This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
28. 5. 97
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
22 MAY 1997
A special meeting of the Parks and Recreation Committee
was held on Thursday 22 May 1997 at 9.00 am
PRESENT: Councillor Gordon Freeman (Chairman) (from 9.30 am),
Councillors Carole Anderton, Graham Berry,
Graham Condon, Ishwar Ganda
and Gail Sheriff (in the chair until 9.30 am).
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from the Mayor, Councillors David Buist and David Cox.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. LOCAL OPEN SPACE POLICY RR 5059
| Officers responsible |
Author |
| Environmental Policy and Planning Manager and Parks
Manager |
Sarah Duffell, Assistant Planner |
| Corporate Plan Output: Environment, Conservation,
Recreation, Open Space Policy Advice |
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to consider approval of a draft policy for the acquisition of local parks. This is based on work carried out over the past couple of years aimed at identifying local open space deficiencies across the city.
BACKGROUND
The need for this policy has arisen for several reasons, namely:
(a) The recognition that certain areas of the city were deficient in the provision of local parks.
(b) The recognition that there is an uneven distribution of local parks across parts of the city.
(c) Requests from Community Boards and the Parks Unit regarding the distribution and accessibility of existing reserves in order to assist them in considering possible purchases.
The uneven distribution of parks stems from the historical development of the city, where early legislation and the differing requirements of reserve contribution of the previous local authorities have produced varying amounts and types of open space. In some areas, this provision is below what is now considered as sufficient to meet local recreation needs.
In addition, in recent years the changing nature of development and redevelopment within the city has resulted in a gradually increasing urban density, especially in the inner residential areas of the city. Infill and redevelopment has also resulted in the loss of a number of mature trees that were in private yards throughout the city. Increasingly, the function of planting in local parks is to contribute to the amenity of neighbourhoods in places where new residential developments are unable to accommodate large trees.
Over the past 15 years additional parks have been acquired in different areas for local open space as and when opportunities have arisen, and much progress has been made in addressing local deficiencies. For example, parks have been acquired in King Street, Burke Street, Nursery Road, Olliviers Road, Jeffries Road, Champion Street, Packe Street, Worcester Street, Merivale shops, Avon Loop and Durham Street. Nevertheless, there remains a deficiency in some areas, as well as an absence of guidelines as to which areas are more needy than others.
DEVELOPMENT OF A LOCAL PARKS ACQUISITION POLICY
In a study carried out in 1993, each statistical Area Unit in the city was assessed in order to determine the level of open space provided. Two hectares per 1000 (the average for the city as a whole) was assessed as the minimum level at which open space should be provided. Further work in 1996 and 1997 has built on this initial research by taking into account both quantity and distribution of existing open spaces in relation to where people live, or will live.
The aim of the policy is to provide a basis for future local reserve purchases, based on consideration of the existing deficiencies and distribution patterns across the city. The objective would be to ensure that every resident in the urban area of the city is provided with a local park within walking distance of their home.
Local parks are defined as small neighbourhood facilities generally in the vicinity of 2000m2, local in character, generally containing no buildings and often with play equipment.
For the purpose of the study, it was assumed that a district park can also perform a local function, as well as being used by a wider catchment for a sports function. (District parks are defined as larger parks, usually greater than 2 hectares, serving a district function, with sports grounds and associated facilities.) The two types of parks were therefore grouped together for the purpose of assessing deficiency on a city-wide basis. Certain other types of reserves were not included because they perform functions beyond that of a local park, eg cycleways, walkways, esplanade reserves and local purpose reserves.
The overall process used for assessing areas for future acquisition was to:
One basis for accessibility and distribution of open space in the city was stated in the Christchurch City Transitional District Plan (1986), and states that "local reserves will usually be between 2000m2 and 4000m2 in area and located at about 800m spacings."
This 800 metre spacing between parks serving local needs means that generally, no resident would live further than 400 metres from a park. At an average walking pace of 5km/h, a park would therefore be no further than 5 minutes away. However, this figure is `as the crow flies' and in reality, the park may be a little further than that - perhaps 600 metres when walking. When taking into consideration the slower pace of an elderly person, a small child or someone with a mobility impairment, the park should ideally be no further than 10 minutes walk from home.
The survey `Feedback from Residents on Christchurch's Neighbourhood Parks and Sports Grounds', carried out in March 1996, asked residents how close parks need to be to their homes. For adults, it was generally felt that neighbourhood parks should be located within 500 metres to 1 kilometre, or 5 to 10 minutes walk from home. The 800 metre spacing figure between local parks is supported as a reasonable measure of adequate reserve accessibility and distribution.
The areas where deficiencies were indicated were combined with information on distribution. In order to assess accessibility and distribution, a map was drawn which showed a 400 metre catchment shaded around each park whose zoning indicates that it performs a local function. This identified areas where parks are more than 800 metres apart. Where the deficiency figures coincided with a `gap' on the distribution map, these were identified as areas where provision of more local parks is desirable.
PROVISIONS IN THE PROPOSED CITY PLAN
The proposed City Plan does not provide any specific figures relating to open space provision apart from those in Section 14: Subdivision, and these are related to the provision of reserves in new subdivisions. However, it has many detailed objectives and policies relating to provision and diversity, efficient and effective use, design and appearance and adverse environmental effects. The following objectives and policies were considered to be of particular relevance to the strategy:
Objectives 14.1 (a) and 14.1 (b): Provision and diversity
(a) Open spaces and recreational facilities that are equitable distributed and conveniently located throughout the city.
(b) Diversity in the type and size of open spaces and recreational facilities to meet local, district, regional and nationwide needs.
Policy 14.1.1: Areas of deficiency
To identify those areas of the city where there are, or are likely to be, deficiencies in the provision of open space and recreational opportunities and provide or facilitate the provision of additional open space or facilities to overcome these deficiencies.
Policy 14.1.2: Convenience and accessibility
To provide for new open spaces and recreational facilities to establish in locations that are convenient and accessible for anticipated users.
Policy 14.1.15: Redevelopment of sites
To promote and realise open space opportunities offered by sites previously used for other types of activities, and encourage their utilisation for open space and suitable recreational purposes.
Any strategy for open space acquisition must also consider current policies relating promotion of more dense residential development in the city, and the role of Neighbourhood Improvement and Urban Renewal Programmes.
PRIORITIES
Having identified localities that are deficient in local open space, there is a need to set priorities on future reserve acquisition through some form of ranking, based on a combination of the deficiency figures and the accessibility map. The following categories were formulated, and relate to both statistical deficiency and gaps in distribution.
Priority 1
Those areas that have less than 0.69 hectares/1000 population (the lowest 25th percentile) of local and district open space AND where there is a significant gap on the accessibility map.
Priority 2
Those areas that have less than 2.00 hectares/1000 population of local and district open space AND where there is a significant gap on the accessibility/distribution map.
Priority 3
Those areas where there is a significant gap on the accessibility/distribution map, but deficiency figures do not indicate a lack of local parks. This, in most cases, will be due to a large park in a more distant location skewing the figures for the entire area. It may also occur where other types of open space, such as cemeteries, private sports grounds or esplanade reserves are close by, but these have limited local park function. Many of these areas are quite small in comparison to the Priority 1 and 2 areas.
The following general residential areas were identified as being Priority 1 (these are listed in no particular order):
A map of the priority areas is attached.
It is considered that these areas should be concentrated upon in order to address inequity of distribution and to ensure that most residents have a park within walking distance of their homes.
Taking these matters into account, a policy that summarises the criteria for acquisition of local parks is attached to the last page of this report. It is recommended that this should become Council's policy for future acquisitions.
BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS OF THE STRATEGY
Without identification of specific sites, it is difficult to make accurate estimates of the monetary requirements of acquiring future reserves. However, the approximate cost of acquisitions in the priority areas has been estimated in order to give some indication of their financial implications. Estimates of purchase prices in various areas of the city and an explanation have been attached.
It can be seen from the summary that approximately $7 million would be required, at 1996 values, to purchase the required parks for all the priority areas. As a minimum, satisfying the priority 1 areas will result in the need for 10 new parks in 7 areas which will cost about $3.2 million.
The draft Annual Plan for 1997/98 indicates future neighbourhood reserve purchases (which includes local parks) of some $3.3 million over the next 5 years. Therefore it should be possible over say an 8-10 year period to make up for local park deficiencies in priority areas, should this level of funding be continued, and taking into account land prices at the time.
It may not be necessary for the Council to acquire the land in all cases as it may come by way of subdivision and development contributions. On the other hand these needy areas are substantially built up and the opportunities for new subdivisions that provide open space of the scale needed will be limited.
CONCLUSIONS
Work has been carried out over the past couple of years which identifies that inequalities exist in the amount and distribution of local open space across the city.
The changing nature of residential development in the city, with infill and redevelopment becoming common practice, will highlight these shortages.
To address these shortages, areas of the city where local parks could be purchased were identified, based on the situation of residents not having to walk more than 400-600 metres from their home to a park.
The Proposed City Plan objectives support provision of open space in areas which have shortages, and that these new parks are conveniently and equitably distributed.
Eight areas of the city have been identified as having a significant shortage of local open space both in terms of location and amount.
Current budget planning makes it realistic to plan for acquisition of the new parks over an 8-10 year period. Accordingly, the attached policy is recommended to the Committee to be adopted.
The proposed policy was considered and endorsed by the Environmental Committee at its meeting on 15 May 1997.
Recommendation: That the attached Local Parks Acquisition Policy be adopted.
The meeting concluded at 10.40 am
CONSIDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 1997
MAYOR