July 2022: Local Board Member Report

Why I voted against our Local Parks Management Plan

At our July Business meeting, the Local Board was presented with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Parks Management Plan. I voted against it for several reasons, but in a nutshell it ended up being a really disappointing management plan that I had a number of concerns over and in my view, was developed with the bare requirements to meet our legislative responsibilities.

What is the Hibiscus and Bays Local Parks Management Plan?

The Local Board has decision-making responsibility for all 284 local parks in our area (whether the land is held under the Local Government Act 2002 or Reserves Act 1977). The Reserves Act 1977 requires a reserve management plan to be developed. It’s intended to be a framework to manage their use, protection and development.

The Board approved the draft plan in March 2020 to go out for public consultation. Covid19 of course held this up a little. We had 103 submissions.

The next stage is to have a hearing panel process to hear objections and submissions (24 submitters spoke in person, make recommendations to the Local Board on suggested amendments to the draft plan following the hearing process, and the extent to which objections and submissions are allowed, accepted, disallowed or not accepted. In November 2020, the whole Local Board decided upon a hearing panel process. We were presented some options on who would preside over this and we all chose a hearing panel consisting of an independent hearing commissioner along with our Local Board Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson.

When it came to our business meeting and being presented with amendments (or the non-acceptance of) from the Hearing Panel report, the Local Board’s decision-making power was to either approve or reject the panel’s amendments.

Issues with the plan

A lot has happened since the time that the draft plan was approved for consultation and now, which meant greater scrutiny was required over the plan. Ideally, a lot of this should have been raised two years ago, but the importance of park management plans has really come to light recently (just look at the recent Sanders Reserve debacle).

One very detailed submission was from Mr Brian Sharplin, who also appeared before the hearing panel, and was a key submission that I spoke to at the business meeting (discussion had to be relevant to the Hearing Panel report, not any free discussion on the document). His submission sought amendments to both the structure and content of the two volumes. His submission really honed in on the view that the plan fails to meet the requirements of statute in terms of the information provided.

Council has taken a very simple lense on its legislative objective and we’ve ended up with a very high-level framework. It lacks relevant park information and is an inadequate indication of future development intentions that would be consistent with public expectations for a local parks management plan.

Neither of the relevant Acts specify the content requirement in management plans. The Hearing panel report noted “Certainly, practice guidelines and the like are in circulation but those are not mandatory. Indeed from our own experience we are aware that existing practice has tended to develop a variety of approaches, some more detailed than others”. That statement in the hearing panel report made me feel incredibly uncomfortable. There is an acknowledgement that other Local Boards’ omnibus local parks management plans are progressing with more detail than ours (looks like Upper Harbour’s will be) and our Local Board’s plan was the first cab off the rank.

Bizarrely though, while Council’s argument is that the plan is intended only to be a very high-level management framework – this is terribly inconsistent within the document. A key example is that one or two pieces of reserve land in Okura (e.g. “Okura River Road Reserve” which is not accessible to the public and I’m sure unknown too) has such bare information attached to it – I have no idea about how it is maintained (I don’t think they are at all), how they are accessed, used, how they came to be acquired, or what the future intention is for them. On the other hand, we have the likes of Aitken reserve in Waiake which admittedly is a bigger suburban reserve and has some more information to it, which is great, but it goes into the specifics of intentions such as providing lighting?! This is very detailed, operational information and not ‘high level framework’ at all.

The hearing panel report notes that the draft plan has been prepared in terms of, and satisfies, the requirements of the Reserves Act and/or the Local Government Act. The key word here is ‘satisfies’.

I have no doubt that the plan itself absolutely meets the legal compliance test, but it does not meet the spirit of what was intended – and certainly not public expectation. In my view, the result is a document that lacks any meaningful use for future local board members, members of the public and staff.

Some submitters noted concern that there was significant information missing from individual parks mentioned, that should be included and recorded in the plan as a ‘one stop shop’ (i.e. information on the background to the park, when and by who it was gifted, environmental groups undertaking work in it etc). The hearing panel report noted that a “well-linked digital platform” envisaged by Council, to address these concerns and to aid this document, is not yet established. “In the event that such is not established, our conclusion may be different – and to that end we note that as a matter for consideration and potential review in due course”. This is another statement that concerned me deeply. How on Earth are we meant to approve a management plan that seemingly cannot stand along and is reliant on another platform being created? Council are supposedly at the early stages of exploring this work but have not undertaken any action yet. Given the climate we are in, I would not trust that any planned projects (although well intentioned) will actually be going ahead or completed as planned.

I spoke to these concerns of mine and it was noted later by someone in the meeting that further delays in the plan being approved could result in community organisations facing problems who have already been waiting to have community leases renewed. The jury is still out on whether there is any truth to that, but that upset me – I wasn’t going to be pressured (whether intended or not) by anyone in to approving a sub-par document.

Amendments made to the resolutions

Julia Parfitt and Janet Fitzgerald also noted their concerns about the document and moved/seconded amendments to try to allay some of their concerns. These amendments focused on labouring the point that there should be continuous, rolling reviews of the document, it should be a ‘living document’, that the online tool be developed with urgency, and that any future plans or clarification requests be required to come back to the Local Board. These amendments were supported by all members and certainly assisted the full set of resolutions, but I was still unhappy with the final document and hearing panel report.

One of my decision-making tools this time was this test: ‘Can I stand by this strategic document and defend it, if it was challenged by a member of the public?’. The answer is no.