News emerged during the week about the future of Chamberlain Park Golf Course – the council owned golf course just 4km from the city centre. The local board want to open it up to more uses than just golf to improve facilities for locals.
Albert-Eden Local Board has decided to develop a plan which could reduce the size of the golf course at Chamberlain Park in order to create sports fields, restore a stream and put in public walkways.
Tonight board chairman Peter Haynes denied its chosen basis for developing a masterplan was a “carve up” of the 32ha council-owned public golf course.
“You could say, local board future-proofs open space and recreational opportunities in the local area,” said Mr Haynes.
“What we also did tonight was to approve the starting of a process to work on the western part of the park – naturalising the stream, putting in walkways and cycleways, barbecue areas and playgrounds for the local people.
“As well creating a wonderful park, it’s possible that a superior nine hole course, with a driving range and learn-to- play facilities will be better for the future of golf.”
However, Chamberlain Park Golf Club committee member Richard Quince said the park was a regional asset not a local asset.
“It is one of only two public courses serving Aucklanders and as such attracts more than 50,000 rounds of golf a year – making it one of the busiest courses in the country.”
Mr Quince said a nine-hole course would not attract the same patronage as an 18-hole course.
To me 50,000 rounds might be a lot for a golf course but represents incredibly low use of such a massive publicly owned resource in this location. It represents a massive public subsidy to a small minority who play golf. As such looking at how the council can get better use out of it seems like exactly the right thing to be doing – regardless of what a few golfers think.
The local board say the background to all of this is
- At its July 2014 meeting, the Albert-Eden Local Board approved the development of an initial concept plan for Chamberlain Park. This was in response to a range of issues, including:
- low utilisation rates of, and increasing operational costs for, the Chamberlain Park Golf Course
- low open space provision in the Albert-Eden Local Board area and limited opportunities to acquire new open space
- growing pressure on sports field capacity across the local board and surrounding catchment areas, with current deficit of sports fields for training purposes.
- These issues, alongside projected population growth, provided the case for change. Accordingly, the local board briefed staff to consider redevelopment options for Chamberlain Park.
After some initial feedback from the community about what what they wanted – which they say included a high level of support for a change four master plan scenario’s were developed which were then consulted on. All had in common a few elements
- restoration of Meola Creek/Waititiko
- a pedestrian and cycle path through the eastern edge of the site, providing access from the North Western Cycleway and St. Lukes Road
- development of a Chinese garden/cultural centre.
The four scenario’s were
- Scenario One provides primarily for golf, with a reconfigured 18-hole golf course
- Scenario Two provides for a smaller redesigned 18-hole golf course, a driving range and a practice area
- Scenario Three includes a smaller redesigned 18-hole golf course and an area which provides for three multi use sports fields and car parking
- Scenario Four includes a nine-hole golf course, driving range and/or practice area. The area on the eastern end of the park provides for two multi use sports fields, an aquatic centre and car parking.
The highest number voted for option 4 – although clearly not a majority.
In addition the local board say
The proposed driving range would provide revenue to offset the operational costs of the golf course. The course layout of nine holes over 23.4 hectares, with a total par of 35, and a moderate to high level of difficulty, should appeal to the existing user base. The increased golf service offering is expected to attract new golfers to Chamberlain Park Golf Course leading to a marked increase in utilisation.
I know personally I would be fare more likely to visit to use the driving range than play a round of golf, in fact combined with access via the cycleway it could be a great combination for many – cruise along the cycleway on your bike and hit a few balls.
A draft of the proposed masterplan is included in low resolution in the local board agenda for the meeting from page 39. Because of that low resolution it’s hard tell what’s in the text however you can get an idea for the proposed layout’s of the scenario’s listed above. Below is scenario 4
Local councillor Christine Fletcher isn’t too happy with the local board though saying they’ve jumped “jumped the gun” on work the council is doing including looking at all 14 golf courses the council own. I hope that review also includes looking at options not just for public space and sports fields but also potential development options. For example the Takapuna Golf Course is just across the motorway from the Smales Farm busway station, perhaps some part of that could be used for housing or other activities.
Processing...
I would how many users would take advantage of option 4. If it opens up the area to significantly more than 50,000 users per year then isn’t a better option. I might be wrong but I understood that NZ has one of the largest number of golf course per capita. So more effective use of the land I think would benefit the community. I wonder what the 25% of the community wanted if they did not want options 1 to 4.
It might not be the most efficient use of public land in the eyes of technocrats and the like, but as a local I like that we have it as a public resource. Add some better public access and leave it alone.
It does seem like the local board is on a sports field mission in our area, including trashing Fowlds park with some astroturf monstrosity.
As someone who uses Fowlds Park for winter sport, I would like to give you a hearty middle finger for opposing all-terrain sports fields. If you had to play winter field sports in Auckland, you would understand why artificial turf is so important to us.
Ant, multi use sports fields are *so* in demand it isn’t funny. Which is why the council knows they need more of them. During winter months so many of Auckland’s fields become unusable. Multi use sports fields with lights get used every evening right up until 10pm in most cases. It’s difficult to find a spare slot for teams to practice. The more the better. I have heard that some trees need to go in Fowlds Park to put the astro turf in. I see it as a fair trade. Auckland city needs these fields.
As Daphne said, Fowlds Park could do with astroturf. It was always a swamp to play on around this time of the year. Definitely not one of my favourite parks when I was a kid many decades ago.
I’m personally a fan of the fibre reinforced turf option like Nixon Park is supposed to get, which doesn’t diminish other uses of the field, particularly in summer. It’s a nice open space as it stands, the nature of an artificial pitch changes it considerably. Anyway a bit OT.
Only sport you can play on astroturf is field hockey. Can’t play soccer, rugby, league, or cricket.
I don’t know what kind of turf they’re talking about for Fowlds Park, but it WILL be the soccer-friendly kind like they have at Western Springs.
I’m not really sure about that. College Rifles has shown it can be a great playing surface once the technical kinks are worked out. It beats the hell out of matches being abandoned/cancelled in the rain and the ones that do go ahead ruining the playing surface for weeks to come in wet winters.
I normally agree with what you write but this effects me directly and I totally disagree with it. I wont play at this coarse if it changes. I also think this money can be spent far more wisely elsewhere.
1 – 50k people come from around Akl to play golf here. You wont get those numbers to come to a park to have a BBQ. Especially when western springs is just over 100m away.
2 – Public walkways, try walking around a park where games of golf are going on. Try playing golf with people walking around (no doubt with dogs). Forget drones, how about a golf ball to the head. Theirs a reason playing golf in a public park isn’t allowed.
3 – 40% voted for scenarios 1-3 which all including a 18 hole course of some description. 25% voting for other which was essentially a vote for “keep it as it is (a full 18 hole course)” seeing as that option wasn’t given (on purpose I suspect). Therefore we surmise that at least 50% wants it to stay 18 holes.
4 – It’s a regional facility. How does a local board, most of whom reside in the other end of their electorate btw, get to make these decisions that effect the greater Auckland region.
Genuine question: Could you go and play 18 holes at the Takapuna course if you wanted 18 holes?
yes, however.
I live in Avondale
To Chamberlain – 10km / 15min drive @ $30/round
To Takapuna – 20km / 20min drive @ $32/round
Next nearest clubs
Akarana/Maungakiekie/Titirangi – 12-15km @ $45-$150/round
So we must have this massive facility that is only used 50k times a year (note, it is 50k rounds, not 50k people) because you don;t like the idea of driving 10k extra (round trip) and paying $2 extra to play at Takapuna? Top argument.
a comment like that on a blog site that is dedicated to less cars on roads.
Avondale to New Lynn (Titirangi Golf Club) is 12km+?!?!
Titirangi is a private club where an unaccompanied guest will be playing $100+ a round. Not the same as a public facility…
“a comment like that on a blog site that is dedicated to less cars on roads.”
Not an admin, but in all the years that I’ve read Transportblog, it has *never* been about reducing the number of cars on roads as a goal in itself.
So you’re attempting to criticise Dan’s comment by claiming it’s out of line with a position that Transportblog doesn’t actually hold – not that comments here should ever be assumed to match with the Transportblog official line (I am pretty sure there is no such thing).
I think it’s entirely consistent with good transport and land use planning that we might accept a small number of golfers like yourself having to drive further for 18-hole rounds (and I guess that’s most likely weekend or off peak driving, unless golf is your job), in return for a larger number of people who won’t have to travel as far to get to sports fields or other amenities, or who might start using them if they’re readily available nearby.
As per my other comments, I say this as someone who doesn’t really have a problem with 18-hole golf being retained at Chamberlain if it comes to that, so this isn’t a swipe at you or other users of the course. But it does seem like the marginal cost to you and other golfers would be pretty modest even if the more radical options are chosen.
I’m with you Jurgens. Although not a golfer I think the Council’s approach to make all parks multi purpose is simply dumbing down usage. There are plenty of parks across Auckland already. It starts with this golf course then moves to the rest and then what? The author of the above article even suggested some of the land be used for homes? Seriously? Once it’s gone, it’s gone and you will never get it back. Leave the Golf Course alone. The Council obsession with providing endless parks to people who will never use them is a joke. When all existing parks are full I may change my opinion.
I share Jeremy Clarkson’s views on golf.
And I agree this golf course, like many others “represents a massive public subsidy to a small [and dying] minority who play golf.”
But the bigger issue is about urban / suburban green space. Which becomes more vulnerable but also more valuable as our population grows and our city intensifies.
No matter the “logic” of where these green spaces are, e.g. opposite Smales Farm, I’d hate to see them developed for housing. Any more than the Franklin farmland threatened by sprawl. No, *more* than the farmland.
What’s next? Cricket pitches? School playing fields?
At the risk of prematurely invoking Godwin’s law.. “First they came for the farms, then they came for the golf courses…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_…
Peter Haynes’ interpretation is spot on here “local board future-proofs open space”. Well done sir.
Sorry but how is 50k a minority, especially compared to the 93 votes they got to change the facility?
They are “future proofing open spaces” that weren’t under any threat!
It is 50k rounds of golf not 50,000 people. Some of them play there every week. How ever you cut it very few people get to play on a vast area of land that requires a high level of upkeep not to mention chemicals. Time to build terraced housing all over it.
And how many additional dwellings would doing that provide the city if it was nothing but town houses? You’ve got very few connection options to the rest of the adjacent suburbs, so you;ll end up with a land locked, PT lacking Stonefields Part II.
All up it would probably supply less than 30% of the annual housing increment needed to cope with the current levels of demand. So we’d need another 89 Chamberlain parks to keep up, without actually addressing the deficit.
Selling off land like that for what amounts to 30 pieces of silver will not be a solution to that problem.
Leave it as open space, but put more sports codes on it and increase the passive and active recreation options.
Effectively intensify the usage of the open space.
So by your logic the same people wouldn’t go to a park more than once???
No more like 1000 people use it 50 times a year each, meaning its basically mostly used by heaps fewer than “50,000” people.
Seems those “50k” people who use the facility each year, simply didn’t care enough about it to submit on its future?
All open spaces in Auckland are under constant threat – if their usage doesn’t stack up – they will be sold off for housing. ACPL will see to that. Rightly or wrongly.
The “status quo” you yearn for will not be able to prevail for such valuable pieces of open space in Auckland any more, rest assured of that.
They have to change to accommodate the increased populations who will need open spaces able to be used for more than just one sporting code.
So its good that the local board are trying to protect the land from being lost to future generations by at least planning to keep it as open space in some form.
Even if that form is not the 18 hole golf course you’d prefer.
And if it the space has multiple sports using it, as is proposed, it is a lot harder to flog off on the basis that the “no one plays golf anymore” brigade can’t use that excuse – which is the call being made now in some corners.
To be clear the 50,000 figure is rounds of golf played. Not number of people. I would suggest there are substantially less people playing golf there than 50,000.
Just to clarify facts – 50,000 rounds per year, actually equates to between 140,000 and 200,000 people using the park each year for sport. That equates to an ‘average daily usage’ of 140 people; few other sports parks would attract such patronage. There are 30 playing fields in the Eden Albert ward, killing Chamberlain Park by chopping it up, will only add two more fields and cost ratepayers in excess of 30 million dollars, not to mention the loss of over 1000 mature trees.
35% for option 4 is far from a majority, considering 25% didn’t like any of the options tabled. As a neighbour, I struggle with the concept of making sports fields out of land that has natural contours created by the volcanic rock. They have spent the past 6 months breaking out rock for the motorway, how do they propose to create flat sports fields. Further the traffic impact to an already congested St Lukes Road area will be huge.
Most people I’ve spoken to in the area would be happy with a nice meandering shared space around the course for running, cycling, and walking.
Ant there are plenty of those types of parks already and they are not oversubscribed.
Not in Eden-Albert ward there aren’t. Hence why they are changing its use.
Whatever happens a cycling and walking bridge over the Motorway to Motions Rd is essential. Great for schools, MOTAT, Park access and wider inter-connectivity (especially with NW cycleway) and mway severance amelioration. Also would help make up for the vast fuck-up for cycling and walking that is the St Luke’s interchange. NZTA should cough up.
Otherwise am deeply underwhelmed by the options above. Golf is not a public good, open space however is; this place needs de-privileging.
Turn more green space into buildings and car parks, an excellent idea!
If you are going to kill a golf course, choose a fancy one that charges a $100 a round, not the cheapest range in Auckland, that the non 1% ers can aford to use, this is stupid stupid
How about protecting a right of way from morningside station thru the golf course to the NW motorway and building a NW railway to westgate.
Don’t we pay for the purchasing of these parks in our rates already??
If so, how does the council have the mandate to start using them as housing and removing the green spaces we’ve already paid for?
Don’t get me wrong, that space used purely for a golf course is a bit limited, but underground Great North Road and make a giant public park out of Chamberlain and Western Springs and I’d consider it worthy of a rate rise.
I don’t play golf.
I play soccer, cricket, rugby, and all those sports would benefit from more fields.
However, I support Chamberlain Park being untouched. We don’t have a lot of 18-hole courses in Auckland. It’s one of the cheapest clubs in Auckland ($132/year is a lot less than cricket club membership for example). If we need more open space, fine, get more.
In fact… why not convert parks that currently don’t have fields into fields? They’re building a new park up the road from me on Tiverton Road. Could easily have fit in a nice field there but instead they are building a carpark, some weird tai chi area, and parking some odd trees in odd spaces.
There’s plenty of space in Western springs that could be converted into fields. Why not try and buy some land off Unitec which is selling hectares?
How come council owns 14 golf courses, yet this is one of only two public courses available to aucklanders? Are the other 12 courses reserved for the mayor and royal visitors.
No, more like reserved for members.
Seems to me that $30 a round to play 18 holes of golf at Chamberlain is pretty dang cheap… as if the council is essentially subsidising the cost of games there, as they have done for parking in the CBD (now thankfully phased out). Admittedly as a non-golfer (but most people are), I think it’s a good idea to carve off part of the land for parks and sports fields, which will be much more widely used, and charge market rates for the smaller redesigned course they’ll be creating. Subsidising golf should be a pretty low priority for the council.
Like subsidizing cycling? I’m also a non-golfer but can see the value in leaving the park well alone. The Council should be focusing on balancing their books instead of interfering. $30 a game is probably a better bet for the Council for 50,000 games per year than the pittance of a couple of bucks from the very few who will use the Skypath.
But the $1.5m they get in fees (and that assumes 50,000 games a year at $30 per game) will be used to keep the golf course cut, fed, watered and looked after.
So the council no doubt loses money on it.
The main point is this is 1 of the 14 the council owns, so its not like there are no alternatives.
We don’t even 1 Skypath yet, come back with that argument when we have a couple more Skypaths to chose from.
Greg, the Council starts with this one, then the ‘want-its’ encourage them to go to the next and so on. Do you honestly believe the Council would stop at this one? Once this one gets ‘repurposed’ then the next will be in their sights.
Even if so [which I doubt as most are locked up in long term leases to various golf clubs], “the needs of the many Aucklanders outweigh the needs of the few golfers.”
So, all those who currently cannot access a local open space as its a golf club, could do so, as a walking and cycling and other sports venue – those same qualities of exercise that Local Resident says Golf is good for.
So if “cardio” in the form of walking on open space land is good for the few – when its a golf course, its also good for the masses when its a normal open space.
Chamberlain Park does not lose money. It runs on the smell of an oily rag and contributes a profit to the Council.
Balancing the books?! This golf course sits on half a billion dollars of land. A half billion dollar public asset that has a gross return of 0.03% per annum.
By all means, let’s balance away FFS! Right here is the perfect place to start.
And how much of a return are you expecting to get from open walking, cycling and public bbq’s while retaining all the upkeep of the land?
Plus factoring in the cost of converting the land in the first place.
None. The return comes from selling off 80% of the land and keeping 20% for a park.
If you go down the line of removing a golf course because only a certain number of people play it – you’ll pretty quickly find no valid basis for council owning and maintaining the majority of sports fields across the entire region. Many rugby, soccer and cricket fields will have significantly less utilisation (in both time and player numbers) throughout the year than Chamberlain Park. Im sure people are also aware pretty much all sporting codes are massively subsidised by Council owning and maintaining – I dont see howls of outrage about these.
Council has to draw a line somewhere, but I don’t see those other sports needing 60 hectares for the small number of actual users of it per annum.
Or that those other sports automatically require 100% exclusive use of the 60 hectares as well.
The low numbers is NOT the problem on its own, its the exclusive use of the park *coupled with* the low numbers who are participating (and who can participate given its a daylight hours activity with 8 minute minimum tee off times between parties) that are really the problem here. If golf could share with those other codes, then this topic would be closed – nothing to discuss.
As it is, the local board has compromised – golf can stay on – but it has to learn to share and that requires a 9 hole course over a 18 hole one.
So whats the root of the problem here? Surely its that golfers are simply acting too selfishly to want to compromise – they want it all to themselves as they always have?
Hmm we’re in 2015 not 1915, times have changed, golfers needs to move with the times too.
But Golf is good for cardio fitness and if its ok to spend millions on a cycling facility such as Skypath – which only a small percentage of Aucklanders will use – it should be ok to have council owned golf courses.
Surely it’s the same arguments for both projects!
‘cept Skypath will get way more than ‘50,000’ rounds a year, and you well know that as its a BOOT PPP council won’t have to stump up a cent for Skypath in just about every scenario imaginable.
So no, they’re not like your Skypath bete noir.
Skypath will cost the council millions every year. The vast majority of users, according to the patronage report will be recreational, therefore it is no different from the golf course.
Yet you persist in saying that the hoards of Skypath users will overwhelm your precious Northcote point suburb due to the outrageous popularity of the Skypath.
So whats it to be? A dismal failure due to low patronage, or a runaway success due to popularity?
Can’t have it both ways Phil, even though in your mind you believe both scenarios will come to pass at the same time and that both are equally disastrous for you and your Northcote point residents.
Greg, the Sydney Harbour bridge reports low usage and the weather there is better. Looking at even the ‘projected figures’ used in the dubious business case the Sky path is going to cost a fortune and is very unlikely to return anything ($$) like the Golf Course currently does.
Greg, if you believe ratepayers won’t be stumping up for the Skypath you have very little experience of BOT programs of work.
Didn’t say never, just said unlikely, Since most PPPs are commerically sensitive the full arrangements will not be discoverable – any comments you make otherwise are as much guess work as to the true situation as anyone elses.
What little we do know is that council has a strictly limited liability on Skypath, if the PPP goes broke due to poor patronage, then I’d expect NZTA will end up owning it “for free” as its on their bridge.
And in that case, the biggest losers will be those on the private side of the PPP who put up the money to build it not the Public side of the PPP.
Yes, AT will have to manage the parking compliance/resident parking schemes just like they do that for all the parking outside your house “for free” and other parts of AC will monitor and enforce the conditions of the resource consents – but thats no different to any other large scale development in the city. Say the Precinct tower being built downtown. Its a part of the business of running a city and is covered in the general rates take.
Sydney hardour bridge reports low usage ‘cos it has a huge staircase at one end for peds and cyclists that they have to climb up or down to cross the bridge.
Don’t judge Skypath on that poor example of walking and cycling.
Once Skypath is built, Sydney-siders will be very envious of what Skypath has achieved for so little, compared to their lack lustre options on their own bridge.
Sadly Greg you clearly have not understood the exposure the council (rate payers) have to Skypath. The underwrite is based on the patronage figures that Skypath have provided. If those figures are not met then the council has to pay the revenue gap.
As the chairperson of cycle action Auckland has publicly said she doesn’t believe the patronage figures then there is every chance Skypath will cost millions every year and make the golf course look like chump change.
Time to stop repeating that lie. You discredit yourself further every time you repeat your own fabrication.
The chairperson said that she didn’t believe all those people would drive to Northcote Point, not that she didn’t believe the patronage projections.
You keep writing that but the facts – easy to check online – show she did say the patronage would ‘never’ happen.
I know you are grasping at straws because you have lost already, but it is quite clear if you listen to the comment that she is saying ‘never’ to all those people driving over to Northcote Point at the same time. You can read whatever you like into the comments but it’s not going to change the outcome.
Bull. Sydney Harbour Bridge has over 2000 cyclists DAILY, and Skypath’s business case sits on cyclists AND pedestrians.
Conflating transport infrastructure for walking and cycling with recreational facilities feels like a straw man argument.
It might be different if people could walk or ride a bike through the golf course to get to work, school, or the shops….
Allowing cycling on the bridge doesn’t stop people sailing under it or driving across. Playing golf in a park does stop it being used for other purposes.
I would like to see the AC figures on these courses what they cost the ratepayers, what are the exclusions for the locals and wonder whether there would be greater public use if the other options were adapted? eg the numbers using a bowling green are much greater number of participants per acre that those for golf.
How much can the golfers contribute to the overall sports facilities of the district in $ terms, or do they cost?
Well I don’t play golf or watch it don’t care for it, but I say keep it as is.
One of Auckland’s best parks is just down the road.
Not being a golfer, I’d prefer to see all the golf courses made into parks and open spaces and none of it used for housing or business, It’s public space. But being a golf course, it’s virtually useless to most of the public (the 90%-ish who don’t golf).
Golf always seemed to be to be one of those specialist things you’d do privately. It’s SO specific: golf. Anyone else gets hit in the head with a hard little ball.
Agree fully Steve. A park for everyone not just a few.
What is “everyone”? So it’s OK to have a park where people walk their dog, but not where they hit a four iron?
Should we get rid of all organised sports, because if you don’t play soccer, rugby, cricket etc. you don’t use those fields?
Auckland, and New Zealand, need MORE opportunities for sports, not fewer. We’re already slipping down in rugby (last night’s game). Our cricket team is better but still not good enough. Soccer team has plateaued if not gone backwards.
More fields, more players = more future success.
“Auckland, and New Zealand, need MORE opportunities for sports, not fewer. ”
That is exactly what is planned here. Partially replace a land consuming unpopular sport with fields for the sports people are wanting to play but can’t due to the shortage of fields.
Exactly. All specialist spaces cater for their use. Swimming pools for water sports. Tennis courts for tennis. Cricket grounds for cricket.
We need to have a variety of spaces for different uses and this golf course is a great facility for anyone who wants to hit a golf ball around. It’s cheap. There’s no snobbery or exclusivity. It’s for the public of Auckland.
If sporting success was dictated solely by sports fields per capita, New Zealanders would have won more golf tournaments by now.
I’m an on-and-off runner, and I really like having big green areas to run through. Rugby fields and cricket grounds are good for that. Even if people are playing a game on them, I can still run around the outside edge without interfering. By contrast, golf courses, which tend to be much larger and less intensively used, feel more dangerous to run on due to the risk of being hit by small, hard balls travelling at high speed.
As New Zealanders (and Aucklanders in particular) have had a great deal of international success in distance running, wouldn’t it be a good idea to open up more areas to runners?
You people are comparing one sport to the other like they have the same requirements. Golf takes up a shitload of space, like 60 hectares. You could fit about 40 rugby/soccer/hockey fields on a typical golf course.
Golf courses should be out on the edges of the city where the land is cheap and plentiful, not in the inner suburbs where land is worth 30 million per hectare.
You said it better then I did. It was late. I was tired. 🙂
Was this really a decision that needed to be made at this particular moment in time? It seems almost opportunistic. I’m not sure taking away the cheapest, most accessible course in Auckland from the public does much to strengthen the cases of the other courses being ‘allowed’ to continue within the city. I’m not entirely convinced Patrick’s ‘deprivileged’ space argument holds much water – if the Council wanted that, they should have looked at one of the other clubs that charge huge membership/green fees, some of which are in extremely upmarket areas where land is equally in short supply. Wiping the cheapest one out of existence seems a bit naff really, and somewhat flies in the face of ‘making activity space available’ as a justification for doing so.
Well I’d look at opening all publically owned golf courses to general use, but if you were to start anywhere wouldn’t you start with the one with the highest subsidy? And wouldn’t that be the cheapest one?
But from a connectivity and city wide access point of view, the course itself is less of a problem than the severing motorway; the priority is really getting a decent cycling and walking bridge across about midway between Pt Chev and MOTAT.
That’s what the local board ought to be on to NZTA about.
I can’t disagree more with this post. Having an 18 hole public golf course in the middle of the city is an amazing treasure for the population to take advantage of.
There is a massive, lovely park just the other side of the motorway with western springs already to cater for other park uses. It has sports fields, bbq areas, walking tracks etc.
The survey also shows 40% want an 18 hole course of some configuration (options 1-3), which is the majority view. The next popular is to cut it to 9 holes (option 4).
And at 50,000 rounds a year, with 8 minute tee-off times (which is what they list for the weekends there) that is 137 users per day, taking 18.2 hours. Or 9.1 hours per day if everyone was in a pair. So, that is essentially fully utilised and makes for a busy golf course. Apparently one of the busiest we have.
I think adding a driving range would be a good addition, but trying to mix general use when you have golf balls flying around is not a great idea.
And in terms of making a liveable city, generation rent Shamubeel Eaqub suggesting just plastering housing development across all our open spaces…. No thanks. We need open green space in the city. Moreso with intensification when each individual property may not have much open space itself.
Leave Chamberlain Park alone.
“Having an 18 hole public golf course in the middle of the city is an amazing treasure for the population to take advantage of.”
Except as per your own analysis thats a “treasure” only available to at most 50,000 people a year (thats 0.033 percent of the population of Auckland BTW – if each person who use it plays one round only a year).
Even less if, as is more likely, a fewer number play on it almost every weekend, meaning that only more like closer to 1,000 Aucklanders over the suggested 50,000 get to benefit from this treasure in any one year – a mere “0.00066” percent of the population.
Meaning 99.96% or more of Aucklanders can never use it. Talk about exclusivity of, in your words, a regional “treasure”!
No one else can safely use the park for any other sports or recreation purposes while its an 18 hole course. Its simply too dangerous.
So, yes its a treasure, but a treasure only a tiny percentage of the current 1.5 million Aucklanders can use, and one that has huge operational and opportunity costs to all ratepayers to provide it to boot.
Might be cheaper for Auckland Council to give out a free ticket to a round of golf at some other Auckland golf course elsewhere to each one of these would be golfers to allow the city to not use the park only for golf and free it up for other recreation activities.
Yes there is a large park over the way, but its has a huge 6 and (soon to be 8) lane motorway, *and* a large 4 lane arterial between it and that park with almost no crossings, except for 2 bridges that have some of the worst pedestrian and cycling facilities in Auckland on and around them. So to all intents and purposes these two parks might as well be 100km apart for the all the shared use they can generate/allow.
As Patrick says, once that severance issue is properly fixed then the two parks can become an even greater regional treasure for all Aucklanders, more than either is now.
0.033%
Uh, I think you mean 3.3%, which isn’t actually that small.
There seems to be a lot of ‘If it isn’t my hobby, it has no right to exist’ in these messages.
yeah maybe my decimal points wrong, but even at 3.3% it ain’t that large a number of participants either.
And as has been documented, its more likely between 1 and 5 thousand actual PEOPLE use this park for golf each year to play 50,000 rounds, so the actual *people* who can use it is 0.33%
And golf isn’t my hobby, but it has a right to exist, just not an inalienable right, on valuable council owned open space, which also precludes any other use, because its tied up in golf activities that almost none of the population can do or access.
In any case we’re not talking about removing golf completely – just halving number of holes on the course so lots of other people can also enjoy the park.
But our local board and council sold the Papakura golf course, the army camp course went as well, manukau golf club has been sold. All to developers to stick more people in to the city. The green open space is a treasure, once it’s gone…. The amenity value of green open space is priceless. That’s the danger and don’t let them kid you about a nine hole course plus houses, that’s a no win situation. Keep it open land golf course or fields it must never be developed for the sake of the intensified areas around it.
Chamberlain proposal isn’t to develop it into housing but rather allow more uses than simply golf, as such it’s creating more open space for people than the few thousand who use it exclusively for golf.
Manukau was a privately owned golf course, not one of the 14 public ones Auckland owns. So its loss doesn’t impact Auckland City’s open spaces as it was never a public land to start with.
and as BBC says, no one is proposing houses on this land, merely re-configuring the layout to allow more sharing with other sports and activities.
To build on houses it requires a plan change [read: Resource consents/hearings etc] as its open space.
I think ACPL would love it to be sold for houses, but that open space is needed – just not as a golf course.
Chamberlain golf course is just one of the many things about Auckland that attract people here in the first place. And what’s wrong with the same people using the facility more than once. I wander or cycle down to Western Springs Park and do a lap several times a week, and quite often see the same people each time – does that diminish the use of that park? And to get there I have to cross the motorway at St Lukes Road – no problems now, and once the works are finished it will probably be even easier. I say leave Chamberlain Park as it is.
Nothing wrong with people using the course more than once a year, it just means that any great claim to being used “by a lot of the public” simply falls flat on its face.
Given there is 50,000 rounds a year, the more times any person uses it, the less time anyone else can. And in practice how many people are attracted to Auckland because there is a cheap golf course here?
And the statistic of usage then goes from 99.967% of Aucklanders can’t/don’t use it now – to be more like 99.99944% of Aucklanders can’t/don’t use it.
And if a lot of visitors to Auckland end up using it, well that means that percentage Aucklanders that are NOT using it is even probably higher than 99.99944%
I’ve lived just down the road in Mt Albert on and off for over 30 years and have never set foot in this park. I would quite like to without having to play golf. I submitted to get rid of golf completely but would be happy to compromise to a nine hole course just to get some access to the place before I die. Can’t wait for a bridge across to motions rd and (probably asking too much) a MOTAT NW busway station.
I agree 100%, and while you and I could use the park now – if we plonked down $30 each – it seems pretty rich to have to pay simply to be able to walk in a public reserve Aucklanders own – simply because a few thousand other people want to hit a white ball around the place there too.
So I’d rather I could pay for that my rates like I already for most other parks and have the golfers fenced off or relegated to another place. And I can then walk or cycle it for free.
It’d be a spectacular space if we just filled in the sand traps, planted gardens and let it go from there. That would probably count as “underutilisation” from the council’s point of view too though, so I’m open to a compromise where there is still golfing and sporting use, as well as access by bike and foot to relax & enjoy the landscape (please, please let it not be flattened out – as I commented earlier).
The golf course was already bifurcated years ago by the motorway, leaving the old clubhouse as a curious offcut on Gt North Rd. Hacking (npi) into it more would be a travesty – it’s actually a tourist attraction too. I’ve run into offshore visitors who have marvelled at this facility, its accessibility and cost.
“it’s actually a tourist attraction too”
Generally the golf tourists we focus on are playing at Kauri Cliffs and the like. We want high value tourists not those marvelled at how little money they can spend on holiday here.
I think it is important to note that 40% of the submissions voted to keep some kind of 18 hole golf course – this is by far the largest number. Without analysing the substance of the 25% ‘other’ submissions they cannot be counted one way or another (some people are claiming they substantially support leaving the course as-is, others are claiming they substantially support removing golf entirely – it could be both or neither). As per below, I don’t share the views of the 40%, but it’s important to be honest about what the submissions actually want.
Having lived in the area, Western Springs, Motat etc need better cycling infrastructure to support travel to parks. The extra wide footpaths along Great North Rd work well as a shared path, but the surrounding streets that I have used have nothing to encourage cycling.
People have mentioned above that Western Springs is one of the best parks in Auckland, and concluded that the golf course should be left alone. Have these people BEEN to Western Springs on a fine weekend? It is PACKED full of people, practically impossible to cycle fast enough to keep my balance (let alone at an enjoyable speed) as every path and bridge is full of pedestrians and small children. Western Springs desperately needs somewhere nearby to overflow to, and it needs to be as appealing as Western Springs itself to encourage people to use the alternative option. It seems ridiculous that there are so few parks that are actually friendly to recreational cycling within Auckland – around half of the recreational cycling routes that AT lists next to its cycling maps are fairly remote.
“Have these people BEEN to Western Springs on a fine weekend? … every path and bridge is full of pedestrians and small children.”
Good odds that most of those people have never ridden a bike in Western Springs since they *were* small children.
Doing some digging it would seem the Albert/Eden board have a serious case of jealousy regarding ownership/control of “open public spaces”.
In their electorate area they have Mt Eden, Mt Albert and Mt St Johns. These have all been returned to the local Iwi.
This has scewed the amount of “council owned” land available for open public use and the local board wants to rectify this by re-purposing the Chamberlain golf coarse.
PS event though Western springs park is right across the way it is in another electorate so therefore cant be counted.
Katherine, the main east-west cycle path is right across the motorway from Western Springs Park, You can go as fast as you like on there, and going west you will end up at the far end of Henderson Valley Road – I have friends who commute by bicycle from there to central Auckland – and going east you will soon be able to head to Tamaki Drive and St Heliers. There is also the mountain bike trail on the northern side of the motorway from Western Springs to Newton. I quite often cycle around the lake, and if I go down early enough all I have to dodge are the geese and swans.
Not sure which part of my comment you are responding to. The motorway cycleway isn’t particularly scenic for casual recreational use, and doesn’t take me from where I lived in Mt Albert to Western Springs either.
I say develop it according to a Council specified master plan.
All those houses which could be build here would have benefits far in excess of a golf course. I’d even go to say that housing should be “treasured” much more than golf. Both are after all “private activities”.
Nothing against golfers, but if they aren’t prepared to pay their way (including capital costs) then they’d better point to some rather large spillovers associated with their activity to justify this kind of subsidy.
I have mixed feelings about this. It’s a lovely tract of land and whilst it’s a shame that it can effectively only be used for golf, that’s effectively the main reason why it remains so undisturbed.
I’d be pretty happy with most of the proposed options as long as that decent access across is still provided, and there is some clear space to sit and enjoy the view along the path, maybe with picnic basket nearby. A small garden would be nice.
One thing I do feel strongly about is that Council should resist the urge to significantly flatten out the area, cut down trees, remove rock outcrops etc. That’d really destroy the character of the park and I would honestly rather it remain locked up in Golf Club hands than see any large-scale remodelling of that kind.
Postscript: how does Auckland Council manage to produce Local Board minutes that run to 12 MB but still have pictures so low-resolution that the text is unreadable? Seems like a good case to have separate files online along with the minutes, or put a link in the minutes to proper resolution versions.
During my teens in the UK, we lived on the edge of a large tract of public common land, part of which included an 18-hole golf-course. I have no idea what the ownership/lease arrangements for this golf-course were, but it was un-fenced and available for the public to stroll around. I think there were notices for walkers to “please keep off the greens”, and “check for players teeing-off before crossing the fairways. Players would generally shout “Fore!” to announce their intention to drive.
My memories are that this open arrangement worked well and enabled more than just the golfers to benefit from the amenity. I used to enjoy wandering around it watching people play and counting the greens! Whether it is still open-access like it was back then I don’t know. I left the area 40 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpenden_Common_Golf_Club
Thanks for that Dave B. I wonder if that is a possibility for all Council owned links? Does it occur elsewhere in NZ?
Meanwhile across the pond…http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/calls-to-convert-sydneys-privileged-golf-courses-to-housing-parkland-20150812-gixbm3.html
Telling.
See this link shows the number of golf facilities in countries around the world and guess what – NZ is #2 (behind Scotland) in Golf facilities per million people.
And ahead of Australia to boot.