Mark Sweet Submission

SUBMISSION

Proposed Regional Sports Park (RSP)

1 Process

Consultation is required of the Hastings District Council (HDC) under Section 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act), because it is proposing to change, (84) ‘the mode by which a significant activity is undertaken,’  and (93) ‘A local authority must use the special consultative procedure in making any amendment to a long-term council community plan.’ (LTCCP)

The proposal to corporatise and centralise a chosen group of sports is a radical change from the current mode of delivery.

Changing ‘the mode by which a significant activity is undertaken’,  is the subject of this consultation and in proposing the RSP model,  HDC is required to put forward ‘reasonably practicable options’.

(77) ‘A local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process: 1(a)  seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision.  (88  4(c) ‘an analysis of the reasonably practicable options, including the proposal, …

Where are the options?

HDC have chosen to initiate consultation on the RSP after Stage One is substantially built, after the Plan Change application, after consultation on the Draft Annual Plan 2008/9, and after considerable expense in developing and promoting their only option.

This is not a ‘fair and reasonable’ consultation.

HDC has dishonoured the ‘principles of consultation’ by advancing the RSP proposal far too far without consultation, and by taking an ‘uncompromisingly partisan stance’ in favour of their only option.

82 (1) (e)  states, ‘that the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration.’

HDC’s  ‘uncompromisingly partisan stance’  prejudices their ability to conduct meaningful consultation.

The Chief Executive’s address to the Council Meeting on 10th April 2008 was ‘a partisan stance’ in support of the RSP, and the Mayor, and some Councillors, have endorsed the RSP in a manner which would make it difficult for them to have ‘an open mind’ and give ‘due consideration’ to other options.

How can the public expect their views to be received with ‘an open mind’ when blatant partisanship has been displayed by some elected representatives and Council administration?

A review of Council’s process in conducting this ‘special consultative procedure’ is required, along with a declaration of ‘clash of interest’ from the Mayor, and those Councillors who have disqualified themselves from receiving submissions with an ‘open mind’.

2 The Proposal

The RSP concept arose from the decision to sell Nelson Park.

Relocation of the athletics track presented the opportunity, and  a new Sports Park was convincingly linked to the ‘yes’ vote in the referendum.

A week before the referendum closed a press release announced  the involvement of Sam Kelt. (HB Today 26/10/2006) At the same time he pledged a $1 million to the new Sports Park.

Kelt Capital were appointed project managers by exclusive invitation, and have been entirely responsible for developing the concept. HDC have passively nodded their approval without the common-sense to analyse and ask challenging questions.

HDC have given away their leadership and direction to a third party, who has developed a funding model which is fanciful, and economic projections based on erroneous data.

a) Funding: raising $38m is impossible in the current economic climate. Neither the Regional Council nor Napier City Council are likely to give much support, and the Government’s contribution can be measured by it’s $1m gift to the Invercargill veledrome.

This procedure requires Council to show how the total $38m sponsorship is assembled. Donor by donor, dollar by dollar – now.

It is stated in Key Aspects of the Regional Sports Park Proposal, What about risk?  We will also protect ratepayer funds by only committing them to the project once all the other fund raising targets for each stage, or project element, have been met.

If this statement is unequivocal Kelt Capital should be required to provide solid evidence for the entire fund-raising before the project proceeds any further.

Or does other fund raising targets conceal a double speak.

If Stage Two ($5m ) is allowed to proceed without guaranteed funding for Stage Three ($25m) the Sports Park will face the worst scenario: a barren expanse of wind swept sports fields in the middle of nowhere.

How long does Council intend to wait before applying common-sense?  Raising $38m development capital from sponsorship within the next year is impossible. If council is sincere in its ‘What about risk?’ statement, the RSP should be abandoned immediately.

b)  Financials: The Economic Impact Assessment (Bevin) report (February 2008) is based on erroneous data, specifically the Event Frequency Details.  This information was supplied by the sporting codes to Kelt Capital, and passed onto Economic Solutions. Their assessment, as with the peer review Cormilligan Report (February 2008), is only as good as the data made available.

It is claimed that the NZ Track and Field championships will be held in Hastings every second year. According to NZAA this is ‘highly unlikely’ as there are 12 competing regions with similar facilities, and the event is shared among the regions. Similarly, the Oceania Cycling track championships (every four years) is shared with Australia, which has 7 covered velodromes. The biggest economic impact at $3.5m is the Junior World Cycling Champs, which it is claimed, will be held in Hastings within the next 5 years, and every 10 years thereafter. Considering the number of countries competing for this event the claim is fanciful.

Every Event can be challenged, yet they form the basis of HDC’s announcement that, ‘$24 million best indicates the true impact of events …’ (HB Today – 12 March 2008)

At best, this method of persuading public opinion by claiming something that is untrue, is deceitful. At worst it is fraudulent. If HDC continues accepting economic predictions based on data known to be false, they are displaying a recklessness which  has no place in Local Government.

c) Asset Sales  HDC has indicated, but provided scant detail, on its plans for selling redundant sports facilities. Sylvan Park has been mentioned. But does it stop there? Could asset sales by stealth be on the agenda but undisclosed?

3 The Land

Plan Change 42 has yet to be approved, and if the Commissioners find in favour of HDC, a challenge will be made to the Environment Court by concerned parties.

In light of the Ngatarawa Case (W-017/2008) HDC could well find itself unable to build the RSP because the Environment Court rules the land unsuitable for development.

The proposed site is not substantially different from the Bridge Pa site so the following judgements are applicable.

(62) ‘this proposal is contrary to key objectives and policies, particularly the overall thrust of the Rural Resource Strategy, Plains zone, Urban Development and Strategic Urban Directions, and Subdivision sections of the District Plan.’

(69) ‘Because this proposal is, in our judgement, so irreconcilably contrary to the provisions of the District Plan, to allow it would call into question the ability of the Council to use the Plan as a means of managing the potential effects identified during the Plan development process.’

HDC have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of the District Plan, but by choosing a site of highest horticultural value, they have abused their own Plan and Objectives, which diminishes their value and makes HDC appear hypocritical.

Furthermore HDC, has no policy in place to protect the rural land surrounding the RSP, except for the District Plan. which it does not respect.  Ngatarawa Case (W-017/2008)

The RSP would be a magnet for residential subdivision.  Private Plan Changes would be inevitable, and in time the suburban boundary would be pushed to the frame of Pakowhai Road, Evenden Road, and the Expressway. Nearly 200 hectares of  prime horticultural land will be lost to urbanisation if the RSP is allowed to proceed.

This is either negligence, or more likely, a deliberate Strategic Planning decision made behind closed doors.

If consultation had been instigated at the outset to include  discussion on the choice of site(s)HDC would not be in the predicament it finds itself today.

4 Option

As this consultation is about how best to provide for the sport and recreation needs in Hastings District, I give my support to the ‘Field of Dreams’ model initiated by Manukau City Council, and proposed by Councillor Bradshaw.

This model invests primarily in people, not buildings. It encourages those who will benefit most from engaging in sport,  and manages affordable participation.

It seems an inclusive program, embracing schools, existing clubs and organisations, and people of all ages and stages of life.

The Active Hastings report by Opus International (October 2007) is the most comprehensive and current  study of Hastings District sport & recreation undertaken, but it appears to have been discarded by HDC.

Many observations and recommendations are made in the report.  None support the creation of a centralised and corporatised Sports Park facility.

The framework proposed in the Opus report appears a sound basis from which to work and dovetails with the Field of Dreams’ concept.

I urge Councillors to consider the Opus report seriously and to adopt it’s recommendations as a more common sense approach to acheiving the objectives.

Conclusion

I am not opposed to the creation of sports facilities serving the needs of Hawke’s Bay sporting bodies who are currently under represented.

I am opposed to poor process, hasty decision making, lack of inclusion, and the use of Plains land.

Netball, soccer, and tennis are already well provided for. Cycling and swimming are not. A covered veladrome in the model of Invercargil would be a wonderful asset for Hawke’s Bay, as would be an international standard swimming complex.

A truly regional approach with inclusion of all stake holders from the outset, setting long term goals, would ensure a greater chance of achievement.

Most of all I support programs utilising current facilities encouraging participation in a wide range of sporting activities.

I am opposed to the Regional Sports Park proposal

and wish to speak to my submission

Mark Sweet

188 Harper Road

Waimarama

ph: 8746782

email: marksweet@xtra.co.nz

 

Comments

Got something to say?




Subscribe to BaybuzzSubscribe to comments for this article