Sustaining Hawke’s Bay Trust Submission

Sustaining Hawke’s Bay Trust
Submission to Hastings District Council
Proposed Regional Sports Park

1    Introduction
Sustaining Hawke’s Bay Trust (SHBT) is a charitable trust incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.
The trusts vision is to see a Hawke’s Bay community where people are actively engaged with sustainability and environmental matters and where sustainable practices are a part of everyone’s daily lives.  Simply stated: “That Hawke’s Bay is a sustainable community, in its rural and urban land use and in everyone’s daily living behaviours.”
Our Mission:  “Supporting people to create a sustainable Hawke’s Bay community.”

2    Sustainability
In 2000, when speaking of the implementation of sustainable development, the NZ Government said: “Government … agreed that this involves ‘integrating social, environmental and economic issues…thinking broadly about objectives, considering long-term as well as short term effects, assessing indirect as well as direct effects, and taking extra care when changes brought about by development may be irreversible’.”

The official NZ Government adopted definition of sustainable development (that of the Brundtland Commission Report): “Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  Basically, sustainability refers to doing something with the long term in mind, several hundred years is considered sufficient.

We note in the Development Philosophy and Principles (p 9) the word sustainable is missing.  Given that the mayors headline in the March 2008 Outlook, the newsletter of the Hastings District Council “Sustainability keystone of projects” we find it disturbing that sustainability is not a keystone of this significant project.

There is no doubt that this project will have an irreversible impact on Hawke’s Bay not only in the destruction of the fertile land that it will impose itself on, but also in increased transport expense for all that would use that park and the ongoing demand for financial commitment from ratepayers to keep the complex functional.

To demolish a perfectly sound sports stadium that is well located to make way for a shopping ‘Mega Centre’ that will wreck our existing CBD, export profits to multi-national companies and reduce that very important economic multiplier, to build a new stadium that is located in such a position that it will increase local expense, is socially irresponsible and morally indefensible in these times. It is certainly not a sustainable approach.

Loss of fertile Land
Soil and top soil are produced naturally at a rate of 1mm in 200-400 years, averaging at about 1 ton/ha/y. A full soil profile develops in 2,000 – 10,000 years, a period which is long for humans but short for the planet. World-wide, agricultural soil is lost at a rate 10-40 times faster than its natural replacement.  (Soil Geology. Dr J Floor Anthoni (2000) www.seafriends.org.nz/enviro/soil/geosoil.htm)

To remove this land from production to build this proposed sports complex is again not a sustainable action. And again it reduces production capacity that is the base of our agricultural and horticultural economy.  Productive land needs to remain in proximity to the communities that it provides for especially in this Peak Oil era.

This Council itself recently declined a plan change for the following reason and I quote: “The requested plan change would result in the loss of the productive potential of this Plains land…..”  If Council is to remain credible in these matters it must be consistent.  In this light the honourable, if not ethical, thing to do would be to withdraw its own Plan change application for the RSP.

3    Democratic process
It should be integral that comprehensive local consultation takes place prior to the commencement of any significant development.  While it is appreciated that developers tend to fear costly delay, on the basis that local people will often reject change of any kind.  Recent research in the UK has shown that local consultation, when fully inclusive and professionally conducted, can cut significant amounts of time off the usual pre-construction period, thereby producing substantial savings for the developer.

If we return to some of the events that have brought us to this position and that is the dubious need for large format retail facilities.  Council was evenly tied as to whether to proceed.  The Mayor was not prepared to follow convention and cast his deciding vote in favour of the status quo, i.e. the non sale of Nelson Park.  Instead he persuaded the Council of the day to go to a public referendum.  In the lead up to this event a public meeting was held where the opposing voices were excluded from being able to make a presentation.  In effect the Councillors who opposed the sale were excluded from presenting their thoughts, that is, prevented from representing the constituents they represented.  The resulting vote ‘in favour’ only represented 34% of the eligible voters.  Democracy was not well served in that process.

And it appears that the same is happening again with a single option being offered to the public to consider; information, as declared at a public meeting, not being made available to the public to review or evaluate; a contracted project manager with a vested interest in the project appointed without tender; works at the site progressed to a point where the average citizen would suggest that it is all fait accompli; lack of evidence that the complex is even needed; and all this to be considered and decided by a Council that has a number of Councillors who have already stated their personal position, not necessarily the position of those whom they represent.

4    Submission
There is no doubt that the idea of a modern, multi sport and recreation facility is and exciting prospect. However, in the current environment of Peak Oil contributing to never ending increases in transport costs and energy expense, and Climate Change impacting on declining production and therefore reduced community incomes, this project is one that should not be pursued in these times and particularly with authoritative predictions of still tougher times ahead.

Increasingly around the world and in New Zealand design considerations are to keep these types of facilities close to the residential communities that use them, with a move away from the centralisation that may appear to provide cost efficiencies in the short term, but impose increased financial burden on users and others (in this case Hastings District Council ratepayers) in the long term, principally due to unbudgeted and increased operating expense.

Council talks of being sustainable in its projects.  The sustainable approach to this whole issue would have been refurbishment of Nelson Park, like Eden Park is being for the rugby world cup, and the old Lancaster Park, and even Twickenham in UK recently underwent a significant refurbishment.

The sustainable alternative to the proposed centralised complex is to invest those dollars into enhancing existing facilities and looking for other community based sties that can be developed in a more complimentary and considered way that builds community spirit.  This would contribute more to Hastings District Council community outcomes of building “supportive, caring and inclusive communities” and creating “an environment that is appreciated, protected and sustained for future generations”.  And, not progressing would also show “strong regional leadership”, and would prevent financial ratepayer burden thus freeing money to increase the multiplier and contribute to a “strong, prosperous and thriving economy”.

You have asked for feedback on the RSP proposal and particularly value response to the following questions:

  •    Do you support the Regional Sports Park Proposal?
  •    Does the Park contain the elements you would like?
  •    Do you prefer an alternative option?
  •    Do you support the Hastings District Council level of financial support for the proposal?

To answer these in turn:
Do you support the Regional Sports Park Proposal?
No.

  •     There is no established community need for a complex of this nature.
  •     The lack of guarantee for sustainable design considerations is unacceptable.
  •     The financial burden is unreasonable in that all ratepayers will fund a complex that only a few are able to make use of.
  •     Democratic process has not been well served in the promotion of this major Council undertaking.
  •     There is no commitment of support from other neighbouring Councils which indicates that this will be financed principally if not solely by Hastings District Council ratepayers.  This would also indicate that it is not a “Regional” Sports Park.

Does the Park contain the elements you would like?
No.

  •     There is little, if any, guarantee that sustainable design will be fully incorporated into all complex elements.
  •     The centralisation of sporting facilities of this nature will negatively impact on other facilities
  •     It has been indicated that inner city reserves space i.e. netball courts will be sold.  The inner city already lacks green space reserve.  All land that has been identified for possible sale must be retained to enhance inner city green reserve space.

Do you prefer an alternative option?
Yes

  •  Do not proceed with this option.  Invest instead in the development of inner city and community connected sporting facilities that are easily accessible to users without the mandatory use of motorised vehicles.
  • The sustainable alternative to the proposed centralised complex is to invest those dollars into enhancing existing facilities and looking for additional community based sties that can be developed in a more complimentary and considered way that builds community spirit.  This would contribute more to Hastings District Council community outcomes of building “supportive, caring and inclusive communities” and creating “an environment that is appreciated, protected and sustained for future generations”.  And not progressing would also show “strong regional leadership”, and would prevent financial ratepayer burden thus freeing money to increase the multiplier and contribute to a “strong, prosperous and thriving economy”.

Do you support the Hastings District Council level of financial support for the proposal?
No.

  •     There is already continued expectation that ratepayers are an unlimited source of funds.  I frequently hear the Mayor say “money is not an issue in this”.  Many ratepayers are on fixed income so increased rates become burdens that are unable to be shed.
  •     Borrowing heavily for large infrastructure projects which, later when Council has difficulty making the repayments the debt is restructured and the economic screws are tightened further.  Future councils are then faced with the sale of assets to cover these debts. Government debt was the reason given for selling off our prized assets 20 years ago.

5    Our request
That the Hastings District Council abandon this Regional Sports Park development on this site at this time and re-evaluates the complete project in light of adopting a more sustainable option that will better contribute to the long term environmental, social and economic wellbeing of the citizens of our district.

Comments

Got something to say?




Subscribe to BaybuzzSubscribe to comments for this article