed on the

basis of player feedback. And so, you know, it can work in reverse that

players in fact ultimately have an effect on ICC regulations and that in

turn could have an effect on the future of a particular venue, and that 15

has happened in lots of examples but I just use the Auckland one as one

I think that’s close to what we are thinking about here.

MR JONES: Thank you for that. So just a follow up question on that, so the

situation where Auckland was not used for test cricket had nothing to 20

do with its venue accreditation status in the formal sense, it was

feedback from players, from spectators, from officials perhaps – sorry,

I am not sure if you said officials – that it was no longer suitable, it no

longer had the right ambience as a test ground, is that correct?

25

MR SNEDDEN: Yes, and it was officials as well as others that had that feel,

so that’s why I say test cricket has returned to Eden Park in the last two

years but very tentatively and there is nowhere near the certainty that

they will continue to host test cricket at that venue going forward. And

it’s only because of that feel because all the facilities are good, very 30

good.

MR JONES: Thank you for that. I do just have a couple more questions for

Sir John in this area if no one else has any comments.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JONES: I just wanted to ask three questions I think. Firstly, you say in

your evidence at 1.31 that the ICC accreditation policy sets out

mandatory minimum requirements for venues that hold men’s test, one 40

day and Twenty20 internationals. To your knowledge are any of those

requirements put at risk by any element of the proposal?

SIR ANDERSON: Of this proposal?

45

MR JONES: Of this proposal, including the proposed mitigation.


SIR ANDERSON: By elements do you mean Twenty20, one day match?

MR JONES: No, sorry, I meant is there anything in the proposal, including

the proposed mitigation, which would cause the ground not to meet 5

those mandatory minimum requirements?

SIR ANDERSON: Is it the proposal to build the flyover, the proposal to build

the Gateway Bridge are you talking about?

10

MR JONES: Well, I am happy for you to refer to each of those elements, I was

referring to the proposal as a whole including the proposed mitigation

but if there are specific aspects which would have an – okay, I will

refer to them in turn. Is there anything about the construction of a

flyover outside the Basin Reserve which would cause the ground not to 15

meet those mandatory minimum requirements?

SIR ANDERSON: Definitely in a two stage process and that is a bottom up

process as well as a top down process, it could put the ground at risk.

And Martin has described the bottom up process extremely well as it 20

affect New Zealand Cricket, making a decision on Eden Park, you

know, you get 3,000 people turn up in a 50,000 ground you don’t want

to know. And that bottom up process, that Gateway without mitigation

would put, I believe, a huge risk in a bottom up process.

25

In a top down process I think the ICC are more accommodating,

however they’re quite ruthless if they see, particularly if it has got

health and safety issues as well, and they could come under the

renovation rule or try to and just say, “We don’t believe” or, “You’re at

risk, you need to do something about it”, we have got a different 30

process. If there is mitigation I believe we don’t have any risk on the

accreditation.

[3.25 pm]

35

MR JONES: And would you agree, taking Mr Snedden’s example, Eden Park

was discontinued for a while as a venue and is still only used on an

experimental basis because of issues for the players, the lack of a

crowd to Eden Park to fill the stadium or only fill a very small part of

the ambience. Would it not be the case to say that whatever actions are 40

taken at the Basin Reserve should perverse and enhance those aspects

of the Basin Reserve not risk lessening them?

SIR ANDERSON: I agree with that.

45


MR JONES: And my final question in this area – sorry, this is of the

assessment process – who actually conducts the assessment process? I

am referring here to the top down process, we have well-established

how the bottom up one works.

5

SIR ANDERSON: The ICC appoint one sometimes two. For example, I

remember Graham Dowling when Martin and I were both on the

New Zealand Cricket Board, we appointed to go across to India – or,

sorry, ICC appointed Graham Dowling, a former New Zealand test

captain, to go and do accreditation in India for a test series. So 10

normally it’s one or two international players or international player

and someone who, from ICC itself, that is very familiar with the whole

process and the operations of ICC. And they would come and do the

accreditation process and they would then report back to ICC and ICC

would then discuss it with the host nation, or the test major nation as 15

they are called, about the ground in particular. And I saw that happen

with the West Indies in the World Cup where there was a hell of row as

to the West Indies actually having a ground to play and whether they

went to certain venues.

20

MR JONES: So the New Zealand assessors might be called into the West

Indies, it would be assessors from outside New Zealand who would be

called into New Zealand?

SIR ANDERSON: Yes, they are normally very highly qualified people and 25

they do very professional reports.

MR JONES: The final decision, if there was a continuing issue, the final

decision would be made by the ICC itself, is that correct?

30

SIR ANDERSON: Correct.

MR JONES: And, as we have heard, the primary players in the ICC, to whit

India, Australia and England, now have more power than they did

before the recent restructuring, is that correct? 35

SIR ANDERSON: That’s right.

MR JONES: So, in effect, it would primarily be those three countries who

would be deciding, if that process was initiated, on the Basin Reserve’s 40

future as a test ground?

SIR ANDERSON: Well, no, not necessarily. I think Martin is better probably

at answering this question knowing the current thing but normally,

under the previous governance situation we always went through a 45

cricket committee, which is made up of a number of nations, and from


a cricket point of view then a report was done to the board, if it was

going there. So this cricket committee is made up from the 10 major

nations representatives and plus a couple of others who have been

outstanding cricketers in their time and just know the game backwards

and have played at most grounds around the world. 5

So it’s not a political thing per se. There’s a whole formal basis,

cricketing basis on which decisions are made. Even though you have

got the big three now, the board would still operate in a proper fashion

in relation to cricket as distinct from money, okay. And in cricket 10

terms they would accept the recommendation of a cricket committee on

that. I don’t think the big three really come into the play there.

MR JONES: Thank you for that. Anybody else have any comments,

Mr Snedden or anybody else like to comment on that aspect? 15

MR SNEDDEN: No, I agree with what Sir John has said.

MR JONES: That is all I had on the effects on international cricket. I do have

questions about domestic cricket, should they go next or does 20

Ms Anderson have some questions on that?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, we will deal with that after afternoon tea, shall

we?

25

ADJOURNED [3.30 pm]

RESUMED [3.50 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Jones, have you got further questions. 30

MR JONES: Yes, I have a few further questions in this section.

CHAIRPERSON: Are we going to finish tonight, I would like to think we

would? 35

MR JONES: I would think there is a reasonable possibility of that, I don’t

know, I have just been reviewing my questions and quite a lot have

been dealt with already. I don’t know whether there is possibility of

going slightly beyond 5, but I will certainly - - - 40

CHAIRPERSON: Not very much beyond 5, no.

MR JONES: I will certainly aim for that but of course, I can’t guarantee it.

45


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well a lot of those last questions, while it is interesting

the ins and outs of the politics of cricket, are really not a matter for us

to determine and while it is good for background, we don’t need to go

too far into it.

5

MR JONES: I certainly don’t have any further questions on that, sir. May I

proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

10

MR JONES: Mr Clinton, you have said with regard to effects on domestic

cricket, it is actually with regard to the use of the Basin Reserve as a

whole. In your evidence, 1.43 and 1.44 page 11, you have said, “In

addition to sports spectators, the enclosed nature of the Basin Reserve

is a significant advantage when it comes to attracting top level concerts 15

and other events. A view of traffic from ground level anywhere within

the ground would have a significantly negative impact on the ability to

market the Basin Reserve as an events venue.”

And you have also mentioned – of course, the ground is not only used 20

within the cricket season, or even by sports, it is used simply by people

sitting here, passing through it, you have said the view of a busy road

from ground level would significantly detract from the ambience of the

ground.

25

I just wanted to ask would you agree that from the figures that we have

seen today, and I call back up 7B.45 if necessary, the mitigation

measures proposed by the applicant would still result in views of traffic

on the proposed flyover from many viewpoints within the Basin

Reserve. 30

MR CLINTON: No, that is not the way I view those images. Are you talking

about along the embankment, for example?

MR JONES: I am asking from the surface and the embankment. This is in 35

relation to spectators so it is places that spectators might be?

MR CLINTON: No I think the – some visuals might be helpful here but my

thinking and my reading of those visuals, the graphics where the height

of the Northern Gateway Building, were going to be sufficient to 40

mitigate the full view of the flyover and the traffic on the flyover.

MR JONES: My understanding from the previous discussion and from the

evidence of Ms Wraight, was that for the length of the Northern

Gateway Building, it would mitigate the view of traffic on the proposed 45

flyover, - - -


MR CLINTON: Yes.

MR JONES: - - - but there is a portion to the east of the Northern Gateway

Building for which that view is either not mitigated – at the time of 5

construction, is either not mitigated but only partially mitigated.

CHAIRPERSON: Not fully mitigated.

MR JONES: Sorry, not fully mitigated. 10

MR CLINTON We are back to the top of the toilet block again, aren’t we?

MR JONES: We are back to the part of the flyover that is not screen by the

Northern Gateway Building. 15

MR CLINTON: Toilet block. Yes, so my comment again would be that as

Mr Snedden has stated several times, the pohutukawa tree is one of the

proposed screening options through there in time, it already does

provide some screening of course. 20

And there will be an option for temporary screening. If we get enough

feedback or we ourselves believe that the transport visual is detrimental

to either players or spectators or anyone else inside the venue, then we

could look at temporary mitigation measures for any particular gaps 25

along that visual eye line.

MR JONES: Okay, thank you.

[3.55 pm] 30

MR CLINTON: Sorry, I think my comment about the events was that those

events I did list, many of them involve patrons sitting on the field so

Carols by Candlelight for example, Wellington Symphony Orchestra,

we sat on the field and if you sat on the field you don’t have a view of 35

the roading of course, you are not actually on the embankments at all,

so that is why it was an attractive venue for those promoters because by

putting patrons on the field and seated on the field, either on the grass

itself or on chairs, that eliminated any view of any current traffic.

40

MR JONES: But you would agree that during cricket matches, spectators on

the embankment would still have a view, admittedly obstructed in some

places by pohutukawa, of traffic on the proposed flyover?

MR CLINTON: Yes, behind them on that eastern side, yes. 45


MR JONES: Thank you for that. I want to ask about the construction period.

Should the project be approved, when is it expected that construction of

the project will commence?

MR CLINTON: My understanding is that there hasn’t been any formal 5

discussion or agreement as to any particular timeline for construction.

What I do understand is that there is an agreement between those

parties that they will sit down and discuss the most timely construction

period for, in particular, the venue given that it could well be hosting

matches throughout the summer, but I am not aware of any formal 10

timeframe that has been agreed.

MR JONES: So there is no formal agreement about either the construction

period or the management of the construction period. Is that correct?

15

MR CLINTON: That is my understanding.

MR JONES: Can I just ask whether anybody else has a different

understanding of that. No, then we will carry on?

20

So is there is an understanding of whenever construction starts, how

long the project is due to take to be constructed?

MR CLINTON: Again, I don’t think there has been any formal discussions as

to the timeframe and that is largely driven by the fact that we don’t 25

have a design for the Northern Gateway Building itself awaiting

decision, obviously of this Board than anything else.

Sir John referred to the fact that there was no formal budget for the fit-

out of that building and I am making a similar statement that until such 30

time as we have this matter concluded here, the final design of the

building is as yet undetermined, so I can’t give you a timeframe for a

building that has not yet been designed.

MR JONES: I’ll ask this anyway, but perhaps in fact it is covered by your 35

previous answer. So there has been no consideration given, or has

there been any consideration given to whether the construction of the

Northern Gateway Building and the construction of the proposed

flyover, would be contemporaneous or whether the Northern Gateway

Building would be built after the flyover has been constructed, if 40

indeed it does go ahead?

MR CLINTON: No, again, my understanding from discussions would be that

the Northern Gateway Building if consented, would be built first

followed by the bridge, second. 45


MR JONES: Thank you for that. So you indicated earlier when we were

discussing the Wellington City Council document, Clinton 1, that it is

intended that cricket will be played – sorry, I will rephrase that

question.

5

Is it intended that cricket will be played at the Basin Reserve during the

period of construction?

MR CLINTON: Yes.

10

MR JONES: And will that include international cricket?

MR CLINTON: Possibly, yes.

MR JONES: And if international or for any cricket, domestic or international, 15

during the period that is played, during the period of construction, is it

intended that construction will stop while those matches are going

ahead?

MR CLINTON: I would imagine that there is going to have to be some very 20

careful management between the builders and the cricketers as such. I

mean, I could just draw on some observations, Adelaide Oval has just

recently completed a major refurbishment, I think well over half a

billion Australian dollars, and test cricket has continued to be played at

Adelaide Oval for the last couple of seasons while they have been 25

undertaking that work and even closer to home, I believe, AMI

Stadium in Christchurch, underwent considerable, this is obviously

prior to the earthquakes, underwent considerable capital works while

the cricket was still played so I think the two can still go hand in hand,

and that would be a possible option. 30

[4.00 pm]

MR JONES: Thank you for that, I have no further questions in that area.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Jones. Ms Jones?

MS JONES: That’s fine, I’ve been slipping questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I know, I’ve notice that. Yes, Ms Wedde? 40

MS WEDDE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And we appreciate you doing that.

45


MS WEDDE: Sir, I just have one question for Mr Clinton which relates to the

construction period.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

5

MS WEDDE: I’m just conscious of time, the questions I have relate to matters

that are explicitly covered by the agreement between the Council, the

Trust and NZTA.

CHAIRPERSON: Which we’ve read, yes. 10

MS WEDDE: And you have read that. Well, in that case I’m not sure if I need

to ask questions at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you can ask him if it – if he’s satisfied that they’re 15

adequately covered in the terms of agreement between the Trust and

NZTA and the Council.

MS WEDDE: Thank you, sir.

20

MR CLINTON: Yes. No, I’m sure they are, I don’t have a copy in front of me

I’m sorry, but - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you could give him a copy to have a look at.

25

MS WEDDE: Yes.

MR CLINTON: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Also Mr Clinton there is going to be management plans if 30

the project is allowed and there are conditions relating to those which

I’m sure your counsel has - - -

MR CLINTON: Yes.

35

CHAIRPERSON: - - - has been keeping her eye on.

MR CLINTON: Yes.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WEDDE [4.01 pm] 40

MS WEDDE: Mr Clinton, could you please look at clause 6.2B - - -

MR CLINTON: Yes.

45

MS WEDDE: - - - of the agreement rather than the MOU, do you have that?


MR CLINTON: Right, thank you, yes.

MS WEDDE: And that clause reads that the licence will be subject to a

condition that no work on the mitigation will be carried out during any 5

international cricket period and if you look at clause 14 which provides

for definitions, can you see the definition of international cricket period

there?

MR CLINTON: Yes. 10

MS WEDDE: Does that assist with your answer, is there anything you’d like

to add with your previous answer?

MR CLINTON: Well, that the memorandum, the agreement, anticipates that 15

there will be no construction during international cricket matches.

MS WEDDE: Thank you, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Ms Wedde. 20

Ms Anderson.

MS ANDERSON: I’ve got no cross-examination on that topic.

25

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, so we move onto topic D.

MS ANDERSON: Did you want me to start on that topic, sir?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well it looks like you’ve agreed to divide that into two 30

sections, topic D is mitigation, the proposed mitigation and alternatives

including possible screening and the council are going to start the

questions relating to the proposed mitigation followed by Mr Jones or

Mrs Jones and then for the alternatives to mitigation, that’s the screens

I presume, Mr Jones will then ask some questions. 35

MS ANDERSON: If it makes easier, sir, I’m happy – because I only have two

sub-topics under here, to ask both of them, although the second one

technically relates to alternatives if that just makes it easier and then

I’m finished. 40

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.


<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS ANDERSON [4.04 pm]

MS ANDERSON: If I could start with Dr Sanderson and your evidence-in-

chief, now you said in that the 45 metre Northern Gateway Building

will be adequate to avoid the distraction to batsmen, but I take it you 5

aren’t purporting in any sense to make that comment outside of your

ophthalmological expertise?

DR SANDERSON: Correct.

10

MS ANDERSON: And you’ve accepted that in your evidence, haven’t you,

that you have no expertise in playing cricket and haven’t had regard to

the expert cricket evidence when you formed your views, is that right?

DR SANDERSON: That’s right, I have actually played cricket, but I haven’t 15

got a – I couldn’t claim to be an expert for a minute.

MS ANDERSON: And I take it you would accept that the expert cricket

evidence is that from their perspective, a 65 metre Northern Gateway

Building is required for appropriate mitigation, you’re aware of that? 20

[4.05 pm]

MR SANDERSON: I am, yes.

25

MS ANDERSON: Anyone want to comment on that specific little topic? The

second area relates to the alternative of screening on the bridge itself,

and I wonder, starting with Mr Clinton, whether you have any views of

this alternative option of screening permanently attached to the

southern side of the bridge? 30

MR CLINTON: I am struggling to picture how permanent screening on the

southern side of the bridge would, first of all look. And then how will it

operate, functionally? We are not talking about screening the entire

bridge, are we? We are talking about screening the traffic, is that 35

correct?

MS ANDERSON: The evidence from Mr Hardwick-Smith is a 4.2 meter

screen from deck level along 90 meters of the bridge. So it would

equate to, effectively, the 65 meter northern gateway building length. 40

MR CLINTON: From deck level?

MS ANDERSON: From deck level of the bridge.

45


MR CLINTON: Oh, from deck level of the bridge, yes. So, it does not mitigate

the view of the bridge itself. It seeks to mitigate the view of the traffic.

MS ANDERSON: Correct.

5

MR CLINTON: Again, as with my early evidence, I do not see that as

satisfactory for all the reasons given in the evidence already. I think

that while it may have an impact in terms of reducing the visual of the

traffic flow itself, and that is still not necessarily my evidence, we are

still left with the issue of the spectator enjoyment of the ground and the 10

look and feel and the ambience of the ground, which is still subject to a

view of a flyover.

MS ANDERSON: And just before I open that up to comment, the second

option that has been asked from a number of the urban designers is this 15

option of, possibly whether temporary screening could be used on the

bridge when cricket is being played. For want of a better word, it gets

wheeled out while cricket’s on and wheeled back in when it is not.

Would you have any comments on that option?

20

MR CLINTON: Well again, I am just a little bit unsure as to how, logistically,

such an effort would work. I know from experience here at the basin,

when we do erect temporary structures that they are very time

consuming, they are expensive, and they are not always successful.

They always have got wind loading issues and engineering issues 25

around them. So I would think that – my immediate reaction to a

temporary screening option is that I would imagine it would be

expensive and, operationally, very difficult to actually put in place.

MS ANDERSON: And what sort of time period do you think that would be 30

up for?

MR CLINTON: Well we have teams arriving before test cricket, two to three

days ahead for training, but of course, we have cricket from mid-

October played here until as late as early to mid-April. So we are 35

probably looking at a calendar which has either temporary screening

there for the best part of that full period, the summer months, which

would be, effectively, six to seven months. Or, if it is going to be an up

and down type operation, then regularly up and down during that

period for, as I say in my evidence, 30 to 45 days of cricket, which – It 40

would have to be the former. I think it would have to be a structure that

was erected early to mid-October and actually remained in place until

early to mid-April. That is about as temporary as it could be, I would

think.

45


MS ANDERSON: And could I have comments on both of those topics from

anyone else, sorry, Sir John, could you just speak up a wee bit?

MR ANDERSON: There is the proposed alternative proposal of having screens

on the bridge, and the points you have made about ambience of the 5

ground, is not the point – and that will have a huge effect. I am not

going to use Martin’s term hideous, but it is something close to that.

The real aspect, it is not just six months, because during the summer – I

know we are talking cricket here, but we in the basin reserve have,

because we look after the ground all year, we have 9 or 10 senior club 10

games here. We have got soccer, we use the ground for training, for

international science and rugby.

[4.10 pm]

15

We will have play at the stadium, particularly. And again, if you are

kicking a football up in the air and that, you have got the same problem

of moving traffic again, if you are going to catch it, or fall back, or

wherever.

20

If you are going to do something, a temporary thing is never temporary.

It has got to be made permanent at some stage. And to me, the best

option to make it permanent up front, rather than just a temporary, I

think we still believe strongly, it will have a huge effect on the image

and the nature of the ground. If that so close to the ground, motorway is 25

there, whatever the alternative, sort of, temporary screening is.

MS ANDERSON: Did anyone else wish to comment on that option?

MR SNEDDON: You will hear the evidence you need to hear as to whether 30

or not, from an engineering point of view and a safety point of view,

the screening can be done. And whether that screening, then is effective

in terms of blocking out the view of the traffic, and if you reach a

decision that, yes, it is, then, you know, we would have to accept that

deals with the visual interference for a batsman and fielders. But it is 35

John’s point that then becomes by far the most important, and in this

option, you are talking about no mitigation, effectively. No mitigation

in terms of the ambience, and that is going to be a dominating feature,

and that is what is at risk with the ground and I do not need to repeat

what I said this morning, I think most of it was on that point. 40

MS ANDERSON: I have no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Ms Anderson. Mr Jones.

45



MR JONES: I have some questions, just to note, I have some questions about

the northern gateway building, I – yes, I have. – Sorry. I have some

questions about the northern gateway building. I may have a couple of 5

additional questions after that.

What proposals or decisions are there for the use of the northern

gateway building? The Basin Reserve Trust is, I should say, this is a

question initially to whichever of Sir John or Mr Neiley (ph 2.43) 10

would like to answer. The proposal covers a division between the fitout

which is the responsibility of the Basin Reserve Trust, I should say,

sorry, this is the agreement, and the construction, the responsibility of

NZTA. What does the Basin Reserve Trust intend that the uses of the

northern gateway building would be? 15

MR ANDERSON: (INDISTINCT 3.05) of the motorway.

MR JONES: In addition to that use, you have - - -

20

MR ANDERSON: Right, the informal discussions we have had, and secondly,

I have also with NZTA, in relation to whose responsibility was what, as

to the what were we getting in relation to mitigation and what was the

responsibility of Basin Reserve Trust, together with the council who

owns the land and their own building. 25

The first floor, the discussion has revolved around, it gives a far better

space for players to A, have changing rooms and B, players’ rooms. It

was in 1974 or 5, I remember we put up the players; room just at the

end of this building here. And that was satisfactory for those times, but 30

it is not satisfactory now where the New Zealand team sort of takes

over the top of that floor and like, the English teams are in the bottom

of the public, literally being able to come in and out of that room. And

while it is a nice building, this will give the opportunity to have proper

facilities which the batsmen can come out of, come in and they have 35

showering facilities and everything.

[4.15 pm]

In terms of the second floor, we believe it is community use. And in 40

that way, it is not necessarily purely on cricket. On cricket days, I am

sure that there will be use found for it, but we have not gone any further

to do it. We know we have a facility there which we will find a

purpose thing and I mentioned before talking to the university about

holding various things during the week and using that facility could be 45


good for the ground. It brings people in and out. It’s connecting the

community and whatever else.

If cricket or other aspects want to have a good room which they can

hold board meetings or other meetings or discussions or brief 5

presentations – this is a long narrow space so you’d have to plan that.

But that’s as far as we’ve gone. It appears at this stage that the ground

floor will have to have some – you’ve got to get from the bank around

to the gates. So there’s got to be a passageway there. How we work

that out. But again we haven’t got the designs so I’m not quite sure 10

how that’s going to be configured. Those are where we’ve got to in

saying right well this is mitigation and there is a purpose for it and

we’ll use it for the good of the community and cricket and the ground

in general.

15

MR JONES: So if we could call up for a minute BB.75 joint witness statement

on urban design landscape and visual? And look at point 46 in that

statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what are you pulling up? 20

MR JONES: BB.75. That’s the joint witness statement on urban design. And

point 46. There we go, thank you. So point 46 states, “there is

agreement that if a bridge” – and agreement obviously by the experts

who signed this statement – “there is agreement that if a bridge is 25

declined by the Board that there should be no more Northern Gateway

Building”. Sir John initially and then anybody else who wishes to

comment, do you agree with the agreed statement by the urban design,

landscape and visual witnesses?

30

SIR ANDERSON: Yes I do.

MR JONES: You do yes. So you would only proceed with the Northern

Gateway Building on the basis that it was needed to mitigate the

proposed flyover? 35

SIR ANDERSON: Absolutely.

MR JONES: If you had the option to do so – if the Trust or the Wellington

City Council were able to do so, would you provide the player and 40

other facilities that you’ve discussed in that location where the

Northern Gateway Building is or would you provide them in a different

location within the ground?

45


SIR ANDERSON: Well I can’t – we haven’t considered that at all. At the

moment we do have players’ changing rooms in this building and those

have all been done up and they’re up to international standards but then

the viewing is in that building over there. You might say that would

still carry on. We wouldn’t deliberately build a building in that space 5

just for the players.

MR JONES: So in your view what would be the disadvantages of building a

building in that space?

10

SIR ANDERSON: Well it’s very narrow. And we’ve actually only got – it’s

neither one thing nor the other. It’s a long narrow building. And as a

pavilion and built as the design’s outlook it fits in with the ambience of

the ground and it is a mitigation situation. We would not build that

now. Let me put it differently. It comes back to the future 15

management plan of the ground which is underway at the moment

which I chair with the City Council and that’s the master plan for the

ground.

[4.20 pm] 20

And we’ve got other things to look at around here with the Museum

Stand which of course is not being used at the moment because of

earthquake which we have to do something about. So there’s a lot of

other options to look at before we could say let’s just do something, 25

build a building for the players when we’ve got adequate facilities to do

it here.

MR JONES: Since you’ve mentioned the Museum Stand, I’ll just ask is there

any relationship between – sorry, I’ll go back one step. It is correct is it 30

not that the Northern Gateway Building is not intended to provide

general spectator seating?

SIR ANDERSON: No it’s not.

35

MR JONES: There might perhaps at most be some corporate boxes? Is that a

possibility?

SIR ANDERSON: No we haven’t discussed that.

40

MR JONES: Right so in other words the Northern Gateway Building would

do nothing to make up for the spectator seating capacity that’s currently

been lost because the Museum Stand is out of action?

SIR ANDERSON: As I say there’s going to be no formal spectator paying 45

seats aspect of that building under the present thinking.


MR JONES: And so it would be true to say that the fate of the Museum Stand

is entirely independent from whether or not a Northern Gateway

Building is constructed?

5

SIR ANDERSON: Totally independent.

MR JONES: Thank you for that. See if I have anything else there. Sir, just a

point – am I able to refer to Mr Well’s evidence? The cricket witness

who was unable to be here. 10

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you’re entitled to put any comment in that to one of

these for their comment.

MR JONES: Thank you, sir. In his evidence Mr Wells, who unfortunately 15

was unable to be with us today, states – this is 4.3 on page 4 – “crucial

to the maintenance of international cricket status will be” – I’ll skip that

bit. “Should mitigation of the proposed flyover involve the building it

should be noted that a modern player lounge with media facilities and

covered seating is potentially crucial to maintaining the international 20

status of the ground. The best location for such a lounge is at either

end of the pitch looking directly down the pitch not across it”. Sir

John, would you agree with Mr Wells that the best location for a

modern player lounge and media facilities is at either end of the pitch?

25

SIR ANDERSON: To deal firstly with the media facilities, yes they are

behind the pitch and are modern and are upstairs. We don’t need new

media facilities and they were prepared again for the international

matches and tours that came out. In terms of a players lounge, by and

large we’ve got that in the building we’ve got which is slightly off 30

kilter – is it 6 or 7 you’re going to use for the test match? Fixed

number. But you can actually look straight down the pitch from that

players viewing. So he’s got that anyway.

MR NEELY: Could I just point out that those media facilities upstairs cost the 35

Basin Reserve Trust $307,000 and they were built about 3 or 4 years

ago.

MR JONES: What’s the intended – if the Northern Gateway Building is built

what would happen to the current players' pavilion? 40

SIR ANDERSON: If it was built it would stay.

MR JONES: And it would be used for? You may have stated this before and

I didn’t get it clear. Is it to be used for one of the teams while the other 45

team would be in the Northern Gateway Building?


SIR ANDERSON: That’s a choice.

MR JONES: But that’s not yet been decided?

5

SIR ANDERSON: No.

MR CLINTON: Excuse me. I think Sir John’s obviously entirely correct.

There hasn’t been too many decisions made on the future of those

buildings but I think the opportunity presented by the Northern 10

Gateway Building if it’s consented is one of flexibility around the

ground so as we’ve heard the demands of the particularly international

cricket game are getting larger and larger, and there’s more people

associated with the event. There are more requirements around the

technology associated with broadcasters and camera work and so forth 15

so I think it’s too early for us to explain exactly what building A or

building B or the rooms within those buildings might look like. But

they do present an opportunity for flexibility which we currently don’t

have because we have a very fixed building here. Although having

said that we have expanded the changing rooms downstairs quite 20

markedly.

But just to pick up on one point made a moment ago about the

proposed Northern Gateway Building, operationally one of the

attractions of it is the ability to secure the players and the match 25

officials very, very carefully and easily and quickly.

[4.25 pm]

Which is, even though not necessarily New Zealand, it’s an issue and it 30

certainly is in the international cricket community but currently the

players enter this building through the rear foyer which is where

everyone came in this morning, so you have got players and officials

coming in with the public through the rear doors, which isn’t

necessarily ideal. They go down through the central corridor there, the 35

stairs, and then they exit to the field down there at ground level, again

with players and spectators walking around. So we have multiple

points where we have some issues around security of players, access to

officials et cetera so the Northern Gateway Building as an isolated

building presents an opportunity there to actually be able to secure 40

those personnel in a very quick and efficient manner.

MR JONES: Well, perhaps then I will ask you the same question as I asked

Sir John. Do you agree with the statement that we called up a little

earlier on the joint witness statement on urban design, landscape and 45


visual that if the bridge is declined by the Board there should be no

Northern Gateway Building?

MR CLINTON: Yes.

5

MR JONES: So even despite those advantages you think it should not proceed

unless?

MR CLINTON: There is no flyover, yes.

10

MR JONES: Right. So no need for the Northern Gateway Building if this

project does not go ahead?

MR CLINTON: Correct.

15

MR JONES: Does anybody else have comments on those matters?

MR NEELY: Just that that was the original thinking of the board when it first

came forward, that the building of a flyover would necessitate

something screening it off and if there was no flyover we just carry on 20

as we are now and we just spent $110,000 doing up downstairs for the

players and their support areas, and perhaps Jason Wells’ (ph 2.00)

comment is written that he hasn’t seen inside the new facilities

downstairs.

25

MR JONES: I am sorry, I don’t know the answer to that. Does anybody else

want to comment on that specific point on whether in their view the

Northern Gateway Building should go ahead if the flyover does not go

ahead?

30

I will just check, I think that may be it. I have no further questions, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, thank you very much, Mr Jones. Dare I ask,

Ms Jones, if you - - -

35

MS JONES: I have none.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Wedde?

MS WEDDE: Sir, I don’t think I have any questions, I am just waiting on 40

Mr Cameron to confirm. No questions, thank you, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Any re-examination?

MS……….: No, thank you, sir. 45


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Baines, have you any questions you would like to ask?

MR BAINES: I am just having a look because in fact most of them have been

asked already. I did actually have one, well, I know I have got one

question for Mr Clinton. I mean you mentioned several times I think 5

about other events and activities and it made me think that I am not

sure I have a very clear idea of the extent and significance of some of

these other events and activities, although they have been mentioned,

school activities and so on. I realise the other sporting codes but you

have mentioned a number of other ones to do with concerts and Carols 10

by Candlelight and so on. Where can we get some good information

that summarises, you know, the extent of those uses of the Basin

Reserve?

MR CLINTON: Those details through Council. 15

MR BAINES: Is it sort of automatically summarised somewhere every - - -

MR CLINTON: No, it’s not necessarily auto-, I can collect together the last

five to 10 years of events if that’s helpful. The issue of events has 20

changed somewhat in the last few years because everyone who wants

to have a music festival or a food and wine festival in Wellington wants

to have it in February or March, which is obviously the very heavy

cricket programme, so it just can’t be accommodated.

25

Carols by Candlelight was a one-off although initially we were talking

longer term but that was in December obviously, early December,

when we could fit it through the cricket programme. The Symphony

Orchestra arrived when Government House was being renovated and

was out of action for three or four years, so they generally host that so 30

we were a backup for that.

[4.30 pm]

And some of the other events were one-off events. The Summerset 35

Music Festival I think ran for four years in April, each April. Again

that was post- cricket season, to allow them access to the field which

they needed, but as an event venue there are significant risks having an

outdoor event in Wellington, which I’m happily reminded of every

time I speak to these promoters, and as I say everyone’s looking for the 40

months of February or March which are very unlikely to be

accommodated, given the heavy international cricket calendar through

those dates.

45


There is up to nine club rugby Saturdays contracted with the

Wellington Rugby Football Union and they generally start mid to late

May and go through to early to mid-August and then we're into spring

an we're back to renovating our grounds then.

5

MR BAINES: Right. But some of the – the picture I got from what you’ve

said is that some of those were one-offs that may or may not happen

again in the future?

MR CLINTON: That’s correct. 10

MR BAINES: But others may have and it strikes me that you probably get

quite large numbers of people at some of those.

MR CLINTON: Yes, well that I don’t think is - - - 15

MR BAINES: Probably larger than a test match.

MR CLINTON: Beg your pardon?

20

MR BAINES: On one day anyway.

MR CLINTON: Yes, yes.

MR BAINES: If everyone’s out in the - - - 25

MR CLINTON: Yes. I think we had – I’d be guessing – I think we had 15,000

people for Carols by Candlelight, sitting on the grass.

There are discussions at the moment involving the Basin for the Anzac 30

Day 100 centenary celebrations next year and there’s talk of between

10 and 20,000 people attending that here at the Basin.

So the Basin makes itself available through the Trust, to various users,

but as I say, it’s always a balancing act between the availability of the 35

ground against what exactly the promoters or the event managers are

looking for themselves.

MR BAINES: Right. If there was some information that could be reasonably

briefly summarised in a page or two about the events, how regular they 40

have been, particularly ones that are on-going rather than sort of one-

offs and the sorts of numbers of people attending I’d find that helpful,

just to fill in some of the picture.

MS ANDERSON: There is a summary at 1.24 to 1.26 of his evidence-in-chief 45

in a generic sense, but there aren’t things like the details of numbers.


MR BAINES: Yes, well I was interested in sort of the, if you like, the scale of

use.

MS ANDERSON: Certainly. 5

MR COLLINS: I was going to ask the same question, but particularly in

relation to the number of days or part-days when the Basins closed to

the public, because we’ve heard a lot about the benefit of people being

able to cycle or walk through. 10

MR CLINTON: Yes.

MR COLLINS: Is that a thing you could tell us now or perhaps come back to

it through counsel, just roughly the sort of number of days, a year it’s 15

closed.

MR CLINTON: It’s only closed, it’s ever only closed for paid spectator

events, so that would be cricket matches at the moment or, as I

mentioned before, those music concerts that are held here. 20

The Reserves Act which is the governing legislation across the ground,

provides the venue authority with the ability to close it off for up to, I

think it’s six days in a continuum, which we do for the test match, so

it’s not closed and reopened at the end of each evening, it’s lockdown 25

across a whole test match and that’s because obviously there’s

broadcasting cameras and so forth in here throughout the whole period.

But other than the cricket matches currently, which are paid entry for

all but our first class competition which is free, it’s open access, it 30

would be open access for pedestrians and cyclists, yes, so we're only

talking less than 20 days a year.

MR COLLINS: Okay.

35

MR CLINTON: Yes. In fact, it may be as few as 12 to 15 days a year, where

it’s actually closed.

MR COLLINS: And who determines that, it to be closed?

40

MR CLINTON: The venue authority.

MR COLLINS: Venue authority.

MR CLINTON: Which is the Basin Reserve Trust. 45


MR COLLINS: Yes.

MR CLINTON: Yes.

MR COLLINS: Yes, thanks. 5

MR BAINES: Sorry, I was making notes I didn’t quite – but on those dates,

for example test matches, play usually begins at 10.

MR CLINTON: I beg your pardon. 10

MR BAINES: Test match days, play usually begins 10 o'clock, 10.30, 11

o'clock doesn’t it?

MR CLINTON: Yes, but we would close the ground the evening before the 15

test match, we would lock it down - - -

MR BAINES: It’ll be closed all morning, is it?

MR CLINTON: - - - all the way through six days, so they can finish the test 20

match.

MR BAINES: Okay, totally closed, so it’s not - - -

MR CLINTON: Yes. 25

MR BAINES: - - - not opened for pedestrian – commuter pedestrians?

MR CLINTON: No.

30

MR BAINES: Okay.

MR CLINTON: No it’s closed – security are posted etcetera, yes.

MR BAINES: Okay, thank you. I’ve got two or three other – well one other 35

point of clarification, one for Sir John, I just want to get some

clarification on this, sir, I’m talking about the ITC accreditation matter

here and one of the – the potential triggers is major renovation, would I

be right in thinking that that such renovations actually have to be on the

Basin Reserve land itself, I mean they don’t have jurisdiction over 40

renovations that take place outside the Reserve or is that something that

could be conceived.


[4.35 pm]

SIR ANDERSON: The actual wording is more than 25 per cent of the venue

has been renovated and I would suggest the venue would not include

the outside, so that is the way I would interpret that if I was going 5

strictly to the rules.

MR BAINES: Right, okay. So, in fact, I mean, if, for example, NZTA were

granted the consent and allowed to build the bridge, that is actually not

a renovation so far as the Basin Reserve is concerned, is it, because it 10

would be entirely outside, I am not talking about the Northern Gateway

building, I am simply talking about the bridge structure?

SIR ANDERSON: Yes, but then under the other clauses you might lose - - -

15

MR BAINES: The ambience effects, yes, I understand that, I just wanted to

be clear on that point about the triggers, if you like.

A couple of other questions, we have had considerable discussion and

evidence put before us from the urban design and landscape people 20

about the value should the bridge go ahead with the Northern Gateway

building, the value attached to having views of the ground at ground

level underneath the Northern Gateway building, are you familiar with

what I am talking about there?

25

SIR ANDERSON: Yes.

MR BAINES: And considerable importance has been attached to that by

some people, and I am just wondering, is that something that the Basin

Reserve Trust has, if you like, received submissions on quite 30

independently, so in other words, have people said “Look, can you

please open up the Basin Reserve so we can see the nice green grass

there, you know, because it would add to our sense of appreciation of

it?”, has that ever come up as a matter of discussion?

35

SIR ANDERSON: Well, firstly, just from the public, from everyone else, it

has never come up.

MR BAINES: It has never come up.

40

SIR ANDERSON: In terms of the urban design, one urban designer suggested

and suggested you had a chicken wire there to do it, it runs into huge

security problems and then you have got to of course screen it off in

some formal fashion when you have got to play games, it becomes very

difficult. So, we really have again, with the design side of it, we 45

haven’t really gone very popular on that, the council might have a


different view and of course the council own the ground and if we are

going to do anything in terms of that ground situation, we would

always just do it hand in hand with the council. Because you know,

they have the trustee.

5

MR BAINES: Well, to be fair to the suggestions that were made, they were

certainly acknowledging the need to be able to screen it off during the

play sets, but as I was saying, we have heard quite a lot about the value

of being able to have these ground level views and I think it is useful to

see whether or not that has been part of this thing? 10

SIR ANDERSON: Well, when that was first suggested and the then

Wellington City Council representative commented that if you come

down from Courtenay Place to the Basin, all you will see in actual fact

is this bloody great flyover and great concrete pillars to each side and 15

whatever else. And secondly, you would have a – this is a terrific

traffic space coming down, a lot of people are focusing on changing

lanes, they are focusing on doing – so it is actually could be a huge

traffic hazard and the only good comment really was that if someone is

walking down this way through the middle channel reserve park, you 20

can get a view, but there is not an awful lot of people that actually walk

down here, you know, from day to day.

So, while it might be good in theory, in practice there are a lot of risks

involved, which would need to be looked at. 25

MR BAINES: Right, thank you, one last question, we have also heard quite a

lot about the – on the first hand the fact that certain parts of the broader

Sussex Square has been being previously the, you know, the wider area

around the Basin Reserve and the perimeter of the Basin Reserve has 30

perhaps suffered from some lack of attention over the years because of

the uncertainties about what is going to happen and so on, and to

counter that the value of an improved plaza and we’ve all seen the

diagrams and the truescapes of what’s going to happen outside the

entranceway. Do you have any comment on the relevance of that or 35

significance of that in terms of patronage at Basin Reserve events?

[4.40 pm]

MR NEELY: I think that the drawings we’ve seen makes one think of coming 40

into a forest, a nice park, some interesting planting by weeds – well I’d

call them weeds, but I’m sorry about that, but just interesting gardening

looks. And I think that would be so much better than what is there

now, so much better, if that is done as well as I think the plans put

forward by the architects that I followed. 45


MR BAINES: Right. Has there been any discussion between the Basin

Reserve Trust and the Wellington City Council about – come on folks

can we clean up this entry way?

MR NEELY: No. 5

MR BAINES: No. Thank you very much, I’ve got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Collins?

10

MR COLLINS: Just a couple more. The proposal is to move the Dempster

Gate and put it across next to the Red Gate, and we’re going to hear

from heritage experts about that, because both the gates are recognised

heritage features. But I’m interested in the views of any of you as to

the importance of the Dempster Gate and where it is for players and/or 15

spectators. Any views on that?

MR CLINTON: I’m not aware of any player’s views necessarily. I think

cricket grounds – Don Neely might have mentioned this in his evidence

earlier, cricket grounds around the world are relatively well known for 20

having land marks within in them, which are named after players or

previous people associated with the game, the Basin is no different. So

there’s a certain historic charm about recognising both of those former

players with those gates.

25

I’m not entirely familiar with what is proposed around the actual

transitioning of the gate house itself, but I think from a patronage point

of view, and as we mentioned before Mr Baines, with the plaza entry, I

think there is an opportunity to create quite a nice welcoming for

patrons, and I’d like to think of that as one of the outcomes if we get 30

that far with the process that somewhere within that design we reflect a

suitable entry into what is a high quality cricket ground obviously.

So I’d be interested to know or to learn in time what is proposed for the

actual relocation of that gate house. But I can tell you from an 35

operational point of view they’re not particularly functional, they are

each, I think at least 80 years old now. They’re not in a great state of

repair, there is problems with the electricity within them when we have

to run eftpos facilities and ticketing facilities and so forth, and they’re

not even particularly wide. So actually people struggle to get through 40

them these days, and I’ve seen people negotiate them on their

pushbikes, and the terrible outcomes. So I think the opportunity will be

there to have a look at their functionality as well as the actual identity

that they bring to the ground. That’s my comment on the gate houses

at the moment. 45


MR COLLINS: Anybody else want to comment?

SIR ANDERSON: It does actually assist in the flow of spectators coming in

particular test matches where you get a line from there running right

round as we had in the last test match. But Peter is right, leaving aside 5

if the heritage sort of touch, they’re really out-dated and should be

replaced if one was being truly professional about it.

MR NEELY: That would make it a more enjoyable experience for about 60

percent of people who come into the test match come in through those 10

gates there.

MR COLLINS: So it might assist to have both the gates at one end providing

more capacity and a new facility at the other end.

15

SIR ANDERSON: Yes.

MR NEELY: Yes.

MR COLLINS: As it happens at the moment, the proposal is for a new facility 20

at the north end.

MR NEELY: Yes.

MR COLLINS: Which actually has the most entrance anyway. 25

MR CLINTON: Yes, and the numbers are actually higher than this, it’s about

75 to 80 percent of the patrons access from the northern end for both

international and domestic cricket.

30

[4.45 pm]

MR COLLINS: Okay, and just a final question from me. There was quite a bit

of discussion this morning about the visibility of traffic from inside the

Basin, and my understanding now is that some traffic is visible even 35

from the playing surface, higher vehicles and odd glimpses and so on,

but less than you would imagine if you walk out there now, because on

game days you have big marquees over here and you have other

screens over there and – is that right.

40

Does everybody sort of agree that that is the general impression, there

are big glimpses perhaps at the moment and in the future if there was a

bridge, the proposed building would block, completely block that part

of it and there has been some discussion about what happens in the

corner. And I think one of you indicated there is the possibility of 45


putting a marquee or two over there but there seemed to be agreement

that the trees are very important to provide permanent mitigation.

Most of the discussion has been about the concerns for players but I

think a couple of people have mentioned in evidence the need to – I 5

think more than a couple actually – have mentioned the need to be

mindful of the spectators and the particular ambience of this place.

Can I ask that you put up simulation 12.13 which I think is probably

the worst case simulation we have, 12.13 which is the view from the 10

top of the Museum Stand bearing in mind that is further around, so it is

probably worse than the view from this stand, after 10 years, so 10

years growth on the trees. If that can go on the screen, and I will just

ask if anybody wants to comment about that from a spectator’s point of

view. 15

It is probably difficult for you to see really but when you look at the

hard copy which is actually easier to look at, there is a clear view from

that height of the flyover.

20

MR NEELY: My comment is that - - -

MR COLLINS: It is the worst case?

MR NEELY: Yes, definitely. You are very high there and we haven’t had 25

any spectators in the Museum Stand since about 2011/12 I think since it

has been closed. So that simulates 10 years of growth does it, on the

embankment?

MR COLLINS: That is after 10 years. 30

MR NEELY: Yes. My initial reaction is that those pohutukawas are doing

quite a good job there and that is really what the Trust has been seeking

for some time and the planting of the new pohutukawas is intended to

achieve that as well so the idea being that the embankment will 35

continue to be a very relaxed informal space within the ground, and

obviously trees are a nice element of that and if they can grow and

become larger without being unwieldy, then I think that would be a

good outcome for the venue.

40

And as I say, most people – I mean traditionally, within this ground,

most people will sit on the – I think the embankment can hold about

4,000, 4,000 to 5,000, these western terraces are about one to 2,000 I

think, the Vance Stand itself has seating capacity for just under a 1,000

– I can’t do my maths right not but with an 8,000 capacity, you know, 45

50 percent of the crowd is actually seated on that eastern embankment


and they will obviously be looking back away from any proposed

flyover. It will be the one to 2,000 on this side of the ground and in the

Vance stand that will have site of the proposed flyover.

MR COLLINS: Does anybody else want to comment. 5

MR NEELY: My only other comment is that with the trees, and the William

Wakefield Memorial, a Corinthian temple, it is the first place that

visitors to Wellington go who are coming into the ground, head for

that, it is like a magnet and shall we mention the Barmy Army, they 10

centre themselves on that and spread that way, and it’s great.

Absolutely been marvellous and no other test venue in the world gives

us this ambience of trees and accepted by the public sitting there in a

beach hat and a pair of shorts and just enjoying the day’s sun. It’s a

wonderful facility. 15

[4.50 pm]

MR COLLINS: Yes I appreciate that but what I was really asking was looking

at this view being the worst case of where a spectator can get to do you 20

believe that would be of concern to spectators? Would they be happy

to see the flyover or would they perhaps move down somewhere else

where you don’t need to see it?

MR CLINTON: I think spectators would move so they didn’t have to view 25

the flyover. There’s plenty of capacity at a lower level, even at ground

level to sit and watch the cricket. You don’t have to go up that high

necessarily.

MR NEELY: And who knows that may not be there in two years’ time. 30

Depending on what the new plan will be.

MR COLLINS: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Collins. 35

MR McMAHON: Thank you, sir. It’s that very last question that I just wanted

to ask Mr Neely some questions about. Mr Neely, in the extract from

the Trust document you or whoever wrote this indicated that one of the

major challenges facing the Trust was the future of the Museum Stand. 40

And it’s been closed since 2011/2012 for spectators. This document

indicates that a decision on the future of the stand was expected in

September 2012. I presume that a decision hasn’t yet been made on - -

-

45


MR NEELY: No the City Council have to straighten out the town hall and

that’s now sitting at something like strengthening of $40 million. We

had some earlier figures on the strengthening of the Museum Stand and

they would say, yes it could be strengthened and the figure was

between $4 and $8 million spent on strengthening it, but it still 5

wouldn’t get a certificate to let people sit in it. And that’s where it

stopped because the over bridge was taking everybody’s time and

rather than confuse the matter – and that’s what the new planning will

do for the Basin. It will probably be one of the first things is when has

the City Council got some money to either remove it, take the top off it, 10

whatever they want to do with it. And that’s when we’ll get an answer.

MR McMAHON: So it’s a City Council asset is it?

MR NEELY: It’s a City Council asset, yes. 15

MR McMAHON: And so the matter’s still in abeyance?

MR CLINTON: Well the master plan committee has just been formed. As I

mentioned before I’m chair of that and it has members from the City 20

Council and the Basin Reserve Trust and we will be looking at the

whole ground master plan and the Museum Stand in particular as to

what options there are as to what’s available. I won’t go through the

options but - - -

25

MR McMAHON: Sir John, what are the range of options?

SIR ANDERSON: Well you could start from you scrub it completely to

strengthen it, but you’ve got to strengthen it to a level properly there.

It’s still being used downstairs where the museum is. You could 30

remove the roof which is highly dangerous for earthquakes and it’s still

damaged as you might say. And I’m sure there’s other options that will

come out of that as well.

MR McMAHON: I was interested to hear you mention the management plan 35

earlier and you’ve just repeated it again now. There was some

criticism in the early days of the hearing that there was an absence of

any management plan for the Reserve. Has this been a more recent

initiative?

40

SIR ANDERSON: Yes it’s in line with – for example the stadia board which

I’m on has just completed the master plan for the stadium.

MR McMAHON: Is this some master plan per se or would it form the basis of

a reserved management plan under the Reserves Act? 45


SIR ANDERSON: Not it’s a master plan as to what alternatives the Basin has.

MR McMAHON: Yes. Okay. Just a question of clarification for both

yourself Sir John and Mr Clinton. Mr Jones I think read you the

paragraph 46 from the joint witness statement regarding whether there 5

should be a Northern Gateway Building if the bridge proposal doesn’t

proceed. I think you both said no.

SIR ANDERSON: That’s right.

10

MR McMAHON: Can I just clarify. Was that – were you saying that there

should be – because you view the Northern Gateway Building as

mitigation you’re simply confirming that there’s no need for any

mitigation. Is that what you’re saying?

15

[4.55 pm]

SIR ANDERSON: No what I was saying is if there was no flyover, no bridge

there would be no reason at this stage to build the Northern Gateway

Building, and we definitely wouldn’t build it until the master plan had 20

been done, if we were going to consider that.

MR McMAHON: I understand. And that’s your view, Mr Clinton?

MR CLINTON: Yes. 25

MR McMAHON: Yes. You’re not precluding the possibility of a building for

cricket purpose at some future stage in the period covered by the master

plan, are you?

30

MR CLINTON: It’s never been considered, no.

MR McMAHON: No sorry, I’ll ask that question again, you’re not precluding

the possibility of a future building being identified in the master plan

are you at some future point in time? 35

SIR ANDERSON: I’m just trying to get my head around it – the points we

haven’t had a discussion a yet, we meet in the next couple of weeks for

the whole month.

40

MR McMAHON: Yes.

SIR ANDERSON: Now we’ve also got someone to – nothing will be

precluded in the ground at all, now whether it’ll be considered –

whether it’ll be raised or not is another matter. 45


MR McMAHON: Yes. Mr Clinton, do you?

MR CLINTON: Yes, we agree.

MR McMAHON: And just finally, Sir John or Mr Sneddon, in terms of the 5

ICC parameters for “fit for purpose stadia”, have you got any recent

examples or any do you – to your knowledge have there been any

examples where the ICC have invoked the clause relating to “fit for

purpose” around the world?

10

MR SNEDDON: I’ve been out of the ICC for seven or eight years doing other

things, but I’ve got recollections of them stepping in and preventing

test matches being played in India and the West Indies, but I just don’t

– I can’t recall the exact details right at the moment.

15

MR McMAHON: Okay.

MR SNEDDON: And it’s to do with, usually to do with player related

facilities when that’s happened. But in fact the IC – actually I’ve got a

specific example, during Cricket World Cup 2011, which was hosted in 20

India and other Asian countries, the ICC made a decision a few months

before the tournament not to allow the tournament matches scheduled

for Calcutta to go there because of inadequate facilities, so those

matches got shifted elsewhere.

25

So it is, you know, it’s something that is actively worked by the ICC,

you’ve got a – host countries have got to stay on top of their facilities.

MR McMAHON: Thank you. Mr Clinton?

30

MR CLINTON: Sir, 2005 Hamilton, Seddon Park, hosted some cricket but

the wicket block itself was poor and so New Zealand Cricket, not the

ICC I understand, New Zealand Cricket made the decision to withdraw

all cricket from that ground, and actually was the Basin that picked up a

one day match against Australia, that’s the last time the Basin has held 35

a one day cricket match.

MR McMAHON: 2005?

MR CLINTON: 2005 and that was a result of a very late decision to take the 40

game away from Seddon Park in Hamilton.

MR McMAHON: Thank you, all, thank you, thank you, sir.

45


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr McMahon. I have no questions thank

you gentlemen, I’ll like to thank you all very much for coming along

here today, you’re all busy people and we appreciate you giving of

your time in coming and informing us on what is a very important issue

in this case. 5

I must say and I reiterate what I said this morning, that it’s been a lot

more pleasant than listening to engineering evidence or even landscape

evidence. Cricket is something all of us can relate to and I know three

of us have played it at various levels during school and university and 10

thereafter with varying degrees of success, but I must say my very slow

gentle off spins were not very effective.

What I would like to say is this, that we all have rich memories of

cricket being part of our national and predominant sport in the summer, 15

and apart from those of us who have played it, we have rich memories

of carting the transistor around particularly when tests are on and

nothing was ever done around the house or in the garden without the

transistor by your side, so it’s good memories.

20

Today after tomorrow we have a day off from hearing tomorrow. We

go to economics, so that’s not going to be very interesting, so thank

you all very much indeed and thank you for giving us of your time and

your expertise and we do appreciate it.

25

MR CAMERON: Sir, we just have one point of clarification on an issue that

arise earlier in the hearing, I think it only proper that the matter be

clarified an Ms Wedde has two questions, if she could please be given

permission to ask those questions?

30

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CAMERON: Yes.

MS WEDDE: Yes, apologies, sir, I missed this before. This is a question for 35

any of the Basin Reserve Trust witnesses.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WEDDE [5.00 pm]

MS WEDDE: In the south-western corner of the Basin Reserve, I believe 40

there are some practicing nets. Mr Clinton, are you happy to answer

these questions?

MR CLINTON: Yes.

45


MS WEDDE: My understanding is that they were placed there to meet ICC

requirements. Is that correct?

MR CLINTON: I think, technically, we heard that the ICC was starting to

introduce a policy of having practice facilities available off field, so 5

before then we only had practice facilities available on the oval and the

problem of that, of course, is once the game started there was nowhere

available on grass wickets for the players to train and practice.

So in anticipation of that policy coming in the Trust moved first, if you 10

like, and secured the funding for off field practice facilities.

I am not actually aware, they are very common now, this was I think

about five years ago, they would be very common around the world, off

field practice facilities, there may only be a couple of grounds left that 15

still don’t have them, I couldn’t confirm one way or the other whether

they are an absolute requirement, but my suggestion is if they are not,

then they will be in time.

MS WEDDE: Thank you, no further questions. Thank you. 20

<THE WITNESSES WITHDREW [5.01 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Ms Wedde. Sorry, there is one other small

housekeeping matter. We note in the list of topics that are being 25

contemporaneously heard, that social is not there and shouldn’t they be

there.

MR CAMERON: We have turned our mind to that and had concluded

because the person with whom the NZTA witnesses to caucus is not an 30

expert witness, that created some issues. If I could perhaps think about

that further tomorrow, sir, and come back to the Board on Wednesday

morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes. 35

MR CAMERON: That was the reasoning I think that has been applied to that

point.

CHAIRPERSON: Well what is an expert and what isn’t an expert I suppose. 40

People with experience can still have something to offer.

MR CAMERON: That isn’t in dispute, we are not challenging the fact that the

person is to give evidence and obviously, who have used or people will

wish to have regard to their views in the way that they have any other 45

witness.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CAMERON: It is a question of whether or not it was appropriate in those

circumstances for those two witnesses to be heard contemporaneously, 5

but if the Board has a view on it - - -

CHAIRPERSON: We will leave it with counsel and see if you can resolve it

first.

10

MR CAMERON: As your Honour pleases. I will come back to you

Wednesday morning on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We will adjourn until Wednesday morning at 9.30.

15

MATTER ADJOURNED AT 5.03 PM UNTIL

WEDNESDAY, 7 MAY 2014

transcript of proceedings board of inquiry basin … · transcript of proceedings board of inquiry...

Documents