Fendalton Road trees worth $2M—engineer

Press, 31 August 1989, Page 16

Fendalton Road trees worth $2M—engineer

By

SUZANNE KEEN

Trees that would be lost if Fendalton Road was widened to the full extent proposed could be worth up to $2 million, according to a traffic engineer, Mr Peter McCombs.

He told the Planning Tribunal yesterday that the trees affected had already been given a points assessment derived from considering their size, importance to the landscape, form and other aspects. To assign them a monetary value he had multiplied the total point score by a unit rate of $2O. Using this method Mr McCombs worked out that the trees between numbers 138 and 163 Fendaiton Road and between numbers 88 and 104 were worth just over SIM.

"While I have not done the detailed exercise for the remainder of the route, I would expect the over-all total shown by such an analysis to be somewhere in the vicinity of SI.SM to S2M.” If this amount was added to the costs of option four, the four-laned road with a median strip and widened corridor preferred by the Waimairi District Council, then the resulting benefit-

cost ratio would fall from 2.24:1 to about 1.5:1, Mr McCombs said. His assessment of the trees' value was disputed by a council witness, Mr Don Miskell, of Boffa Miskell Partners.

He questioned the method used to attain the figures, as well as the number of tress affected. Mr Miskell said he understood there were 110 trees affected by option four, and not 144 as in Mr McComb's evidence. To illustrate his concerns, Mr Miskell presented photographs of some of the trees evaluated by Mr McCombs. They included a cabbage tree at the Stratford Street corner valued at $34,560, the silver birches at 90A Fendalton Road valued at $69,120 and $11,520 and two mature trees outside 99A Fendalton Road, valued at $46,080 and $34,560.

Mr Miskell said he had carried out his own evalu-

ation of the trees which would be lost and had arrived at a total figure of $420,000. Mr McCombs also presented the tribunal with his own benefit-cost ratio for option one, a fourlaned road without a median that does not require any additional land for widening. He assigned the option, that preferred by the residents, a 4.20:1 ratio.

This is considerably more favourable than the 2.74:1 ratio attributed by the council’s witness, Mr Gary Main, because Mr Main’s calculations included the value of land already bought for the widening as a cost. This is land which would be needed for option four, but not option one. As well as criticisng this method, Mr McCombs also questioned the choice matrix which Mr Main presented to the council comparing options one, 1A and four.

It was based on information by Mr Main and several other experts that the council reaffirmed its support for the full road widening last February.

Mr McCombs said the advice presented to councillors was confusing and obscure. Had a better approach been taken they may have come to a different decision when comparing the options. Waimairi’s counsel, Mr Tony Hearn, said in his summing up that the main question facing the tribunal was whether the council’s consideration of the widening issue was “arbitrary, cursory or responsible.” He argued that the council had received adequate information and advice to make an informed decision. Mr Hearn said benefitcost ratios were not conclusive and were not the issue on which the tribunal should decide the matter.