NP’s moot stadium case

The case for a new multi-sport stadium in New Plymouth is moot. Moot for reasons of need, want and cost. Maybe we need a stadium, maybe we don’t, but one thing that is abundantly clear is that the New Plymouth Racecourse is not the place for it.

Since the mid-1800s there have been several variants of the New Plymouth Racecourse and Recreation Reserve Act, the most relevant being the 1959 act. It is significant that each includes the word racecourse.

Up until 1959 the land currently covered by the act was privately owned by the then Jockey Club in multiple titles.

It could have been sold on the open market as indeed a portion of it was. That was the land currently occupied by the Saddle and Sulky Motel and adjoining houses.

Instead, the Jockey Club and the then NP City Council reached an agreement for the council to buy the land, giving the Jockey Club the right to continue operating but subject to conditions.

This was an amicable agreement and one that was generally accepted by the populace.

It was certainly not, as claimed by New Plymouth district councillor Carlson, in a July 8, 2020, opinion piece in this paper, a ‘‘sweetheart deal in favour of the Jockey Club’’.

Anyone can see the deed that was signed. It is specifically included in the act and is available online.

The conditions under which the racing fraternity can operate are specifically stated, as are the conditions under which their tenancy is able to be (not ‘will be’) terminated.

Specifically, they are that no race meeting has been held for two years, or that the membership of the racing club has dropped below 50 and remained that way for six months. That has not happened and is not likely to.

For its part, the council agreed to use the playing area for ‘‘football, cricket and other sports’’, and that the club shall not be liable for any maintenance or repair.

It also agreed that the purpose for which the land is held cannot be changed (irrespective of any other enactment) as well as agreeing to not erect buildings or plant hedges or trees) on the playing area without the agreement of the club.

In reading the deed it should be remembered that it is a deed of parliament and that parliament is the highest court in the land.

So, if we then consider what needs to be done in the event a stadium is to be built there, the procedure is exactly the same as would have been required to release part of the Fitzroy Golf Club land from its reserve classification.

Bearing in mind that parliament is the highest court in the land, nothing in the New Plymouth District Scheme or in any of its other plans can supersede any act of parliament.

But first, the Reserves Act 1977 requires that a change of use for the Reserve is required. For that the approval of the Director-General of Conservation is required.

To give approval, the director-general will need to be assured that the land is no longer suitable for its delegated purpose, and for that he/she will also need proof of some public consultation. It is hard to see how that can be achieved when the racing fraternity continue to operate and intend to keep on operating.

In the event that step is somehow achieved, the director-general then has to make a recommendation to the Minister of Conservation that the purpose of the reserve be changed.

Then, if that further stage is reached and in the unlikely event it is endorsed by the minister, the whole process of amending the district plan begins.

That is a process that could take a considerable time without even including the high likelihood of appeals.

I cannot see the Environment Court condoning a stadium in the centre of the current racecourse. There are multiple reasons for that.

For a few years now the New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) had been pursuing an idea that the current Racing Taranaki is a different entity to that with which its predecessor made the deed, and to that end it purports to have received legal advice.

Without having seen that advice I surmise that it would have said that to pursue that line would be extremely costly.

Perhaps it might have even said it would be futile. I simply do not know. Whatever, that advice is now some years old.

It does seem strange to imagine that if someone wants to avoid some responsibility all they need to do is change their name.

I don’t consider that the current racing fraternity occupying the racecourse is in any way a different entity to what has ever been there.

In my view they would have no difficulty establishing that they are one and the same.

It is clear that continuing to push for a stadium in the centre of the racecourse will be extremely expensive and is also highly likely to be futile.

While I am not a lawyer, I do have many years of legal experience as a Commissioner of the Environment Court. Neither am I a member of any branch of the racing fraternity.

My advice though – not that I have been asked for it – would be for Racing Taranaki, or whatever they are currently called, to apply to the court for a declaration that they are the legal party in the 1959 deed. They should also, of course, apply for costs. That is because the NPDC’s attitude is disrupting the day-to-day business that the racing fraternity are legally entitled to continue.

The approach by the NPDC is simply bully-boy tactics done to avoid their clear obligations, and not what we expect from our elected representatives.

More logically, the NPDC should categorically state that no stadium will be considered in the playing area of the racecourse. That would save a large waste of ratepayers’ and residents’ money, a considerable amount of which has already been spent.

Maybe we need a stadium, maybe we don’t, but one thing that is abundantly clear is that the New Plymouth Racecourse is not the place for it.