Park suitable, but change unworkable

Press, 23 November 1988, Page 33

Park suitable, but change unworkable

The Queen Elizabeth II Park is suitable for development as a leisure park but the District Scheme change the Christchurch City Council wants to use to rezone the park for the development is unworkable, says the independent commissioner who heard objections to the change. Mr John Fogarty’s recommendation to withdraw Scheme Change No. 24 to rezone the park as recreation development two was endorsed by the council this week. The rezoning was intended to enable further development of the park as a multi-use recreation and leisure park. The change would have provided for private and public development. The proposed ordinance, intended to maintain open space, control noise and lighting, the location of buildings, access, parking and landscaping, did not meet

mininum criteria, Mr Fogarty ruled. Ordinances relating to site layout for the leisure park, car-parking, and design and appearance were not adequate and he could not recommend the scheme change without the appropriate site layout definition and parking requirements. But Mr Fogarty did not agree with several of the six objectors he heard who claimed that the park was not the appropriate place for a leisure park. The Queen Elizabeth II Park Environmental Action Committee said the council’s proposal was to build an illegal development in the existing leisure centre.

Mr Fogarty believed the park was suitable for development as a leisure or theme park provided the necessary safeguards to protect residents from nuisance were put in place.

He accepted that there might be more appropriate positions for a leisure park, but argued that it did not follow the park was not suitable. Change No. 24 as a concept provided for an appropriate use of the park, but could not be allowed to proceed because the faults in drawing up the ordinances meant there would be little control over parking and the noise controls would not reflect the intention of the council. He was recommending against the change on the deficiencies in its performance standards, not its concept. Mr Fogarty heard six objections and eight submissions in support of the change. The council’s endorsement of his recommendation means Change No. 24 will not proceed, but leaves the council the options of drawing up another change.