Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Memorandum Date: 24 July 2019
To: Regenerate Christchurch
CANTERBURY CRICKET TRUST STATEMENT ON S 71 PROPOSAL UNDER GREATER CHRISTCHURCH REGENERATION ACT 2016
INTRODUCTION
1 This memorandum has been prepared for the purposes of assisting Regenerate Christchurch (Regenerate) in its evaluation and preparation of a proposal under section 65 of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 (GCRA) to exercise power under section 71 of the GCRA.
2 The proposal being evaluated by Regenerate proposes to amend the Christchurch District Plan (the District Plan) rules to enable the Canterbury Cricket Trust (CCT) the opportunity to host all international cricket fixtures at Hagley Oval (the proposed amendments). The amendments sought are intended to allow the Hagley Oval to operate consistently with the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (CCRP).
3 I am the Executive Manager of the CCT and have been employed by CCT for four years. I also worked closely with CCT in my role as Host City Manager for the ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup 2015 (MCWC 2015) for two years prior to that.
4 My role has been to:
4.1 work with the trustees to fund and build the pavilion;
4.2 to set up and run a membership programme;
4.3 to work with city and cricket stakeholders to ensure Christchurch is awarded high quality international matches and tournaments;
4.4 to development further facilities at Hagley Oval; and
4.5 to fundraise for the betterment of cricket in Christchurch and the regions.
100341236/1349919.11
2
5 This memorandum is set out as follows:
CANTERBURY CRICKET TRUST STATEMENT ON S 71 PROPOSAL UNDER GREATER CHRISTCHURCH REGENERATION ACT 2016 1
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND 4 Resource consent approval 4 The ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup 2015 (the MCWC 2015) 5 Variation of Resource Consent 6 The ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup 2021 (the WCWC 2021) 7 How does it all work? – Summary of the Christchurch Cricket model 8 Summary 9
THE HAGLEY OVAL AND THE GCRA 9 The purposes of the GCRA are met 10 Economic benefits to greater Christchurch 11 The GCRA process is necessary and preferable to any alternatives 11
SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH THE CURRENT RESOURCE CONSENT AND SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 13 Lighting poles 14
Issues with the current consented lights 15 Experiences of other cricket grounds with retractable lights 16 Advice received from lighting suppliers 17
Number of match days 20 Match times 23 Pack in and out timeframes and public access 24 Number of people in Hagley Park 27 Size of event area 28 Car parking 28 Signage 28
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES AS A RESULT OF THE CURRENT RESOURCE CONSENT RESTRICTIONS – PAST AND FUTURE 29 Past seasons 29
The MCWC 2015 29 Post the MCWC 2015 29 The 2015-2016 Season 29 The 2016-2017 Season 30 The 2017-2018 Season 30 The 2018-2019 Season 31 The 2019-2020 Season 32
Future seasons 32 The 2020/2021 Season 33 The 2021/2022 Season 33 The 2022/2023 Season 34
CONCLUSION 34
100341236/1349919.11
3
APPENDIX 1 36
APPENDIX 2 37
APPENDIX 3 38
APPENDIX 4 39
APPENDIX 5 40
APPENDIX 6 41
APPENDIX 7 42
100341236/1349919.11
4
BACKGROUND
Resource consent approval 6 The resource consent granted to the Canterbury Cricket Association (CCA) on 29
November 2013 allowed for the development of facilities at Hagley Oval such that it was of a suitable standard for hosting domestic and international cricket matches including Test, One Day International (ODI) and Twenty20 (T20) matches.1 The consent allowed for the construction of an embankment, pavilion and lights, and provided rules for running domestic and international cricket matches held at Hagley Oval.
7 I was not involved directly with the consenting process, however, I understand that this was done as a matter of urgency. The loss of Lancaster Park following the 2011 earthquakes meant that there were no venues fit to hold international cricket matches in Christchurch. Partly for this reason, delivery of Hagley Oval as an international cricket venue by late 2013 was set out in the CCRP and the Blueprint Plan in July 2012.
8 International sporting tournaments such as the Rugby World Cup and Cricket World Cup operate a bidding process whereby cities or regions lodge a bid to the organising committee or company running the event to determine the allocation of matches around the country.
9 The CCA wished for Christchurch to host the MCWC 2015 to assist in the recovery and bring tourists back to Christchurch. Following the Canterbury Earthquake sequence, bids for the MCWC 2015 matches were fast approaching and there was a great deal of time pressure on the CAA to enable the Hagley Oval to host matches for the MCWC 2015.
10 The CCA therefore prepared a resource consent application to enable Hagley Oval to (among other things):
10.1 construct an embankment;
10.2 construct and operate a cricket Pavilion;
10.3 install and operate four retractable lighting towers;
10.4 install temporary grandstands, scaffolding, and other facilities;
10.5 install temporary fencing around the outside of the Oval site for the purposes of excluding public access during major fixtures; and
10.6 to use the venue for a maximum of up to 20 match days for major fixtures (of 2,000 or more spectators) each cricket season, with a maximum ground capacity of 20,000 spectators.
11 The consent sought authorisation for up to four games per season where spectator numbers may exceed 12,000.
12 It was inevitable that the consenting process would be complex, uncertain, protracted and contentious. The CCA therefore applied under section 87D of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) requesting that the application be
1 For reference, a test match is a long form cricket match played over 5 days, while both ODI and T20
matches are short form cricket lasting no longer than 1 day. Generally, T20 matches are played in the afternoons and into the evenings as they are shorter than ODI matches.
100341236/1349919.11
5
directly referred to the Environment Court for determination, rather than the relevant consent authority.
13 Due to the nature of urgency of the application, the application was based on the information that was available to CCA at the time, and a number of assumptions had to be made. For example:
13.1 there was limited time to consult and engage with stakeholders (such as New Zealand Cricket (NZC) and VBase);
13.2 there was limited to no engagement with broadcasters as to what requirements would be needed to enable the hosting of international matches;
13.3 it was assumed that the lighting solution would be adequate (as the Lords Cricket Ground had recently pursued similar lighting – see further at paragraphs 90 and 91 below). CCA did not have time to consider what had been used elsewhere and/or alternatives; and
13.4 assumptions were made on game types, numbers, spectators, and times based on cricket trends of the time.
14 The resource consent was ultimately granted by the Environment Court on 29 November 2013 (Appendix 1) and generally did achieve all objectives sought by CCA. However, it was subject to significant conditions and constraints that were, in many cases, the result of limited consultation, assumptions made at the time of the application, and compromises resulting from the consenting process.
15 This resource consent enabled the Hagley Oval and pavilion to be established in a timely manner. Construction work under this consent commenced in January 2014 and the pavilion and embankment was completed and officially opened in September 2014. The four retractable lights, as consented, were not fit for purpose and were not constructed.
16 Hagley Oval was a brand new venue, consented and constructed in a short space of time so as to host the MCWC 2015 and to provide Christchurch with a first class cricket venue. The development of Hagley Oval into an international cricket ground enabled international and test cricket to return to Christchurch. Test cricket had not been played in the city for over a decade.
17 However, the resource consent over time proved to not be fit for purpose, as evident from its application to the MCWC 2015 and thereafter with respect to pack in and pack out timeframes and lighting. This is described in further detail below.
The ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup 2015 (the MCWC 2015) 18 One of the immediate objectives of the existing resource consent was to enable
Christchurch to host the four warm up matches, the opening match and two other tournament matches for the MCWC 2015. An interim decision on the resource consent was granted in August 2013 at which time the Cricket World Cup organising company, Cricket World Cup 2015 Limited (CWCL), became aware the conditions attached to the consent would not allow for the matches to be held at Hagley Oval.
19 A legal opinion was obtained by the CWCL in early September 2013, which confirmed the Environment Court’s interim decision contained conditions that would prevent or hinder World Cup fixtures at Hagley Oval. In particular, the pack in and out timeframes for temporary infrastructure were unworkable and the consent did not allow for the public to be excluded from Hagley Oval during fixtures.
100341236/1349919.11
6
20 CWCL then received advice on how to obtain authorisations under the RMA that would enable the MCWC 2015 to be hosted at Hagley Oval. This advice considered that the authorisations required under the RMA could be achieved in one of five ways:
(a) apply for a certificate of compliance if all of the activities associated with the MCWC 2015 are permitted activities; or
(b) apply to change the conditions of the consent to provide for the MCWC 2015; or
(c) apply for a new consent specifically for the MCWC 2015; or
(d) request that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister suspend those parts of the consent which were problematic for the MCWC 2015; or
(e) request that the Government enact enabling legislation to provide for the MCWC 2015.
21 A decision was made to proceed with an application for a Certificate of Compliance as a temporary activity, as this was the most expedient means to ensure the matches could go ahead. This application put CWCL under extreme pressure, due to the very small window of time available before the MCWC 2015. Without the Certificate of Compliance, the event could not have proceeded in Christchurch and the matches would have been relocated to other venues around the country.
22 CWCL spent tens of thousands of dollars on legal and planning fees and staff costs in considering options and preparing and progressing a Certificate of Compliance application.
23 Whilst CWCL ultimately secured a Certificate of Compliance, which enabled it to host all of the matches that had been allocated to Hagley a few months earlier (three daytime televised matches, including the opening match of the tournament), the requirement to obtain another RMA approval demonstrated that the existing resource consent was not fit for purpose, as it did not, of itself, enable major international cricket events such as the MCWC 2015.
24 Despite obtaining a Certificate of Compliance, only pool matches were able to be played at the Hagley Oval, as the lights were not in place to enable the broadcasting of the more significant matches, which were required to be held in evening periods to suit international viewing audiences.
Variation of Resource Consent 25 In addition to the issues encountered with the hosting of the MCWC 2015, missed
opportunities, resource consent breaches resulting in fines, and health and safety issues encountered with other domestic and international fixtures at Hagley Oval led the CCA to lodge an application to vary the conditions of the resource consent on 11 November 2015.
26 Up to the point of making that application, the Christchurch City Council enforcement section was sympathetic to the weather-related breaches of consent conditions on several occasions. Nonetheless, for each cricket season fines have been issued at $300 for each occasion that conditions were breached. Most fines have related to weather, where access to the ground is then closed off, which then delays the pack out. On some occasions, a decision has been made to pack in
100341236/1349919.11
7
earlier than allowed by consent conditions, based on the weather forecast and the available window for pack-in prior to a match fixture.
27 The main purpose of the variation was to address problematic pack-in and pack-out timeframes stipulated in consent conditions and, in doing so, alleviate health and safety risks and reduce damage to the ground associated with pack in and pack out during adverse weather.
28 Despite a number of other wider concerns with the consent conditions, the prospects of having to revisit these through a protracted, costly and uncertain consenting process (most likely before the Environment Court) resulted in CCA focusing on the most pressing issue – being pack in and pack out timeframes. This enabled the variation to proceed without public or limited notification, due to the minor nature of the amendments sought.
29 On 25 August 2016 the variation to the original consent was granted. This variation amended the pack in and out timeframes as sought by CCA and is attached at Appendix 2.
30 While the consent, as varied, has partly enabled the hosting of international matches at the Hagley Oval, there are still many impediments to hosting matches including no floodlights, increased costs, burdensome restrictions, lost opportunities and health and safety concerns.
31 CCT’s concerns with the consent conditions and the time, cost and uncertainty of addressing these through a variation process remain.
The ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup 2021 (the WCWC 2021) 32 In July 2013, the ICC announced that New Zealand would be hosting the WCWC
2021. Further, the ICC has recently announced that the WCWC 2021 will run from 30 January 2020 to 20 February 2021 and will comprise of 31 matches in total – all of which will be televised live.
33 It became clear to CCT following the experience with the MCWC 2015 that the current resource consent would not allow Hagley Oval to host any significant games for the WCWC 2021. Among other things, the consented lighting, pack in and out timeframes, limits to public exclusion, and constraints on match numbers, days and timeframes conflict with hosting requirements. By way of example, conditions 7 and 8 of the resource consent provided specific exemptions to certain consent conditions for the MCWC 2015, but such an exemption would not extend to the WCWC 2021.
34 CCT’s conclusion that the current resource consent for Hagley Oval would not be suitable for hosting significant WCWC 2021 fixtures has been reinforced following its observations of the 2017 Women’s Cricket World Cup (WCWC 2017) and the current 2019 Men’s Cricket World Cup (MCWC 2019), both held in England. Match allocations and times for the WCWC 2017 indicated that adequate lights for broadcasting were increasingly becoming a requirement. This trend has only grown, with pressure from broadcasters to ensure international matches are able to be televised in high quality. For example, all eleven venues used for the current MCWC 2019 in the United Kingdom have lights.
35 A Certificate of Compliance is not an option for WCWC 2021 under the new provisions of the District Plan, which have replaced the provisions of the previous Christchurch City Plan that were relied on for the MCWC 2015. Specifically, the temporary activity rules in the previous Christchurch City Plan (which were relied on for the MCWC 2015), nor the current District Plan provisions could not authorise
100341236/1349919.11
8
permanent lighting. In addition, the event could not qualify as a permitted temporary activity under the current District Plan given that match fixtures, temporary infrastructure, spectator amenities and activation, media facilities, and other associated facilities relating to the event would be in place for more than four consecutive weeks in any one year and/or twelve non-consecutive days in any one year.2
How does it all work? – Summary of the Christchurch Cricket model 36 When it comes to hosting ICC World Cup tournaments, all broadcasting agreements
are between each ICC member nation (in New Zealand’s case, NZC) and individual broadcasters. These agreements are negotiated for a term of approximately five or six years and provide a significant income source for NZC.
37 Part of this income is then used to cover cricket match operational expenses at the various cricket grounds. NZC does not provide funding to establish or maintain facilities at each cricket ground – this is the responsibility of either local authorities or charitable trusts (some of which are partly funded by local authorities).
38 In recent years, NZC has called for tenders or bids from cities to host international cricket matches at their respective venues (much in the same way as rugby does in New Zealand for international or test games).
39 In the case of Christchurch, stakeholders all put together a bid for international games and these are allocated to various venues by NZC. These stakeholders include CCT (as the pavilion owner and charitable trust responsible for maintaining Hagley Oval), Vbase (as the pavilion and ground operator and events manager), CCA (as the body responsible for the administration of cricket in Canterbury), the Christchurch City Council (as the ground owner) and ChristchurchNZ (as the City’s promotional arm). The bid is lodged by Vbase.
40 NZC take the gate takings as the owner of the game and, in theory, pay for the operational costs to host the match. Normally, NZC would ‘reimburse’ the host (being Vbase, who lodge the bid) operational costs, including for the pavilion, sports centre and umpire pavilion hire, security, temporary fencing, portable toilets, and staff costs. However, due to strong competition from other venues and the much higher operational costs at Hagley, Christchurch stakeholders have had to make cash contributions as well as reduce the actual match day costs (see paragraphs 71 to 77 below).
41 CCT’s day to day operational funding is met through membership sales and some sponsorship. CCT runs the Hagley Oval Pavilion membership programme which, amongst other things, provides members with entry into the pavilion during cricket matches. The Sir Richard Hadlee Sports Centre is also hired out by CCT for events, however, the operational costs of this are currently more than the hire fees. In addition, due to the agreement CCT has with Vbase, the pavilion is not able to be hired out by CCT other than on international match days or during ICC tournaments.
42 On international match days and during ICC tournaments, NZC effectively ‘rents’ the Hagley Oval from CCT. This income provides for a reasonable share of CCT’s annual income – half of which is given to the CCA
2 See Rule 6.2.4.1.1 P2 of the District Plan.
100341236/1349919.11
9
43 CCT uses its share of the income to run the trust and develop and maintain the Hagley Oval, Hadlee Pavilion, and Sir Richard Hadlee Sports Centre. CCA uses its share to develop grassroots cricket all throughout Canterbury.
44 CCT does fundraise for specific projects. For example, CCT raised $10 million to build the Hadlee Pavilion through gaming trust funding which is funded through gaming machine outlets and other special purpose trust funds, membership sales, and donations. CCT is currently fundraising for the redevelopment of the Sir Richard Hadlee Sports Centre.
45 Venues do not bid for domestic games, these are simply ‘allocated’ by NZC to the various venues nationwide after the allocation of international matches. What domestic matches a particular venue is allocated will be significantly dependent on what international games were allocated to that particular venue. For example, if Hagley Oval was allocated a significant number of international matches, the number of domestic matches it would subsequently be allocated for that season would likely be reduced.
Summary 46 CCT and the other Christchurch stakeholders wish to host matches for the WCWC
2021 at Hagley Oval and secure its fair share of domestic and international fixtures through the competitive match allocation and bidding process. However, the current resource consent conditions as they stand will inhibit its ability to do so.
47 The current resource consent is not fit for purpose for the hosting and broadcasting of international cricket matches at Hagley Oval (as is discussed in more detail from paragraph 70 onwards). The proposed amendments to the District Plan have been developed to enable the Hagley Oval to host the growing number of domestic and international matches – with the particular goal of providing CCT with the best opportunity to bid competitively against other cricket grounds in New Zealand for the WCWC 2021 matches and other international and domestic fixtures.
48 Unfortunately, CCT was not involved in the Christchurch Replacement District Plan process in 2014/2015. CCA did submit on the Replacement District Plan. However, CCT were not involved with this process as CCA held the consent, and it was seen as their role to take the lead on this. In hindsight, this process could have been used to achieve what is now being sought under the GCRA process. Further, CCT records indicate that it was not consulted with regard to the “Canterbury Spaces and Places Plan: A Regional Approach to Sporting Facilities” prepared by Sport Canterbury and the Greater Christchurch Partnership (2017). CCA may have been consulted in relation to this document, but at the time the document was being prepared CEO Lee Germon left in early 2017, and his replacement, Jez Curwin, commenced in late 2017. CCT is disappointed it was not involved in the drafting of this document as it incorrectly provides that there is a ‘completed’ International Cricket venue at Hagley Park. As no lights have been constructed yet, this is not entirely true, and CCT would have appreciated the opportunity to comment on the status of projects at Hagley Oval.
THE HAGLEY OVAL AND THE GCRA
49 It is proposed to amend the District Plan Rules through the GCRA to provide the Hagley Oval with a workable rules framework for operating a first-class international
100341236/1349919.11
10
cricket venue. In order for it to be able to use this process to amend the District Plan, it is essential that the exercise of the power under the GCRA:3
49.1 meet one or more of the purposes of the GCRA; and
49.2 is necessary and preferable to any alternatives to the exercise of the power.
The purposes of the GCRA are met 50 The purpose of the GCRA is to support the regeneration of greater Christchurch
through enabling a focused and expedited regeneration process and facilitating the ongoing planning and regeneration of greater Christchurch.4
51 Notably, the GCRA defines5 ‘regeneration’ as meaning “improving the environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being, and the resilience of communities through– (i) urban renewal and development: (ii) restoration and enhancement (including residual recovery activity).” ‘Urban renewal’ is further defined as meaning “the revitalisation or improvement of an urban area, and includes– (a) rebuilding: (ii) the provision and enhancement of community facilities and public open space.”
52 The CCRP is an integral document in Christchurch’s regeneration. It describes a number of key projects around Christchurch that provide for the restoration and enhancement of Christchurch following the earthquakes. The CCRP expressly provides for the enhancement of the Hagley Oval:6
3 Section 65(2)(c) and (d) GCRA. 4 Section 3(1)(a) and (b) GCRA. 5 Section 3(2) GCRA. 6 Page 87 “Cricket Oval” in A Vibrant City chapter of the CCRP.
100341236/1349919.11
11
53 The completion of a fit for purpose cricket facility would facilitate the ongoing regeneration of greater Christchurch. Christchurch and Canterbury would join the other regions of New Zealand who have first-class cricket grounds. Hagley Oval is particularly well located in idyllic Hagley Park, within walking distance of the CBD and its hotels, hospitality outlets, car parking, public transport facilities and other amenities. The Hagley Oval has the potential to be as iconic as other famous cricket grounds around the world, such as Lord’s Cricket Ground and the Oval in London, and the Adelaide Oval.
54 Cricket is one of the few sports played at international level in a large number of countries. It transcends culture, religion, race, socio-economic status and gender. It is a sport that has brought together migrants in the “new” Christchurch since the earthquakes and especially since the 15 March 2019 terrorist attack. International cricket tells the Christchurch story to its huge broadcast audience – billions around the world. Tourism, business and tertiary institutions in the city benefit from this positive publicity, contributing to the regeneration of Christchurch and the Canterbury region.
55 NZC has produced a document presenting the Christchurch story and opportunities for international cricket. This document helps demonstrate the extent of the economic and social benefits the proposed amendments are likely to provide Christchurch and is attached at Appendix 3.7
56 The proposed amendments to the District Plan through the GCRA will enable the Hagley Oval to host both domestic and international cricket matches in a purpose-built cricket venue through the provision (among other things) of sports lighting to international broadcast standards, as envisaged in the CCRP.
57 The proposed amendments will give Hagley Oval the opportunity to bid competitively for, and host, more international games in Christchurch. This will have positive flow-on economic (through tourism and increased employment), social, and cultural well-being effects, as well as providing resilience to the people of Christchurch through the enhancement of community facilities and public open space.
Economic benefits to greater Christchurch 58 The economic benefits of securing international and domestic cricket fixtures, and
marquee events such as the WCWC 2021, are significant to Christchurch, Canterbury and the South Island. As set out in Mr Copeland’s technical economic report, over the next three cricket seasons (to 2022-2023), the proposed amendments to the District Plan would see Christchurch host additional international cricket matches with an estimated increase of 54,055 visitor nights for Christchurch, and an increase in visitor spending of $7.9 million. Hagley Oval would also be capable of fulfilling a greater role with respect to hosting domestic cricket night matches, with additional economic benefits.
59 Equally, there are significant opportunity costs with losing such fixtures to other venues that are better placed to cater for ICC, NZC and broadcaster requirements.
The GCRA process is necessary and preferable to any alternatives 60 CCT has considered a number of alternatives to the GCRA process, including:
60.1 applying for a new resource consent; and
7 For consideration of economic benefits, also see further Technical Report Economic Assessment by
Michael Copeland of Brown, Copeland & Co Limited.
100341236/1349919.11
12
60.2 applying for a private plan change.8
61 As outlined above, CCT is looking to host matches for the WCWC 2021 at the Hagley Oval. In order to do this, CCT needs to ensure that the Hagley Oval will be a venue capable of hosting international cricket matches that can be broadcasted live. This is not currently achieved under the existing resource consent and CCT is therefore prevented from bidding competitively for any matches in the WCWC 2021.
62 Unlike with the MCWC 2015, a certificate of compliance is not a viable option to enable the WCWC 2021 to be hosted at Hagley Park, due to the changes to the District Plan, outlined above.
63 Based on advice from Council planning staff and its own planning and legal advisors, CCT anticipates that both the resource consent and private plan change processes will take a significant amount of time. This is particularly informed by the level of public interest that was evident in the consenting process for the existing consent, and the ability for both of these processes to be appealed. Ultimately, CCT would miss the opportunity to bid competitively for any matches in the WCWC 2021.
64 The ICC and the WCWC 2021 organising company need confirmation no later than late December that the Hagley Oval will be capable of hosting matches for the WCWC 2021 to the appropriate standard. If this date is not met, then it is likely the Hagley Oval (and therefore Christchurch) will lose the right to host any matches in the WCWC 2021. This alone would lose Christchurch an estimated 12,350 visitor nights and visitor spending of $1.9 million (as per Mr Copeland’s technical economic report).
65 If the resource consent process is undertaken, it is unlikely that the Hagley Oval will become the venue envisaged in the CCRP until approximately August 2021, and until October 2023 if the private plan change process is used. This would result in the loss of a significant number of hosting opportunities (both domestic and international) at Hagley Oval. Further, these dates are subject to a significant amount of uncertainty as to whether the proposal will be granted at all, or that it would not result in the full regeneration benefits sought (because of restrictive conditions as a result of compromises with other parties).
66 The possible missed opportunities as a result are discussed below from paragraph 203 onwards. These alternative options were not sought earlier, which would have enabled approval in time for the bidding process, as it was not foreseen that lights would be a critical component of hosting the higher tier teams or the quarter or semi-finals. CCT were aware Hagley Oval would not be able to host a final without lights and considered that the match would be allocated to a venue with a much higher capacity. The final for the Women’s Cricket World Cup 2018 in England was sold out. As time has gone on, and got closer to the WCWC 2021, NZC has become aware that lights would be essential for almost all other matches.
67 A timeline demonstrating the GCRA process, alternative processes, deadlines for the WCWC 2021, and anticipated missed opportunities is shown at Appendix 4 to the memorandum.
68 As is clear from this timeline, the enabling of the proposed amendments through the GCRA will result in the WCWC 2021 deadline being met and will therefore prevent
8 Noting that the moratorium on Christchurch plan changes was lifted earlier this year.
100341236/1349919.11
13
Hagley Oval from losing any further opportunities to host cricket matches that will assist the regeneration of Christchurch.
69 Therefore, it is CCT’s opinion that the use of the GCRA process is necessary (if not essential), and preferable to the alternatives that are available.
SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH THE CURRENT RESOURCE CONSENT AND SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
70 The current resource consent is unfit for the purpose for which it was obtained – to provide a cricket venue for hosting both domestic and international matches with sports lighting to international broadcast standards.9 Many of the current consent conditions create:
70.1 operational difficulties that make the Hagley Oval a less attractive venue when compared to other venues in New Zealand;
70.2 additional (and excessive) costs not incurred at other venues in New Zealand; and
70.3 significant health and safety issues.
71 These difficulties are expressed in comparison to other cricket venues in New Zealand due to the nature of the bidding process in allocating matches to certain venues. Christchurch has a stakeholder group that lodges bids for a certain number of matches to be played at the Hagley Oval for one cricket season (described in more detail at paragraphs 36 to 44 above). Bidding for matches has become more and more competitive as every region in New Zealand seeks to host as many international matches as possible. Each city has to decide what matches they should bid for, based around factors such as other events in that city, weather patterns, school/public holidays, and venue lighting.
72 The operational difficulties (such as time and day restrictions on matches) and additional operational costs resulting from the conditions of the current consent make Christchurch a less attractive venue to NZC (who decides where matches are allocated), compared to other venues. This means that Christchurch is not able to bid competitively against other grounds who do not have the same restrictions and costs.
73 As a result of this, in the past (this is demonstrated for example at paragraphs 195 to 202) the Christchurch stakeholders have had to ‘subsidise’ the cost of matches in order to ensure that NZC would allocate international matches to the Hagley Oval. This means the stakeholder group has to reduce costs. This could be by providing the venue or facilities at reduced prices, reducing service levels, and/or by putting money on the table, which means a reduced overall hosting cost (and thereby effectively reducing CCT’s income). This has become necessary due to the high cost of holding matches at Hagley, due to the restrictions placed on its use.
74 The stakeholders have only put money on the table to subsidise costs for one cricket season (being the 2019/2020 season, outlined in more detail at paragraphs 194 to 202 below). This season was an exceptional case, and is not something that is normally done. International match hire income is a large share of CCT’s annual
9 And as consistent with p 87 “A Vibrant City” of the CCRP.
100341236/1349919.11
14
income and therefore to continue to subsidise matches as was done in this season is not sustainable or realistic for CCT in the long term.
75 These costs will only continue to increase each year, meaning the stakeholders need to find money or further reduce costs. This money would better be spent developing young Cantabrian cricketers, encouraging club cricket throughout Canterbury, maintaining and upgrading facilities, and encouraging other sporting events in the city. Fundraising money is never used to subsidise the costs of matches, as this money is usually raised for specific projects (see paragraph 44 above).
76 Christchurch has always been the home of cricket in New Zealand. South Hagley Park has a high-quality cricket precinct with several pitches surrounding Hagley Oval itself. NZC has recently been seriously looking at opportunities to use all of these grounds for a wide range of tournaments but with the increasing costs as a result of the current resource consent conditions, NZC are likely to look at other regions instead.
77 CCT considers that the proposed amendments to the District Plan will resolve these issues and ensure that Christchurch is not disadvantaged in the competitive bidding for domestic and international cricket matches. The proposed amendments are intended to enable Hagley Oval to become the venue envisaged under the CCRP and, in doing so, support the regeneration of Christchurch through improving environmental, economic, social, and cultural well-being, and the resilience of communities through the provision and enhancement of community facilities.
78 Below is a detailed outline of the conditions in the resource consent that CCT has found most restrictive, together with a summary of the proposed amendments and how they will resolve these issues. This section demonstrates that the current resource consent is unfit for purpose in terms of delivering an international cricket venue as expressly provided for in the CCRP.
79 Appendix 5 also contains a detailed comparison table of the current resource consent conditions as against the corresponding proposed amendments to the District Plan, providing reasoning alongside each change as to why the amendment is required.
Lighting poles 80 The current resource consent grants approval for four light towers at Hagley Oval,
which are required to be retractable and have demountable headframes. The proposed amendments provide for six permanent light poles at the Hagley Oval, to enable hosting and broadcasting of domestic and international cricket fixtures to the standards of cricket organisations and broadcasters, as envisaged in the CCRP.
81 The lack of time and money leading up to MCWC 2015 meant lights were initially not a priority. Several factors have made lights an almost non-negotiable component of international cricket, such as:
81.1 new broadcast agreements;
81.2 the growing influence of India on global cricket decisions;
81.3 vastly increased global audiences; and
100341236/1349919.11
15
81.4 match start time requirements (so as to fit in with international broadcast audience viewing)
82 Hagley Oval has to compete with venues with lights and venues with permanent, or affordable temporary, broadcast facilities. The increasing demands from ICC for matches to be broadcast and played under lights conflict with the restrictions around, and the high cost of installing, temporary broadcast facilities, as well as the lack of lights at Hagley. This is highly likely to result in less international cricket and tournaments at Hagley.
83 The enabling of permanent lights are therefore the primary objective for CCT in the proposed amendments. The lights as proposed are critical for the Hagley Oval to become a fit for purpose, fully functional international cricket ground. Christchurch has already missed valuable opportunities to host certain international matches at Hagley (only being able to bid for such games hosted in the daytime as a result of the current inadequate lights) and these missed opportunities will grow in number each year, should the lights remain as they are. Missed opportunities are discussed further in paragraphs 174 to 212 below.
Issues with the current consented lights 84 Recent investigation into lights has confirmed the consented lights are not fit for
purpose. There are three aspects of the consented lights which are distinct from the conventional and typical lighting of international cricket grounds – the retractable poles, the demountable heads, and the need for six (rather than four) lighting poles. Not only are these restrictions impractical and unaffordable, from a construction and operational perspective, they are environmentally unsuitable for Hagley Park.
85 All of the other floodlit international cricket venues in New Zealand have fixed light poles and heads, and all but Seddon Park in Hamilton have six poles or lights. Seddon Park is a small ground. Other regions have recently upgraded their grounds and installed, or are in the process of installing, world class lights. The Bay Oval in Tauranga installed lights so as to host the final match of the Under 19 Cricket World Cup 2018 (the U19 CWC). Seddon Park is being upgraded to install four new poles. There are plans for lights to be installed at the Basin Reserve in Wellington in the next year or two. The increased competition provides NZC with more venues to choose from. Christchurch has a world class ground, which NZC wants to allocate matches to, but the cost, the restrictions and lack of adequate lights makes it unviable.
86 The retractable poles and demountable headframes are one of the highest costs associated with hosting matches under the current resource consent. The current lights would require significant heavy machinery to commission and decommission the lights at the start and end of each season. Based on experience to date with truck and crane activity at Hagley Oval, the cranes and trucks required to do this will damage the ground (turf and tree roots) around the Hagley Oval – especially where there has been a period of inclement weather. Costs would also be incurred in the storage of the lights off-site during off season.
87 The only cricket venue on the world with retractable poles and demountable heads is Lords Cricket Ground, where significant planning difficulties were encountered with permanent floodlights. Inevitably, each time the lights are commissioned and decommissioned there would be some damage to the luminaires. Maintenance of
100341236/1349919.11
16
these is yet another additional cost, and the lights would also require professional recalibration at the start of each season.
88 This is a major contributing factor against the installation of lights to date, and the allocation of games at Hagley Oval. CCT has also been advised by its lighting advisor (Mr Steve Muir) that the consented lights are not ideal for broadcasting live matches, and this is elaborated on in Mr Muir’s technical report. Therefore, the lights in themselves significantly hamper the likelihood that NZC will allocate any major fixtures to Hagley Oval. This will particularly be the case should the lights remain for the WCWC 2021, as all of these matches will be televised.
89 CCT has received advice from lighting suppliers (which is discussed below at paragraphs 95 to 113), in addition to a lighting expert,10 that six permanent lighting poles at the Hagley Oval would be the optimal lighting solution to enable efficient and acceptable lighting for the broadcast of international cricket matches at the Hagley Oval.
Experiences of other cricket grounds with retractable lights 90 Lord’s Cricket Ground in London (the Marylebone Cricket Club (the MCC)) is
renowned as one of the most iconic cricket grounds in the world. It also has retractable lights and demountable light headframes, which were installed by Abacus, an experienced United Kingdom company who install sports floodlighting worldwide. Unlike at Hagley Oval, however, this ground is in an urbanised residential setting and is fully fenced and secure, so the light heads can be dropped to the bottom of the pole and secured there for the winter. At Hagley Oval, these must be transported and stored off site until the next cricket season.
91 The MCC brings in heavy mobile cranes two weeks before the start of the cricket season to install the head frames and then within two weeks of the end of the cricket season to remove them. The cost of this work is between £40,000 and £50,000 per annum (depending on crane access/reach) and annual survey/maintenance of the lighting poles costs approximately £4,000 per mast. The MCC had no choice but to have removable head frames as the local planning authority insisted on this, given the proximity of surrounding residential properties.
92 The MCC has informed CCT that they would prefer not to have retractable lights, as the lamps need constant re-alignment and the process of moving the headframes twice a year does not aid the life of the lamps. The MCC have said that the retractable lights are problematic if they fail, as has occurred at other grounds resulting in the cancellation of international and domestic matches. This would be an embarrassing situation to be broadcast around the world. The MCC strongly recommend that CCT do everything possible to avoid demountable heads and retractable lights. MCC have advised that they are in the process of making a planning application to seek to leave the headframes in permanently.
93 It is also noted that in 1997 retractable lights were constructed at the Adelaide Oval in South Australia. The retractable nature of these lights was a compromise following a lengthy dispute as to whether the permanent lights would detract from the amenity of the surrounding parkland.
10 Refer to Technical Report Lighting Assessment by Steve Muir of Essential Lighting Consultancy
Limited.
100341236/1349919.11
17
94 In 1998 (following only two day/night cricket matches using the lights) one of the lighting towers collapsed injuring two men, who were left hanging from a crane by their harnesses. As a result of this, and continued technical difficulties with the lights resulting in delays and additional costs, the retractable lights were replaced with permanent lights in 2000.11
Advice received from lighting suppliers 95 CCT has met with a number of lighting companies and suppliers (all of whom have
installed lights at a number of international cricket grounds) for advice on what type of lighting would be appropriate at Hagley Oval to host televised cricket matches.
Six lighting poles (as oppose to four) are required 96 Signify New Zealand Limited (Signify) is a large international lighting company with
33,000 employees and an office in Christchurch. Signify supplies Philips Sports Lighting systems, which are represented in 65% of the world’s major sports stadiums.
97 Signify confirmed in writing (Appendix 6), after several meetings, that there are strict demands from broadcasters to achieve high levels of light – both horizontal and vertical. In Signify’s professional opinion, which was supported by the ICC recommended “Lighting Specification - International Cricket” document prepared by Philips and the Lighting Design and Application Centre (the LiDac recommendations), they informed CCT the best solution to appropriately illuminate the Hagley Oval is a six-mast option.
98 Signify advises that a six-mast system allows a lot more flexibility in the design process and will reduce spectator and player glare, due to reduced intensity from each mast, (that is, a similar number of luminaires will be spread over six masts as opposed to four).
99 Signify also advised that a critical requirement for international broadcasting is to achieve high and uniform vertical illuminance to all cameras (including roving and robotic cameras). The six-mast system will allow designers to achieve these vertical and uniformity requirements which could not be achieved through a four-mast option.
100 Musco Sports Lighting (Musco) is an American company that has significant experience in the design and manufacture of large area sports lighting systems internationally and in New Zealand. Musco has advised that six to eight lighting towers provide for optimum positioning for televising international events, and is recommended by the ICC. Further, they advise that four or less towers create harsh shadows and greatly compromises broadcast quality to most cameras.
101 As mentioned earlier, Abacus Lighting Limited (Abacus) is a United Kingdom based lighting company with a long history of international sports lighting installation and innovative solutions. Abacus hold patents on several versions of retractable lights and are the only company in the world to have installed demountable cricket lighting heads, at Lord’s Cricket Ground.
102 Abacus, like the other companies, advise that the specifications for a lighting a cricket ground should based on the LiDac recommendations. The ICC recommend six
11 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-24/a-list-of-adelaides-biggest-cock-ups-from-pavers-to-
state-bank/8812932
100341236/1349919.11
18
towers, however, less have been used on existing fields that have limited access and where floodlights are an after-thought. Abacus has designed and constructed cricket grounds using both four and six towers and can achieve satisfactory outcomes, but often it is less than satisfactory from a broadcast viewpoint. Permanent headframes are required.
103 As mentioned above, Abacus is the only supplier of removable headframes for cricket grounds. Abacus has stated that CCT should avoid these for the Hagley Oval, due to the extra workload requirements and costs to maintain these. Based on the costing supplied by MCC, who run Lord’s Cricket Ground, CCT would save at least $120,000 per season compared to having fixed poles and heads.
104 Musco has also advised CCT to avoid this form of lighting, due to excessive costs and expenses that are incurred with removing and replacing the headframes, the required off site storage area, and the inevitable damage and replacement of luminaires each time these are removed or replaced.
105 Signify does not recommend removable headframes, and has informed CCT that these incur an excessive annual cost to cover removal, storage, and replacement of the headframes. Perhaps more importantly, they result in a high risk of damage to the headframes during the moving process. Further, the annual removal and instalment also results in incorrect aiming and alignment which must be reconfigured at the start of every season as the alignment for each light needs to be very precise.
106 The MCC have informed CCT that the annual survey/maintenance cost for the Lord’s Cricket Ground’s removable headframes is approximately £4,000 per mast, which is completed a week before the main headframe re-installation. This includes maintaining cabinets, hydraulic tanks, parts, cabling, and visual inspections on various areas and parts. The maintenance can be completed on the lamps and transformers from a smaller cherry picker than the one that is required to complete the lift of the headframes. A full report is issued once maintenance has been completed and any remedial works are then quoted for. The headframe installation cost is between £40,000 and £50,000 per annum using heavy cranes.
Permanent lighting poles are required (as opposed to retractable) 107 Abacus has informed CCT that telescopic masts can be provided if the planning
constraints mean this is the only way. However, Abacus agree that fixed masts are a preferable solution.
108 Signify strongly recommend avoidance of retractable masts, as these contain mechanical components to enable them to retract, which are costly to provide and even more costly to maintain in future. They could also be prone to failure on match days, which would prove extremely costly. Further, it is possible that lubricants used for operation may, over time leak, spill and cause ground contamination.
109 Musco has recommended to CCT that retractable lights be avoided due to the extreme cost in both capital and maintenance in addition to the fact that they are unreliable when compared to permanent lights. Musco is currently working with MCC at Lord’s Cricket Ground to replace the current retractable/telescopic lighting system with permanent lights.
100341236/1349919.11
19
110 Abacus was also able to provide approximate costs of supply and installation of the lighting poles. The cost of supply and installation of four retractable lights as consented would be around £3.5 million (being around NZD $6.64 million). Factoring four retractable lights, to the six lights required would equate to around £5.25 million (being around NZD $9.96 million). Comparatively, the cost for six fixed lights would be around £1.6 million (being around NZD $3.04 million). Therefore, permanent lighting poles would also be significantly more affordable. This will assist CCT in being able to fundraise the funds for the lights in time for the WCWC 2021.
Consideration of alternatives 111 Naturally, alternatives to the lighting options above were considered during
discussions with lighting suppliers. These were generally considered to be unsuitable for the Hagley Oval, but are outlined below for completeness.
112 Options that have been considered include mid-hinged and base hinged lighting poles. Mid-hinged light poles contain one hinge mechanism approximately half way up the pole that enable the tallest part of the pole to be tilted down to a lower height when not in use. Similarly, base hinged lighting poles have a hinge at their base which allows them to be folded down when not in use. Advice from lighting suppliers was the same for both options and is as follows:
112.1 Abacus suggests that these could be considered as an option at Hagley Oval and refer to the installation of such lights at Croke Park, Dublin, Ireland. This would mean that headframes do not need to be removed resulting in less damage and no need to realign floodlights.
112.2 Musco states that it is an expensive option for poles of this size. Further, there is a risk of unreliable operation and a crane is still required to lower the poles which means there is still a risk of damage to the poles or headframes with each movement.
112.3 Signify considers that any form of hinged tower would not be suitable for this quantity of lights (i.e. six). The weight loading would be in excess of the engineered capacities of any hinged tower.
113 Another lighting option would be temporary or portable lighting. Temporary lighting was used for one T20 match between Canterbury and South Africa in 2012/2013 prior to the construction of the embankment or pavilion. The lights were used as a supplement in case of poor light. There were numerous dark spots on the outfield and visibility was extremely poor. If the evening had been windy the lights would have had to have been lowered even more and visibility would have been much more limited in the outfield. This lighting set up would not have sufficed for an official international game. When considering temporary lighting, the lighting suppliers concluded:
113.1 Abacus considered that to achieve ICC standards such temporary lighting would require at least four large cranes with mounted headframes on top. Further, the floodlights would need to be aimed accurately before each event and this cannot be guaranteed. As this would cause many of the same (and if not more) issues already experienced with the lighting at Hagley Oval, Abacus strongly suggests that this option be avoided.
113.2 Musco noted the extreme cost that would be incurred for temporary poles of this size. Further it would be impractical to erect due to wind sail area and
100341236/1349919.11
20
would be too large to store adequately and prevent damage when not standing.
113.3 Signify advised that portable or temporary lighting is not feasible given the light level design requirements. The quantity of floodlights and the need for high capacity power supply eliminated any possibility of such lights on this scale.
Number of match days 114 Under the existing resource consent, the venue can only be used for a maximum of
13 match days for major fixtures each season.
115 The international matches for the 2019-20 cricket season have now been allocated. These are discussed in more detail in paragraphs 195 to 202. Moving forward, CCT seeks provision for up to four International Men’s Cricket matches in the proposed amendments.
116 It was anticipated that the Hagley Oval will host up to two International Women’s Cricket matches for this season but, due to the high cost of erecting temporary broadcast facilities, no games were allocated to Hagley. Women’s cricket is becoming increasingly popular worldwide. While the Hagley Oval has never hosted an International Women’s Cricket match with more than 2,000 spectators, it is anticipated that in the future it will (and almost certainly will, should proposed amendments be accepted and the six permanent lights be installed). In the recent past, both Auckland’s Eden Park and Wellington’s Westpac Stadium have hosted games exceeding 2,000 spectators. Therefore, CCT seek provision for up to four International Women’s matches in the proposed amendments.
117 Further the domestic T20 competitions (in particular the Super Smash series) are growing in popularity. NZC has indicated to CCT its intention to increase the attendance numbers at matches in the Super Smash series. In light of this, and discussions with NZC, CCT anticipates that it is likely up to six Super Smash matches will be played at Hagley Oval in any one season which includes a semi or final. Therefore CCT seek provision for up to eight Domestic Cricket matches in the proposed amendments.
118 The Hagley Oval in the past has also hosted feature matches (such as the T20 Black Clash in the 2018-2019 season). CCT therefore seeks provision for one domestic feature match in the proposed amendments.
119 In summary CCT seeks provision in the proposed amendments for Hagley Oval to be able to bid for up to the following number, and types, of matches in any one season (noting that room for growth is provided for in these estimates as to keep up with the growing and competitive demands of both domestic and international cricket):
119.1 four International Men’s Cricket matches (likely being two Test matches and two ODIs/T20s, totalling 12 days);
119.2 four International Women’s Cricket matches (likely being four ODIs/T20s, totalling four days);12
12 Noting that as at today it is not expected that any International Women’s matches would exceed
crowds of 2,000 spectators (and therefore would not be covered by the proposed amendments) unless those happened to coincide with an International Men’s match. It is anticipated that in future years, women’s matches will eventually grow to reach crowds of over 2,000 spectators.
100341236/1349919.11
21
119.3 eight Domestic Cricket matches (such as the Super Smash series, likely being eight ODIs/T20s, totalling eight days); and
119.4 one Domestic Feature match (such as the T20 Black Clash, likely being one ODI/T20, totalling one day).
120 These add up to a total of up to 17 fixtures (two test matches and 15 ODIs/T20s) and a total of up to 25 event days. The current restriction in the existing resource consent conditions of 13 event days for cricket matches of 2,000 spectators or more is therefore too restrictive to accommodate the current and future demands of domestic and international cricket. It significantly inhibits CCT’s ability to bid competitively on or be allocated such matches, resulting in the underuse of an excellent community facility and open space that has the potential to facilitate and expedite the regeneration process.
121 While Christchurch might bid for or hope to be allocated 13 the matches listed in paragraph 119, Hagley Oval would never be allocated all of these matches in one season. The number, and types, of matches allocated to a venue (or that a venue is capable of hosting) in any one year will vary significantly due to a range of factors, including:
121.1 The number, type, and date of matches that are to be played in New Zealand will vary from year to year.
121.2 The actual allocation of fixtures is subject to scheduling decisions of CCT and the Christchurch bid group but also of NZC, ICC, and broadcasters.
121.3 The allocation of domestic matches is dependent on what international matches that venue has been allocated. If a venue has not been allocated many international matches, then NZC is more likely to allocate an increased number of domestic matches to that venue (see paragraph 45 above).
121.4 There are restrictions as to how frequently cricket matches can be played at the Hagley Oval in order to ensure maintenance of a good ‘ground quality.’ For this reason, games are not able to be hosted back to back. Further, for example, it would not be possible to host a significant cricket fixture (i.e. 12,000+ spectators) and then a test match four days later.
121.5 Not all fixtures will exceed 2,000 spectators and therefore will not be captured as ‘event days’ under the proposed amendments. For example, it is not anticipated that international women’s ODI/T20 matches will exceed 2,000 spectators in the years to come, except where these might coincide with an international men’s match. However, women’s cricket viewership is increasing significantly which indicates that future women’s matches may well exceed this spectatorship.
122 The proposed amendments therefore seek a maximum of 20 event days for cricket matches of 2,000 spectators or more. This is consistent with the maximum number of major fixtures sought in the resource consent application originally submitted by CCT.14 The proposed amendments would enable the Christchurch stakeholders to bid for and be allocated more matches than it currently is.
13 Depending on whether the match is international or domestic. See paragraph 45 above. 14 See Re Canterbury Cricket Association Inc [2013] NZEnvC 184 at page 5.
100341236/1349919.11
22
123 It is anticipated that should the proposed amendments be accepted a realistic scenario of a cricket season might well comprise of the following matches exceeding 2,000 spectators:
123.1 one international test match;
123.2 three international ODI/T20 matches; and
123.3 eight domestic ODI/T20 matches.
124 Again, as stated above, these numbers are completely speculative and will largely depend on the circumstances of a particular cricket season.
125 This scenario estimates a total of 16 event days. The proposed amendments seek 20 event days as a maximum in order to account for some growth in the future (reflecting current cricket trends). It also provides some flexibility for Hagley Oval to be allocated more than one test match which would result in an increase in the number of event days in one season.15
126 Further, the proposed amendments allow for a maximum of 5 event days per annum out of those 20 event days for events with 12,000 spectators or more.
127 It is anticipated that matches such as the BLACKCAPS v England T20 in November 2019 and the BLACKCAPS v Australia T20 in March 2020 could be expected to each generate 12,000 spectators or more.
128 The current consent conditions only provide for two major fixtures of this nature every three years. Due to growing attendance number in cricket (especially at broadcasted games) and the potential for 5-day test matches to attract sizeable crowds for top-tier fixtures, CCT considers that five days is an appropriate limit for matches over 12,000. In addition, this limit should be determined per annum (as opposed to every three years) as cricket seasons occur once a year and it is not logical to prohibit one year’s cricket matches because of those that occurred two years ago.
129 CCT does not anticipate that there will be five events with over 12,000 spectators every year. It is anticipated that in a realistic scenario of a cricket season, there might be two ODI/T20 matches that reach over 12,000 spectators. In most seasons, test matches would not attract over 12,000 spectators, however that remains a possibility for some feature test matches. Therefore, whilst the five day limit will not be utilised in most cricket seasons, it will be met some years depending on the popularity of the matches allocated and the proposed amendments seek to allow for this possibility.
130 In addition to the 20 event day limit, the proposed amendments provide for an additional five event days per annum for any International Cricket Council administered tournament events (including, for example, the ICC Women’s World Cup).
131 The 20 days provided for fixtures of 2,000 spectators will not be sufficient for the years when Hagley Oval is also hosting any ICC World Cup-type event. Therefore the proposed rules provide a five day extension of the standard 20 days to accommodate any such tournaments.
15 Noting that two international test matches in one season is also a realistic possibility, however, the
number of ODI/T20 matches allocated would likely decrease as a result.
100341236/1349919.11
23
132 Realistically, CCT would anticipate that (provided the proposed amendments are accepted, and in time) Hagley Oval might host four WCWC 2021 matches. Provision is sought for five event days to account for some future growth/variation between different ICC World Cup-type events.
Match times 133 Under the current resource consent conditions, any major fixture exceeding 12,000
spectators can only be scheduled on Fridays from 7.00 pm, or on weekends. The conditions also restrict the opening hours for the pavilion to no later than 10.00 pm Sunday to Thursday, and 12.00 am on Friday or Saturday. Further, the conditions on noise state that the playing of music on the PA system shall not extend beyond 10.00 pm (with the exception of three occasions each cricket season for this to be extended to 10.30 pm).
134 As mentioned above, CCT is seeking to secure the Hagley Oval hosting matches for the WCWC 2021.
135 Spectator and broadcast viewer numbers increased dramatically between the 2013 ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup held in India and the 2017 ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup held in England:16
135.1 global viewership was 80% up on the 2013 tournament with global TV audience reaching more than 50 million viewers;
135.2 in Australia, viewership increased by 300% and in South Africa by 259%;
135.3 media coverage was unprecedented– with all 31 matches were shown live;
135.4 over 30,000 people visited fan parks/zones;
136 The 2017 final (hosted at Lord’s Cricket Ground in London) sold out, with spectator numbers at 26,500. Further, two matches sold out at group stage at County Cricket Ground, Derby (ground capacity 9,500).
137 Based on these figures, and the increased viewer and spectator numbers at women’s cricket matches in both New Zealand and Australia, it is probable that there will be real interest in the WCWC 2021 matches, resulting in increased ticket sales.
138 While CCT appreciates that Lord’s Cricket Ground (for example) has a significantly higher spectator capacity, it is anticipated that there will be significant attendance at the WCWC 2021 resulting in matches (in particular for semi-finals and finals) potentially exceeding 12,000 spectators.
139 Internationally, broadcast viewing numbers also continue to grow and with this the pressure on broadcasters to televise live matches into homes around the world at times they can be watched. NZC broadcast partner, Star Sport, required some of last season’s matches to start later than usual so as to broadcast into the sub-continent market during their breakfast time.
140 The current resource consent conditions would significantly inhibit the Hagley Oval from hosting any WCWC 2021 matches. The proposed amendments therefore propose that:
140.1 no specific match times or days be imposed on fixtures of over 2,000. CCT stresses that it is not responsible for the setting of match times of days – this
16 https://www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/439649
100341236/1349919.11
24
is done by domestic/international match organisers and broadcasters. Therefore to have a restriction on when such matches may be played would prevent the allocation of almost any matches for the WCWC 2021 being held at Hagley Oval;
140.2 the noise time restrictions be amended to be made consistent with the proposed times that any event of over 2,000 spectators may occur. It is proposed that this time be between 7.00 am and 12.00 am, Monday to Sunday. Broadcasters prefer T20 matches to be played at night to enable the live broadcasting at prime times in the sub-continent market. These types of matches tend to start at around 7.00 pm and may well extend to 11.30 pm. The noise rules need to enable for these types of matches or Hagley Oval is unlikely to be allocated any WCWC 2021 matches as it is anticipated that all of these matches will be televised live; and
140.3 the time restrictions for the pavilion be compatible with the above two proposed amendments. It is proposed that the pavilion be managed as part of the overall event space for major fixtures and outside of such events close no later than 11.00 pm Sunday to Thursday, and 12.00 am Friday or Saturday.
Pack in and out timeframes and public access 141 The current resource consent pack in and out timeframes (as amended by the
resource consent variation in 2013) have, in practice, been particularly onerous to meet.
142 For test matches (or major fixtures of more than one day duration) the current consent conditions provide for:
142.1 four days pack-in and two days pack-out for television scaffold towers;
142.2 three days pack-in and two days pack-out for advertising signage and perimeter fencing; and
142.3 two days pack-in and two days pack-out for all other temporary structures.
143 For ODIs and T20 matches (or major fixtures of one day duration) the current consent conditions provide for:
143.1 four days pack-in and two days pack-out for television scaffold towers;
143.2 two days pack-in and two days pack-out for advertising signage and perimeter fencing; and
143.3 two days pack-in and two days pack-out for all other temporary structures.
144 Logistically, there is no difference in workload for the pack in and out overlay between Test Matches and ODIs. Therefore, the time allowances for both should be the same.
100341236/1349919.11
25
145 CCT considers the proposed amendments provide for more appropriate and realistic pack in and out periods:
Temporary structure Restrictions
Sight screens. No restriction
Picket fence no more than 1.2m high
and positioned within the interior of
the embankment.
May remain in place for all of the cricket season.
When games are not being played, public access is to be
maintained through the picket fence and signage shall be
erected on the fences to communicate this to the general
public.
Television scaffolding poles. May be established four days prior to the first televised
match of the cricket season, and shall be removed no later
than three days after the last televised match of the cricket
season.
Temporary grandstands Five days either side of an event.
Advertising signage. Three days either side of an event.
Signage shall be restricted to on and within the
embankment, on temporary infrastructure, and on the
Pavilion.
Perimeter fencing around the edge of
the site as shown in the Development
Plan in Appendix 18.11.6.
Three days either side of an event.
Public access to the site shall be restricted for sports events
exceeding 2000 spectators on the day of the event only.
Signs shall be erected on the perimeter fencing advising
that the public have access to the site on non-event days.
Security and safety fencing within
Hagley Oval
Three days either side of an event, or five days either side
of an event for fencing required for the commissioning and
decommissioning of temporary grandstands, provided that:
a. Fencing shall be limited in extent and
duration to that which is required for
security purposes and/or in order to comply
with Health and Safety regulatory
requirements; and
b. Public access to the site shall otherwise be
maintained to the fullest extent practicable.
All other temporary facilities and
structures (i.e. portable toilets, food
and beverage outlets etc).
Three days either side of an event.
100341236/1349919.11
26
Note: ‘Day’ excludes any statutory public holidays or days of inclement weather which preclude the
commissioning, or decommissioning of facilities or structures in accordance with Health and Safety
regulatory requirements.
146 The increase in days is necessary, given CCT’s experience with the previous timeframes under the resource consent. There are particular concerns from a health and safety perspective of harm to public or staff/contractors, with a lot of activity occurring in a relatively tight space, including heavy vehicle and crane movements.
147 Under the existing timeframes, which are simply too tight, there were two major health and safety incidents resulting from contractors rushing the commissioning and decommissioning of structures given the short time frame and as a result of inclement weather.
148 The revised pack in and out timeframes in the proposed amendments therefore allow for greater time, which is necessary in order for Vbase to meet its requirements under the relevant health and safety legislation.
149 Additional time is also required to allow for weather contingency – inclement weather makes the commissioning and decommissioning of structures significantly more difficult. Again, significantly increasing health and safety risks and damaging the surrounding grounds (turf and tree roots) with heavy machinery on soft or wet ground.
150 The current timeframes often present incompatible goals between event delivery and health and safety legislation. The current and significant risk is that Christchurch will not be able to deliver a match if the weather is poor during the lead up to the event. To date, it has been very fortunate with generally good weather during scheduled events.
151 Therefore, the proposed amendments appropriately exclude days of inclement weather from the pack in and out timeframes in order to remove this burden.
152 Further, the proposed amendments also exclude statutory public holidays from this timeframe. Public holidays are required to be excluded due to the high additional cost of staff and contractors working on public holidays and the challenges associated with contractors, many of whom are based in the North Island, working over the Christmas period. By way of example, if public holidays are excluded, temporary infrastructure can be erected before Christmas rather than on Christmas Day, ahead of a Boxing Day fixture.
153 In addition, the proposed amendments seek that the television scaffolding towers are able to be established four days prior to the first televised match of the cricket season, and removed three days after the last televised match of the cricket season. This is as opposed to being required to be commissioned and decommissioned two days either side of each fixture. It costs approximately $30,000 to pack in and out television scaffolding. Previously, this expense has contributed to the significant costs for hosting fixtures at Hagley Oval, making it uncompetitive when bidding for matches (see paragraphs 71 and 77 above). This amendment would therefore provide significant cost reductions to enable CCT to more successfully bid for major fixtures at Hagley Oval.
100341236/1349919.11
27
154 In terms of public exclusion, the current resource consent only excludes the public from the Hagley Oval on those days where major fixtures are played. However, the public must be able to be excluded during certain periods of the pack in and out process in order to maintain public safety.
155 In order to balance the ability to maintain public access with the ability to exclude public to ensure health and safety legislation is met, it is proposed that security and safety fencing can be erected within Hagley Oval to the extent and duration it is required to fulfil health and safety and security requirements to enable the construction of the temporary facilities. This will allow a much safer worksite during pack-in and out considering the numerous movements of light and heavy vehicles and contractors working at height during the construction of television scaffold towers. Therefore the operations management plan in the proposed amendments enables the identification of the times and areas that the exclusion of the public is required for this reason.
Number of people in Hagley Park 156 Under the current resource consent, no major fixture may take place on a day and
at a time when another event is proposed within Hagley Park if the cumulative attendance of those events is anticipated to exceed 20,000.
157 This is an interesting and inexplicable condition. If there is a large event at North Hagley, which is geographically almost one kilometre away from Hagley Oval, cricket fixtures cannot be played. It therefore has the potential to restrict the number of international cricket fixtures to be hosted at the Hagley Oval – not to mention restricting other events from coming to the city if they want to use Hagley Park.
158 Every summer, events such as Electric Avenue and Sparks in the Park are held at North Hagley Park. This means that Christchurch cannot bid for matches on the days of these events. While these events do not always coincide with cricket fixtures, there can often be a cross-over of an hour or two when both the event and cricket match would run concurrently (which would not be permitted under the current consent conditions).
159 This situation arose for the ICC Men’s Cricket World Cup games hosted at Hagley Oval in 2015. One of the major fixtures assigned to Hagley Oval happened to fall on the same day as Te Matatini, which was being held in North Hagley Park and would have attracted some 10,000 spectators.
160 When CCT realised this event was scheduled for the same day, we considered it could well be possible that the 20,000 person limit in the resource consent condition may be reached.
161 Through discussions with the organisers, they generously agreed to change the date for the Te Matatini event to enable Hagley Oval to host its fixture.
162 CCT considers that where significant events are being held at North Hagley Park, issues of a conflict arising from a cricket fixture being held at the same time will largely be related to traffic. Such effects are best dealt with through the Event Management Plan, Transport Management Plan, and consultation process (as provided for in the proposed amendments).
163 The Trust considers, given the nature and extent of Hagley Park, that a limit of 20,000 persons in South Hagley Park is more appropriate.
100341236/1349919.11
28
Size of event area 164 Another issue that has been of concern in the current resource consent is the size of
the event area covered under the consent. The event area is the fenced area within which all temporary infrastructure, game day equipment as well as spectators are confined.
165 In the past, the issue of event area limitations has been dealt with on a case by case basis when (for example) additional activation zones and gate entry activation zones are required. For example, for the MCWC 2015, the certificate of compliance obtained to host the games (as set out in paragraphs 18 to 24 above) provided for a larger area including such zones. However, in the absence of these areas being clearly provided for, there is added uncertainty, time and cost.
166 CCT has consulted with Vbase (who provide venue and event management at the Hagley Oval) with regard to the proposed amendments. Vbase has recommended that the general concourse be extended slightly so as to better enable them to efficiently and safely host a wide range of cricket events at the Hagley Oval.
167 There is sufficient space at the Hagley Oval to increase the event space for those matches when (for example) children’s activation zones and village green type activities are provided. These additional activities make the match more of an event and more attractive to families and other groups and are increasingly becoming part and parcel of international cricket venues around the world.
168 Therefore, the proposed amendments provide for an extended concourse area adjacent to the existing cricket training nets, where events at Hagley Oval may be held. This is set out in the Hagley Oval Layout Plan at Appendix 18.11.6 of the proposed rules.
Car parking 169 The current resource consent provides for car parking in the adjacent Polo Grounds.
At the end of the first season, the CCA decided that is was inappropriate to park cars on the grass because of turf and tree damage and made a decision to never use the Polo Ground for parking again. There is a condition in the current resource consent that 2,000 alternative car parks must be arranged in the event the Polo Grounds become unavailable, otherwise the fixture/event cannot proceed – this is met through free parking being provided for at Horncastle Arena.
170 Now that the central city is partially rebuilt and there are several car park buildings and sites within the CBD, this condition is obsolete. Hagley Oval is a short walk from the central city and is serviced by numerous major public transport routes, with bus stops right outside the gate. Today, sports stadiums and venues in Christchurch are rarely built with car parking. The new multi-purpose Christchurch arena concept plans, for example, do not include any parking.
171 Therefore, the proposed amendments remove the requirement for car parking. However, they do provide for a Transport Management plan to be implemented for events at the Hagley Oval. These provisions include a communication strategy, which requires the communication of transport options to Hagley Park to be provided to spectators who pre-purchase tickets.
Signage 172 The current resource consent provides for limitations on signage. The wording
around the signage condition is unclear, as it only seems to relate to signage inside
100341236/1349919.11
29
the embankment. Signage on the sight screens, the broadcast towers, the pavilion and marquees is usual practice for domestic and international cricket matches.
173 Advertising should be allowed to be installed three days prior to and removed three days after domestic and international matches and, like all other venues around the world, signage should be permitted on the sight screens, the broadcast towers, other temporary infrastructure, the pavilion and marquees. The proposed amendments therefore provide for this.
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES AS A RESULT OF THE CURRENT RESOURCE CONSENT RESTRICTIONS – PAST AND FUTURE
Past seasons The MCWC 2015
174 As discussed above at paragraphs 18 to 24, the current resource consent was not fit for purpose to host the MCWC 2015, and therefore a certificate of compliance was obtained to enable this event at Hagley Oval.
175 Regardless of this, due to the absence of adequate lights for live broadcasting, Christchurch could only bid for day matches for the MCWC 2015. Further, due to the absence of lights, Christchurch was not allocated any quarter or semi-final matches. It is anticipated that the Hagley Oval may have been allocated up to one more match such as a quarter-final, had lights of the required standard been in place (as they are in the proposed amendments).
Post the MCWC 2015 176 With New Zealand having hosted the Rugby World Cup 2011, the MCWC 2015 and
then the FIFA U20 2015, a number of grounds and venues were upgraded around New Zealand, resulting in more suitable grounds for international sport and therefore more competitive bidding. Competition for matches increased and the excessive costs of hosting at Hagley Oval was commented upon by NZC on numerous occasions.
177 However, at this stage the attractiveness of the Hagley Oval as a winning ground for the Blackcaps and the continuing sympathy for Christchurch following the earthquakes ensured a good allocation of matches from NZC (despite issues of cost, lighting, and overly restrictive resource consent conditions) for the next couple of seasons. Although these matches were restricted to those which could be played during the day as a result of the restrictions of the resource consent.
The 2015-2016 Season 178 Two ODIs and one test match were allocated for this season:
178.1 BLACKCAPS v Sri Lanka 26 December 2016 and 28 December 2015; and
178.2 BLACKCAPS v Australia 20-24 February 2016.
179 Doubleheader matches such as on 26 and 28 December were attractive to both the city and NZC, as this created a more affordable solution for hosting matches at Hagley Oval. The temporary infrastructure was able to be put up and retained between matches, whilst still meeting the resource consent conditions thus reducing the cost.
180 However, the conditions attached to the resource consent limited what the Christchurch stakeholders were able to place a bid for to NZC. It is anticipated that
100341236/1349919.11
30
were the consent fit for purpose for this season, the Hagley Oval would have been allocated one additional ODI against Australia.
The 2016-2017 Season 181 In the 2016-2017 season, NZC allocated a number of matches at Hagley Oval, as it
had proven to be New Zealand’s leading test venue and was popular as a ground amongst players. Two test matches and two ODIs were allocated:
181.1 BLACKCAPS v Pakistan 17-20 November 2016;
181.2 BLACKCAPS v Bangladesh 26 December 2016;
181.3 BLACKCAPS v Bangladesh 20-23 January 2017; and
181.4 BLACKCAPS v South Africa 22 February 2017.
182 Again, the Christchurch stakeholder group were restricted on what and how many matches it could bid on, due to the restrictive resource consent conditions. In this case, the number of match days would have been exceeded had Christchurch bid for additional games.
183 NZC once again complained to the Christchurch stakeholder group about the extremely high costs and the restrictions around the consent. The high costs were made known to the stakeholder group. In 2016-17 CCC undertook some components of the role now undertaken by ChristchurchNZ. The costs are associated with the need for temporary infrastructure and the short pack in and pack out times. The consent continued to be problematic and unfit for purpose insofar that it added to the cost and complexity of hosting fixtures, thereby negatively affecting the allocation of games to Christchurch.
184 It is anticipated that, were the consent fit for purpose for this season, the Hagley Oval would have been allocated one additional ODI against Australia.
The 2017-2018 Season 185 The match allocations for this season were made in mid-2016. NZC continued to
complain to the Christchurch stakeholder group about the exorbitant costs associated with running a match at Hagley.
186 The following matches were allocated to Hagley Oval for this season (being two tests and three ODIs):
186.1 BLACKCAPS v West Indies 23-27 November 2017 (ultimately withdrawn as West Indies shortened their tour);
186.2 BLACKCAPS v West Indies 23 December 2017;
186.3 BLACKCAPS v West Indies 26 December 2017;
186.4 BLACKCAPS v England 10 March 2018; and
186.5 BLACKCAPS v England 30 March – 3 April 2018.
187 The highlight of the cricket season were the two England matches. English cricket followers travel the world and like to book well in advance. Due to the restrictions around erecting temporary seating/grandstands, stand seats were not available for purchase until close to match time. Stand seating needs to be planned and erected well in advance of match day so as to verify the actual seating arrangements. The consent conditions prohibit this from happening. The trustees and other Hagley
100341236/1349919.11
31
Oval members spoke to several cricket tourists in Australia during the Ashes series, who stated that they had decided not to come to Christchurch following the Ashes series due to the uncertainty that they can purchase a seat in a stand. This uncertainty creates a possible loss of tourist dollars to both the city, region and perhaps other locations in New Zealand.
188 Christchurch and Canterbury were allocated all the warm up matches for the U19 CWC and six tournament matches including quarter and semi-finals. Christchurch is unique due to the number of first class cricket grounds as well as having the cricket precinct around Hagley Oval. This makes it favourable for both pre-tournament events and tournaments. The final of the U19 CWC could not be allocated to Christchurch as this match was required to be played under lights. The low anticipated attendance numbers meant these matches were non-ticketed and were not major fixtures. Youth cricket does not attract the high spectator numbers experienced at the adult level of the game.
189 It is anticipated that were the consent fit for purpose for this season, the Hagley Oval would have been allocated two additional ODIs (being one of the finals for U19 CWC and one against England) and one additional T20 in the Trans-Tasman Tri Series.
The 2018-2019 Season 190 In May 2018 NZC released the upcoming season’s match list inviting each region to
bid for matches. It was made clear to CCT by NZC that Christchurch would not be able to bid for any of the India matches as they were all to be played under lights.
191 Christchurch was allocated less matches this season as NZC no longer felt obligated to support the city as it had after the earthquakes. NZC also made it clear the cost of matches in Christchurch was too expensive when compared to other New Zealand venues. Hagley Oval was allocated two tests and an ODI:
191.1 BLACKCAPS v Sri Lanka 26-30 December 2018;
191.2 BLACKCAPS v Bangladesh 16 February 2019; and
191.3 BLACKCAPS v Bangladesh 16-20 March 2019 (which was subsequently cancelled due to the events of 15 March 2019).
192 Hagley Oval was also allocated five Super Smash T20 matches (although these did not amount to major fixtures of 2,000 spectators or more) and the T20 Black Clash match. CCT saved one of its major fixture days it was entitled to under the current resource consent to host the Super Smash final match. However, the Canterbury Kings did not make it to the final of the Super Smash series and therefore the Hagley Oval did not host this major fixture. In having to allocate one of its limited number of (13) major fixtures and not having this materialise, this ultimately resulted in CCT losing one of its major fixture match days for the season.
193 The terrorism attack on 15 March 2019 led to the cancellation of the Bangladesh Test. Since that date, NZC has been reconsidering the match allocation bid for the 2019-2020 season. Christchurch has been offered the first match of next season to acknowledge the 15 March 2019 incident, but will only be allocated this match if it is at no cost to NZC, that is, all match costs must be met by Christchurch stakeholders.
100341236/1349919.11
32
194 It is anticipated that, were the consent fit for purpose for this season, the Hagley Oval would have been allocated either an ODI or a T20 under lights against India (Men’s) and an ODI or a T20 under lights against India (Women’s).
The 2019-2020 Season 195 In March 2019, NZC opened the bids for the 2019-20 season. The Christchurch
stakeholder group put significant money into the bid offer so as to help secure a Test match against India and a T20 match against Australia. No International Men’s T20 matches have ever been played at Hagley as they are usually played under lights. The city also bid for the England matches at this time.
196 In mid-March, an indication was given by NZC that Christchurch would be allocated the India Test and Australia T20 due to the financial contribution which helped alleviate the high match costs at Hagley.
197 In June 2019, the Hagley Oval was allocated two T20s and one Test match:
197.1 BLACKCAPS v England 1 November 2019;
197.2 BLACKCAPS v India 29 February – 4 March 2020; and
197.3 BLACKCAPS v Australia 29 March 2020.
198 The England T20 match was unexpectedly allocated to Christchurch as an acknowledgment to the Muslim Community and the cancelled Bangladesh match due to the events of 15 March 2019. NZC will donate all gate takings to a Muslim Community project. However, the match was only allocated to Christchurch on the basis that the Christchurch stakeholders covered the total cost of the match (approximately $90,000). CCT is extremely pleased that Christchurch will be hosting its first international T20 at the Hagley Oval, however, it has come at a significant financial cost.
199 Christchurch was also allocated a test match against India. This was achieved due to the efforts of the stakeholders having reduced the hosting cost by supplying some components of the match at minimal cost, such as supplying the venue at no cost.
200 Finally, Christchurch was also allocated another T20 match against Australia. This was due to the Christchurch stakeholder group covering all of the costs of this match. That is, the match is being hosted at no cost to NZC.
201 It was anticipated that the Hagley Oval will host an International Women’s Cricket match for this season but, due to the cost of installing temporary broadcast facilities, NZC used other venues instead.
202 Hagley Oval was fortunate in being allocated the first match of the 2019-20 season. Having lost the Bangladesh test which was due to commence on 16 March 2019, NZC allocated an England T20 to Hagley Oval. However it was conditional to the Christchurch stakeholder group covering the operational cost of this match. If Hagley Oval had lights NZC informed them it was highly likely that would have been allocated another short-form India match.
Future seasons 203 Below, CCT has anticipated the likely additional matches that would be allocated to
the Hagley Oval for upcoming cricket seasons should the proposed amendments be made operative. This estimation is based largely on international men’s games listed in the NZC “BLACKCAPS Future Tours Programme 2018 to 2023” attached at Appendix 7.
100341236/1349919.11
33
204 It is difficult to anticipate other matches (such as international women’s games) where it is not yet known the number and nature of matches that will be allocated to New Zealand. However, paragraphs 114 to 132 above address the anticipated number of these matches for future seasons based on current trends and information.
205 The timeline attached at Appendix 4 also provides an indication of the likely lost matches should an alternative process to the GCRA be used. It is essential that the proposed amendments are provided for as expediently as possible in order to ensure that Christchurch does not miss out on any more opportunities to host international matches which in turn will assist in its regeneration.
The 2020/2021 Season 206 Under the current resource consent, it is anticipated that Christchurch would be
allocated one test match against either the West Indies or Pakistan, and one or two ODI matches against Bangladesh and/or Sri Lanka.
207 The allocation of these matches will depend on preferred broadcasting time and whether the hosting costs will be met by Christchurch stakeholders.
208 Should the proposed amendments be made operative, it is anticipated that Christchurch may be allocated the following additional matches:
208.1 one ODI or T20 against Bangladesh;
208.2 one T20 against West Indies;
208.3 one T20 against Pakistan;
208.4 one T20 against Australia; and
208.5 one T20 or ODI against Sri Lanka.
209 Should the proposed amendments be made operative, it is anticipated that Christchurch would be allocated two or more high level pool games, and two quarter/semi-final matches for the WCWC 2021. Under the current resource consent, Hagley Oval would likely only be allocated a limited number of low level pool matches.
The 2021/2022 Season 210 Under the current resource consent, it is anticipated that Christchurch would be
allocated one test match against Bangladesh or South Africa, and one ODI against the Netherlands.
211 The allocation of these matches will depend on preferred broadcasting time and whether the hosting costs will be met by Christchurch stakeholders.
212 Should the proposed amendments be made operative, it is anticipated that Christchurch may be allocated the following additional matches:
212.1 one T20 against Bangladesh;
212.2 one test match against South Africa; and
212.3 one ODI against India.
100341236/1349919.11
34
The 2022/2023 Season 213 Under the current resource consent, it is anticipated that Christchurch would be
allocated one test match against Sri Lanka, and perhaps one ODI against either Sri Lanka or West Indies.
214 Should the proposed amendments be made operative, it is anticipated that Christchurch would likely be allocated:
214.1 one test against Sri Lanka;
214.2 one ODI against Sri Lanka; and
214.3 one ODI against West Indies.
CONCLUSION
215 The current resource consent is not fit for purpose. The lack of flexibility, the high cost of compliance, the inability to be able to install a workable affordable lighting system, the tight timelines attached to packing in and out, the restrictions on the number and type of matches, and the days and hours of operation are amongst a number of restrictive, prohibitive conditions which result in significant operational difficulties, excessive costs, and serious health and safety risks for the Hagley Oval.
216 Attempting to resolve these deficiencies in the current resource consent by way of a consent variation or a new resource consent will be extremely uncertain, costly and protracted. The timeframes of these alternative processes would not allow for bids to be made for the WCWC 2021 and would result in the loss of other significant international and domestic cricket matches to Christchurch. Further, the uncertainty and costs of the process would remain a barrier to change being pursued.
217 The current resource consent has resulted in Christchurch missing out on a number of significant international and domestic cricket matches. The Hagley Oval, as it stands, is simply not considered a competitive venue in the bid for match allocations – the operational difficulties and costs are just too high and subsequently the future of Christchurch hosting major fixtures is dependent on subsidisation of operational costs by Christchurch stakeholders.
218 New Zealand is a small player in the world of cricket, and if Christchurch wants to be part of the wider New Zealand cricket community it has to meet the demands of broadcasters and the audiences in the sub-continent.
219 The CCRP envisaged a domestic and international purpose built cricket venue, with sports lighting capable of broadcasting live to international standards. In order to achieve this, CCT seek amendments to the District Plan rules to enable the Hagley Oval to be used to its full potential.
220 There is no doubt that a project envisaged in the CCRP is a regeneration project. Should these amendments be made operative, it would significantly contribute to the regeneration of Christchurch by improving the economic, social, and cultural well-being, and the resilience of greater Christchurch as a community. This has been demonstrated in the above memorandum, but also in the various technical reports prepared to assist Regenerate in evaluating the proposed amendments.
221 Finally, the use of the GCRA process is critical to CCT, NZC, and the future of cricket in Christchurch. Alternative processes will inevitably result in significant delay of the development of the Hagley Oval and would mean that Christchurch would miss out
100341236/1349919.11
35
on significant matches in the WCWC 2021 and other domestic and international fixtures. This would result in a real loss of opportunity to the Christchurch economy.
222 For the reasons above, the CCT are firmly of the view that the process under the GCRA is necessary and preferable to any alternatives available.
Carol Harris Execut i v e Manager o f C an terbur y C r i c ke t T ru s t
100341236/1349919.11
36
APPENDIX 1
100341236/1349919.11
37
APPENDIX 2
100341236/1349919.11
38
APPENDIX 3
100341236/1349919.11
39
APPENDIX 4
100341236/1349919.11
40
APPENDIX 5
100341236/1349919.11
41
APPENDIX 6
100341236/1349919.11
42
APPENDIX 7
