|ARC resolutions on stadium decision
|Friday, 24 November 2006, 1:00 pm
Press Release: Auckland Regional Council
Media Advisory: ARC resolutions on stadium decision
24 November 2006
AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL 24 NOVEMBER 2006
APOLOGIES: Cr M Barnett 9.30AM
B ITEMS FOR DECISION
B.1 STADIUM - AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL POSITION
Peter Winder, Chief Executive and Christine Perrins, Group Manager CCO Unit: 21 November 2006
AGENDA PAGE 3
Council Chairman, Councillor M E Lee
Councillor C Rose
a) That the report be received.
b) That the Council notes the commitment that the New Zealand Rugby Football Union and the New Zealand Government have entered into to deliver a 60,000 seat stadium in Auckland for the Rugby World Cup 2011.
c) That the Council sympathizes with the public concerns about the process and lack of formal public consultation because of time constraints around the Council decision.
d) That the Council notes that the location proposed by Auckland City Council in its resolution of 23 November 06 for a site “substantially eastward of the government’s proposed location” has already been assessed by a Technical Working Group convened by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and found not to be viable.
e) That having weighed up the costs, risks and potential benefits of the proposed Waterfront Stadium (over Marsden and Captain Cook wharves) the Council considers the proposal inappropriate for the following reasons:
i) As yet no satisfactory way has been found to construct the proposed waterfront stadium without a significant adverse effect on the operation of the port
ii) The proposed waterfront stadium requires significant special legislation to avoid normal RMA processes.
iii) The mitigation for the port that would be required to deliver the proposed waterfront stadium would require significant reclamation of the Waitemata Harbour that should be subject to normal RMA processes.
iv) The proposed waterfront stadium would have a significant negative impact on the heritage and urban design values of the Britomart precinct and the adjacent waterfront area.
v) The waterfront option will be very expensive to build and entails significant risks and costs in meeting deadlines.
f) That, having weighed up the costs, risks and potential benefits of both the options it was asked to consider, the Council’s preference is the re-development of Eden Park because:
i) Eden Park is an internationally recognized stadium and was part of the bid for the Rugby World Cup 2011.
ii) Planning for the re-development of Eden Park is well advanced.
iii) The re-development of Eden Park proposal is significantly cheaper to build and has less risk.
g) That these resolutions be formally forwarded to the Minister, Auckland City Council and Eden Park Trust Board, with advice that the ARC believes that any alternative to the Waterfront Stadium would be a national stadium and should be funded for both capital and operating costs, without reliance on Auckland Regional Council ratepayers.
h) That the ARC expresses its thanks to the Minister for involving the ARC in the Government’s Rugby World Cup Stadium decision process and wish him every success in leading the preparation of this Country’s Rugby World Cup in 2011.