I was invited to a meeting at Council’s Parks Department on 5^th March. An informative background on the above topic was presented by a senior officer and an interesting and constructive discussion took place among those present.

An invitation to make written comments was also issued, and I am therefore responding to that invitation.

The Issues:

1. Whether there should be any distinction between what was originally the responsibility of the ARA/ARC (Regional Parks) and all other parks, the latter being previously the responsibility of the local authorities.

2. Should all parks, both ‘regional’ and ‘local’ be treated the same and administered by local boards, or

3. Should the former regional parks be administered by the central body (Governing Body), with all other parks being dealt with by the local boards?

4. If the latter, what reasonable liaison system should be established to ensure that local boards can advise on any local problems relating to regional parks.

The Considerations:

1. It seems that one of the difficulties presented derives solely from the deficient legislation. A review of the relevant section(s) of the Act should be requested at the earliest possible time.

2. What are the pros and cons for treating all parks as an homogenous whole without any distinction between ‘local and regional’ as to purpose, history, function, catchment, management or management plans, etc – or for making a clear distinction between the two categories as to the elements described above and dealing with them accordingly?

3. If some have a clear region-wide purpose, then it seems obvious that such a difference can only be dealt with at a central level, by the central body responsible for the region-wide views and policies, namely the Governing Body. Those having more of a local purpose and a narrower catchment should be dealt with by the local boards, and that is a very big responsibility covering considerable total area of parkland.

4. Nevertheless, where there are major ‘local parks’ which previously may have been classified as ‘city-wide’ parks, indicating that in size, function, catchment and purpose, they have a significant role to play across larger areas of the region (ie well beyond the area administered by any local board) then perhaps consideration should be given to including some of those in the regional category as well.

5. Despite the fact that the current legislation may not provide useful criteria to assist the distinction, I would like to suggest that there is no reason why a working party could not be established to work through this question to provide guidelines to assist in determining a workable list of considerations.

6. While many parks have some individual characteristics, those of a regional nature have not only individual characteristics, but many have quite unique features. Furthermore, because their functions include region-wide purposes, they need a unity of approach which cannot be provided by the many variations and different needs and objectives of the numerous local boards. Incorporating them into local control would mean the regional parks would simply become ‘localised’ and region-wide purposes would be lost.

7. Regional Parks need to be treated as a unified network Auckland residents which assists in identifying with these parks, giving a sense of ownership and pride in what these parks contribute to making Auckland an attractive and healthy city in which to live. Having the Regional Parks managed as a unified network under the control of the Governing Body also enhances both the perception and the reality of the enjoyment and value that visitors to Auckland place on their experience of the city and its environments.

8. Another significant characteristic is that many of the regional parks are managed as regional farm parks, which needs to be continued, with good management of stock which need to be moved on occasions. This is managed on a regional basis, and needs to be continued as such, including the need to move stock on occasions.

9. Therefore, it is my view that the regional parks should be under the control of the Governing Body which has the region-wide view and local boards should control those parks which basically serve their communities or those within close proximity.

10. Further reasons for having the central body dealing with the spectrum of regional parks include very specialist professional knowledge required regarding many of the parks – eg forestry (Waitakeres); entomology; history; major usage (Long Bay); conservation; archaeology; registration of sites under the Historic Places Trust; special wild life areas; legal protections of various sorts requiring careful management.

11. There are other reasons too, including consistency of approach, the power to purchase land for new regional parks or to add to current ones. This is both a financial and a legal one requirement.

12. Some regional parks (and some which probably should be included as regional) have special aspects which are protected by other Acts of Parliament, or have standards requiring specialist attention, including international agreements. These include registrations under ICOMOS, Historic Places Act; World Heritage sites, and in some cases, legal agreements setting out certain performance and management controls with other entities. These may include such things as continued use and council maintenance of access roads; specialist attention to any ground works or maintenance to protect archaeological sites of iwi or pakeha significance, the banning of certain types of recreational or other activities, etc.

The specialist, legal and management aspects need to be in a dedicated central pool of the parks department focussed on the regional parks needs to ensure consistency and proper administration and management of these special parks.

Another matter is that regional parks need to be kept totally intact and available for the whole of the public from anywhere in the region. They must not be given over in any part to special interest groups as often happens with local parks where local special interest groups pressure local boards to give them areas of public land to the exclusion of the wider public.

There are a number of park areas which have never been included in the regional park system for various historical and other reasons, but which have a special status, purpose or significance which extends right across the region (e.g the Auckland Domain) or are completely unique nationally (e.g. Chelsea Estate Heritage Park) and should be encompassed within the regional parks.

13. A review of the Open Space Plan and strategy needs to be produced urgently

to be integrated with the Unitary Plan and to provide with an increase in the per capita provision of open space and parkland to help offset the huge amount of densification and population envisaged by the Unitary Plan.

It is very disturbing that these matters of the governance and classification of parks have not been finalised in this term of Council and that it would appear that the critical need to have a new Open Space Plan to be integrated with the Unitary Plan has not been completed either.

It is my submission that the Unitary Plan should not be rushed through without such matters being part of it

Conclusions:

1. All of those parks previously known as Regional Parks should be allocated to the Governing Body, supported by a centralised group of professional staff to provide the specialist management and policy advice for these parks.

2. Former territorial authorities’ major “city-wide” parks which have a clear special regional significance or purpose should also be added to the Regional Parks group – for example, the Auckland Domain and the Chelsea Estate Regional Park. (It needs to be noted that the variety of funders for the purchase of this park did so on the premise that is could become a regional park.)

3. Parks other than those outlined in 1 and 2 above should be under the jurisdiction of local boards whenever they are clearly serving a predominantly local, non-regional purpose.

4. A new Open Space Plan needs to be created urgently to be integrated with the Unitary Plan and to help ameliorate the huge social pressures and need for additional open space which will result from a large increase in the region’s population and intensification.

5. Finally, work should be undertaken to clarify and improve the current Auckland legislation as it refers to the administration and governance responsibility of park.

22.3.13