Save Chamberlain Park Inc. (SCP) has called upon Auckland Mayor Phil Goff to let the community have its say on the first stage of the Council’s controversial $22m Chamberlain Park redevelopment plans.

“Mayor Goff should intervene and instruct Council staff to do the right thing – change the request for non-notification in the application to a request for public notification.” SCP Chairman Geoff Senescall said.

“Transparency and public input to such matters is what is required if the Council is to restore public credibility to its processes and improve the quality of its decision making.”

Mr Senescall noted that SCP had more than 10,000 signatures supporting its petition against the plans, which would half the golf capacity at Chamberlain Park, as well as support from the estimated 94,000 Aucklanders who play golf.

It is not only golfers who are concerned and who want to have a say through an open and public consent process. Others have expressed concern with:

* More than 20 protected trees being removed

* The loss of 6ha of active recreation land designated for sport that is currently part of one of the busiest golf courses in Auckland

* Security issues particularly for neighbouring properties to a proposed public pathway

* Relocation of a playground from a safe location to one that is isolated and likely unsafe

* The $22m expenditure straight out of the rate payer purse that includes a whopping $15m on two artificial sports surfaces at the expense of weather proofing 15 existing grass fields

* The lack of evidence based detail to support the project

* Wider issues around public asset management sparked by media headlines about park sales

“By the Council’s own criteria this is a very contentious application. It has frequently been in the media, it has been the subject of court action and there has been disagreement amongst Council staff and amongst elected members about whether the proposal should go ahead. It is a highly controversial project in which Auckland Council is both applicant and consent authority. If these circumstances do not amount to not enough reason to allow the public to have a say, what circumstances would?”

“A responsible applicant would request public notification so that the adverse effects of the proposal for such significant alteration of a public facility can be properly assessed. Auckland Council shouldn’t be allowed to slip this application through under the radar by requesting non-notification, especially when it is well aware that the application has many adverse effects on the environment and the public.”

“A responsible applicant would also apply for land use consent for all 4 stages at once (it is currently seeking consent for only stage 1) so that the adverse effects of the whole proposal can be properly assessed before the proposal is commenced. However, Council is trying to pull the old dodgy developers trick of slicing up an application in to numerous parts, applying for the less impactful parts first with the hope of getting them approved and then using that approval to pressure the consent authority to grant later, more impactful, applications.”

“For a local authority to try on either of these tactics is outrageous, to try both is unbelievable.”

“Our understanding is that the application for works at Chamberlain Park is an obvious case for public notification. There are precedents. In 2015 Council-owned Ports of Auckland successfully applied to Auckland Council for a non-notified resource consent to extend Bledisloe Wharf into the Waitemata Harbour. Concerned citizens had that decision judicially reviewed in the High Court, which found that the application should have been publicly notified. We understand that there are strong parallels between that application and the Chamberlain Park application.”

“A publicly notified application to half the capacity of a public golf course in New Plymouth drew 4,000 submissions and New Plymouth City Council dropped its plan.”

“We have taken legal advice and if the Chamberlain Park application is not publicly notified we will strongly consider applying to the High Court for judicial review.”

Mr Senescall can be contacted on 021 481 234.