Debate Argument in Support of Option 1: Retain Our Current Approach
Introduction
The proposal to install an all-weather sports turf has generated significant community feedback, particularly in support of Option 1 - Retaining our current approach to sports field management. This option involves continuing the improvement program on existing sports fields, which includes enhancing drainage and flood lighting to increase usability in various weather conditions and during evening hours. The following points summarize the key arguments in favor of Option 1, based on community feedback.
Accessibility and Equitable Benefits
Many community members expressed concerns that the all-weather turf would primarily benefit specific clubs or locations, potentially neglecting broader community needs. For instance, the Tahuna Football Club highlighted that proposed locations for the all-weather turf would not be conveniently accessible for their teams, suggesting that improvements to existing facilities would serve a wider range of community members more equitably.
Environmental Concerns
A significant number of submissions raised environmental issues associated with synthetic turfs, such as increased microplastic pollution and higher carbon emissions. Residents are particularly worried about the long-term environmental impact, including the disposal of synthetic materials and the potential harm to local wildlife and ecosystems. The preference is clearly towards maintaining natural grass fields which align with environmental sustainability goals.
Cost and Financial Implications
The financial aspect of constructing an all-weather turf, estimated at $2.7 million with ongoing maintenance and depreciation costs, is a major concern among residents. Many argue that the funds could be better allocated towards enhancing multiple existing fields, thereby benefiting more people and providing better value for money. The sentiment is that improving existing infrastructure is a more prudent use of limited public funds, especially considering the current economic pressures on ratepayers.
Maintenance and Longevity of Existing Facilities
Community feedback strongly supports the continued maintenance and upgrading of existing sports fields rather than reallocating funds to a single all-weather facility. Concerns were voiced about the potential neglect of other fields if resources are diverted to the all-weather turf, which could deteriorate the quality and availability of sports facilities for the majority of users.
Community and Cultural Values
Several comments reflected a preference for preserving traditional sports experiences, which include playing on natural grass fields. There is a cultural aspect to sports that many community members feel would be lost with the shift to synthetic surfaces. Additionally, the community values inclusivity and accessibility, which they believe are better supported by enhancing existing facilities rather than focusing on a single high-cost, high-maintenance option.
Conclusion
In summary, the community's support for Option 1 is grounded in concerns about accessibility, environmental impact, cost-effectiveness, and the preservation of community and cultural values. The feedback indicates a strong preference for a more inclusive approach that benefits a broader segment of the community and aligns with sustainable practices. Retaining and improving the current approach to sports field management not only addresses these concerns but also promotes a healthier, more equitable, and environmentally friendly approach to community sports facilities.
Comments
| Option_Selected | Comment |
|---|---|
| Option 1 | Tahuna Football Club recognises the need for improved sports facilities in the Nelson region. However, we do not believe the proposal for a new all-weather sports turf would significantly benefit our club based on the potential locations outlined in Nelson City Council's 2021 Sports Field Capacity review. That review indicated an all-weather turf at Neale Park would primarily serve FC Nelson and rugby clubs, while one at Saxton Field would mainly be utilized by Nelson Suburbs. As a club based at Tahunanui Reserve, neither of those locations would be conveniently accessible for Tahuna's 6 senior teams. Instead, we support the review's recommendation of Option 1 - Improving lighting and quality of existing grass fields. Specifically for Tahuna, the suggested actions of installing new lighting along both sides of the fields near the modellers pond, and replacing poles with taller ones on the main reserve, would serve our community's needs extremely well. These improvements would resolve long-standing issues around ground usage and prioritisation that Tahuna currently faces in sharing limited facilities with Marist Rugby Club.While all-weather turfs offer theoretical benefits, the 2021 review acknowledges they would inevitably become focused on serving the needs of co-located clubs like FC Nelson and the city's secondary schools. As a more outward community club, Tahuna does not anticipate tangible long-term gains from such a facility that would justify the significant capital and operating costs, especially if it came at the expense of reduced maintenance budgets for existing grass fields.We encourage council to prioritise improving lighting, drainage and general turf quality across the region's current facilities in its Long Term Plan. This would provide more equitable benefits for all clubs like Tahuna while avoiding the potential situation where a small number of clubs become the primary users of a specialized all-weather facility.Thank you for considering our submission. We welcome any further dialogue on these crucial issues for the future of community sport in Nelson. |
| Option 1 | Only the "elite teams" will likely get access to an all weather turf. So not many in our community will actually benefit. Option 1 is likely to benefit more people. Also the cost of the all weather turf could get better bang for buck elsewhere. EG a lot more people use the Nelson Centre for Musical Arts then I suspect will ever use an all weather turf and they are crying out for support. |
| Option 1 | Too expensive for current circumstances. We have a lot of large and good sports amenities for quite a small city; let's make do with them for the time being.In addition, what kind of turf is being imagined here? On the surface, I oppose microplastic-generating and other heavy-polluting turf. Traditional grass turf already poses significant problems with soil conservation, pollution and water management as it is, and that warrants a close look at management practices. But maybe a full lifecycle analysis will show that my instincts are wrong here. Please, show us the lifecycle analysis so that we can make better submissions. |
| Option 1 | There are must haves and then there are it would be nice to have...at a time when rates increases are impacting residents, this is a nice to have |
| Option 1 | https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350163371/all-weather-turf-aims-boost-nelsons-community-sportThis article is quite hard to believe."FC Nelson’s Phil Thompson, Ngāti Rārua’s Shane Graham, and Rugby Nelson’s Kent Inglis say that an artificial turf at Guppy Park would benefit the entire community. Photo: Max Frethey/Nelson Weekly."This will not benefit our community nor the environment. Missing a few play dates due to sports field grass needing to be repaired is nothing compared to the pollution and damage of adding all this plastic into our environment.Nowhere in this article is there any mention about the downside of using plastic turf to cover a sports field. Why is this considered a good idea?Microplastics, marine litter, riverine litter. Do we really need to add this mess to our environment? How is this a productive solution in the bigger picture? |
| Option 1 | All weather turf is an expensive option which will benefit a few and is expensive to install |
| Option 1 | what is happening with the Saxton cricket grounds? We have had 2 international games in the past 5 years!! We do not receive local super smash games and yet we pay rates for upkeep of this facility that we cannot enjoy. We meed more cricket to justify keeping the ground. |
| Option 1 | I believe this to be an excessive use of rate payer funds. It benefits only a small portion of Nelson rate payers, which is predominantly male oriented sports being men's soccer and rugby training. I would like to know the statistics of days or games lost due to bad weather, as I think with Nelson's typical mild winters this would be minimal compared to all winter sports. I don't believe this is a good use of rates money as it benefits so few and I don't think it will bring in anymore spending into the city and youth won't benefit as the claim is being made, as youth can already use the current fields which are still fit for purpose. I would much rather see funding for a surf lifesaving facility that benefits the whole community and is inclusive of all genders and ages, not channelled into just one male dominated sport. |
| Option 1 | i would like to speak on this |
| Option 1 | All-weather turf is plastic. It will eventually break down and further contaminate the ground. |
| Option 1 | The Marist Rugby Football Club (Nelson) Inc. is one of seven Clubs (4 rugby and 3 football) clubs that utilise the existing green field spaces throughout the NCC catchment. Our Club supports the current NCC approach to provide funding to upgrade the fields over time and additional ongoing maintenance costs, as capacity and use increases (Option 1).We oppose Option 2 on the basis that only one synthetic pitch will be provided, which will be:a) located in a specific area to the detriment of those beyond that area (the media has highlighted Neale Park in the city as a likely location, beyond the reach of clubs in outlying suburbs e.g. Tahunanui, Stoke)b) and funding of $500,000 will also be offset by reallocating budget from the sports field improvements upgrade programme. This would mean that the majority of other grass fields that serve the majority of cubs and teams will be negatively impacted.In Marist's case, Tahunanui Fields cannot be subjected to less maintenance and upkeep than it currently receives from Council (when in fact it requires upgrading, especially with regard to lighting). |
| Option 1 | As a member of Marist Rugby Football Club (Nelson) Inc. I support their detailed submission made. We oppose Option 2 on the basis that only one synthetic pitch will be provided, which will be:a) located in a specific area to the detriment of those beyond that area (the media has highlighted Neale Park in the city as a likely location, beyond the reach of clubs in outlying suburbs e.g. Tahunanui, Stoke)b) and a reduction of funding of $500,000 by reallocating budget from the sports field improvements upgrade programme will mean that the majority of other grass fields that serve the majority of cubs and teams will be negatively impacted. |
| Option 1 | It seems that there is relatively low benefit for the cost given that we generally have few times when the fields are too wet. I am concerned about affordability for the users. There are environmental effects: plastic discharge from Astroturf (or equivalent), removal of grassed area that is a good feeding ground for oystercatchers and other birds, higher carbon emissions and the increased area in impervious surface leads to reduced summer stream flow. |
| Option 1 | As a side note, we should not be opting for artificial grass anywhere going forward as this has been proven to shed enormous amounts of plastic particles over time. These particles will then make their way into our natural environment and create huge issues. |
| Option 1 | Concerned about the environmental impact of an artificial turf, particularly regarding the runoff of microplastics into stormwater and waterways. |
| Option 1 | As a member of Marist Rugby Football Club (Nelson) Inc., I fully support their thorough submission. Our club stands in opposition to Option 2 due to the following concerns: a) Option 2 suggests the installation of only one synthetic pitch, favoring a specific location to the detriment of clubs situated beyond its vicinity, notably those in outlying suburbs such as Tahunanui and Stoke. The proposed site at Neale Park in the city, as highlighted in the media, exacerbates this disparity. This limited access to synthetic facilities undermines the equitable distribution of resources and opportunities across the community. b) Furthermore, reallocating $500,000 from the sports field improvement upgrade program would have adverse repercussions on the majority of grass fields. These fields serve as vital venues for numerous clubs and teams, and any reduction in funding would compromise their functionality and quality, impacting the broader sporting community. The cumulative effect would hinder the development and participation of athletes at all levels, hindering the overall growth and enjoyment of sports in our region. c) Tahunanui is in desperate need of lights to alleviate stress on a specific part of the field during training sessions, thereby expanding the training fields for football and rugby during nighttime sessions. Additionally, it would enable clubs to host night games, reducing pressure on Trafalgar Park and offering flexibility in playing times, even for younger players. However, with funds reallocated for only one field, the installation of lights at Tahunanui remains a distant aspiration. |
| Option 1 | Sounds a bit extravagant and environmentally hazardous and the players should just get used to getting a bit muddy when they need to in the rain like we used to do when I was a kid! We shouldn't be taking nature away from people. |
| Option 1 | As Rugby isnt played on all weather turf, that just leaves Soccer. Given the popularity of swimming and aquatic sports (3x as many people report swimming than played soccer in 2022 (sport NZ) priority should be given to the Riverside pool than building a all weather turf. Especially already it appears NCC subsidises male dominated sports (Golf, Cricket, Rugby, Soccer) more than those females participate in. |
| Option 1 | while I understand the need for better wet weather sporting facilities in Nelson, I strongly oppose the use of all-weather turf because the negative environmental impact. It is not essential expenditure. |
| Option 1 | I'd be concerned if existing sports fields suffered deterioration as a result of a focussed financial commitment on one facility |
| Option 1 | One as cheaper and less environmental impact. |
| Option 1 | 1 all weather turf is not going to be enough and using anything plastic or artificial really isn't good for the environment. Unfortunately, after watching the budget blows for the Greenmeadows Centre (and other projects) I don't trust the Council to be able to build an All-weather turf on a proposed budget, and so I think it is best to keep with the current fields and maintain as normal when needed. |
| Option 1 | Only one all weather turf field is not enough and would probably only be used for the top sports teams. In my view all sports fields should be upgraded for the benefit of sport from grass roots to elite sports. |
| Option 1 | Environmental cost of option 2... no thanks |
| Option 1 | Turf is plastic. Plastic is one of the most polluting and terrible things for the environment as it takes 500 years to decompose. In addition, the weather, wear and tear, and general build of plastic releases microplastic which are even more dangerous to humans, animals, and the land. With the turf being so close to the water, this would directly pour those microscopic particles closer to the ocean to be eaten by fish which then would be eaten by us. In addition, plastic is a hormone disruptor and can greatly impact human health. Sliding, falling, and being around this will only be worse for all of us. Also, it doesn't look pretty. Please don't choose turf and fight for the environment and the local community. |
| Option 1 | For over 100 years rugby etc has been played outdoors on the grass. Why change this now? we do not need all weather turf and we do need all the sports grounds as they are used for recreation not just organised games. |
| Option 1 | Better that fields are available for all. |
| Option 1 | (nice to have an all weather turf but is it really essential) |
| Option 1 | all weather turf might hurt if you fall on it compared to grass. |
| Option 1 | synthetic turf can be a bad value over the long term, there are serious environmental problems to consider, and the costs to install and maintain any sizable, well-done installation proved so high that we concluded we’d be better off investing the money and effort in just about any other form of landscaping. |
| Option 1 | Please don't add more toxins into nature that then can create microplastics |
| Option 1 | Please don't add more plastic into the environment! |
| Option 1 | cheaper for everyone and still support the improved drainage work and lighting for sports fields a good middle ground i reckon. Also they can always play futsal or indoor touch or rippa. The short lifespan and massive amount of microplastics from all weather turf are more reasons to not spend council money on that. Turf hurts a lot more than mud to fall on also, really it’s all a bit of fun and connection to papatuanuku and with improved drainage systems fields shouldn’t be too bad too often anyway. And if they are it’s not a subdivision so theres no big cost to fix so its all good really. |
| Option 1 | An all weather pitch would want to be used when the weather is bad, which is not often. However when it does occur every club and team (100s) from all codes will want to use it. The bigger organisations will undoubtedly get more time. Being from a smaller club (Tahuna) I will never use it, but funds to maintain my pitch (and inadequate training area) will be used to finance it. This will be the same for the majority of players in the majority of teams across the region (this doesnt even include the 1000s of juniors) and the lower the grade of team the even less likely youll get any time using the all weather even though your taxes are worth the same. |
| Option 1 | The all weather turf would only benefit the top clubs in Nelson, those smaller clubs who require the support of the council to keep grounds maintained would suffer and ultimately lose members due to poor conditions. At the moment these smaller clubs already suffer with minimum field availability for trainings, I think the money would be better spent on more lights, to play midweek games to catch up on games missed due to weather, and for more training areas. |
| Option 1 | I do not believe a new all-weather sports turf would significantly benefit any other club or entity, other than those already on site, based on the proposed locations (Neale Park or Saxton Field)I support improving lighting and quality of existing grass fields instead (Option 1 from 2021 review)Specific suggestions:Install new lighting along both sides of Tahunanui fields near modelers pondReplace poles with taller ones on main reserveConcerns that an all-weather turf would inevitably become focused on serving needs of co-located clubs like FC Nelson, Suburbs and schoolsAn all-weather turf may come at the expense of reduced maintenance for existing grass fields---‐---------Upgrading Tahunanui Reserve Facilities:Tahuna FC strongly supports upgrading facilities at Tahunanui ReserveCurrent amenities like changing rooms are extremely substandard - old, rundown, and leakingWith 6 senior teams and plans for a youth program, the club requires better facilitiesOpportunity to transform the reserve into an integrated community hub for summer and winter sport codesRequest for Tahuna FC to be included in any consultation on new shared facilities impacting operationsPropose exploring housing Tahuna FC in any new multi-code facility for surf lifesaving and summer sportsCould create operational efficiencies and reduce maintenance costsProvide a vibrant, sustainable community hub for year-round sport and recreationFacilities should match the world-class status of Tahunanui Beach environment |
| Option 1 | all weatger turf is good for Nelson ONLY if it can remain the maintenance cost for the other existing grass turfs. You cannot cater all the sports with the artificial turf. Most people will still play on the existing turf which obviously needs maintenance at all time. |
| Option 1 | Turf is terrible! Adding more plastic into the environment. Once someone skids while sliding playing rugby, that small piece will turn into microplastic. Once it rains, that piece will get moved through the storm drains and then be washed out to the ocean creating more pollution and harm. Everyone will survive with natural grass and they will be better for it in the future. |
| Option 1 | existing sport fields are spread over the region so they are accessible to most users who do no necessarily have a mean to move to an all weather turf. Easy access of nearby facilities is socially positive, for example for after school practices and training. |
| Option 1 | The cost will double, thats a given. There is no money for 'wants' like this. Football and rugby can source the cash themselves. Theres an all weather pitch at Nelson College. Nelson Girls have an indoor futsal facility. The football teams can hire that for next to nothing. Creative thinking by the heads of the Rugby and Football Clubs is what is needed to find alternative solution for training. Too few people will benefit, and in this climate there just isn't the money. |
| Option 1 | Isupport Option 1: Continue to upgrade our existing sports fields. Nelson should not install an artificial turf sports field because of the embodied carbon emissions and the release of microplastics. Plastic turf has a lifetime of only 8-10 years, so the council would be contributing to on-going carbon emissions if it installs a plastic turf. In addition, artificial turf releases microplastic particles into the air and water. This generates runoff of microplastics into stormwater systems and the potential for inhalation by players and spectators. Let’s improve drainage on our existing sports fields. |
| Option 1 | Regrettably I must support OPTION 1. This is NOT essential expenditure so should be deferred for consideration in the 4 - 10 years LTP time frame. |
| Option 1 | In this Climate Emergency Council should be viewing all projects through a Climate Lens. This project would involve huge amounts of embodied carbon - the emissions toll over the whole project would be huge and not justifiable. |
| Option 1 | Option 1 will have much less of a financial impact on whanau, especially low-income households, while still improving the accessibility of sports fields. There needs to be consideration around whether a new sports turf should be prioritised over ensuring more financial stability for low-income communities. |
| Option 1 | 6All weather turf: Opposed, I support Option 1. The materials used are likely to result in huge volumes of man-made micro fibres entering local waterways and the bodies of users. There is already too much of it. |
| Option 1 | I dislike the environmental effects of artificial turf - made from non-renewable materials and micro plastics etc. |
| Option 1 | Please. No. |
| Option 1 | Just an absolute no on the astroturf. Please don't do this. |
| Option 1 | When all the important things are done we can look at the "play things". (Trafalgar Park - under utilised!).Nero fiddled while Rome burned! |
| Option 1 | I don't support removing funding for existing facilities upgrades and maintenance. Upgrading and maintaining current facilities can benefit all clubs and users but an all weather facility will likely be disproportionately utilised by the nearest clubs and schools.The current lighting at tahunanui fields is inadequate for the number of teams trying to utilise them. Tahuna fields is desperately in need of better and more lighting. Floodlights on the field adjacent to the modellers track would help provide more training space. Currently 6 teams share a space smaller than one football pitch and the current lights dont illuminate the whole area. |
| Option 1 | I consider that Nelson should not install an artificial turf sports field because of the embodied carbon emissions and the release of microplastics. Embodied carbonNelson needs to look for all opportunities to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and certainly should not be adding new sources of emissions that are not essential. The report Council commissioned from RSL in May 2020 calculated the embodied carbon emissions of plastic turf: 29 kg of C02-e per square metre per year, compared to 1 kg for natural turf. For a 10,000m2 field that is 290,000kg (290 tonnes) of C02 every year, the equivalent embodied carbon in 707m3 of concrete. Furthermore, artificial turf doesn’t sequester any carbon, whereas a natural grass field of that size will sequester over 7 tonnes of CO2. Installing an artificial turf will also create an expectation by the sports clubs that the turf will be replaced at the end of its life (typically only 8-10 years). The used turf will need to be disposed of in landfill (at high cost) while the new turf would generate still more embodied carbon emissions and microplastics into the environment. MicroplasticsPlastic turf releases microplastic particles into the air and water[5]. This generates runoff of microplastics into stormwater systems and the potential for inhalation by players and spectators. This has led the European Union and some other jurisdictions to ban some uses of microplastics in artificial turf[6]. These actions reflect rising concern about microplastics in every part of the environment, including our food. Two of NZ’s leading cancer researchers are seeking funding to investigate a potential link between microplastics and a documented rise in bowel cancer. Nelson should not be replacing natural turf with a plastic surface that will generate adverse effects on people and the environment for years to come. |
| Option 1 | I support Option 1: Continue to upgrade our existing sports fields. |
| Option 1 | Refer to 10 page submission for further information - key points re all weather sports turf below: |
| Option 1 | All-Weather Sports Turf: Tahuna FC does not believe a new all-weather sports turf would significantly benefit the club based on the proposed locations (Neale Park or Saxton Field) The club supports improving lighting and quality of existing grass fields instead (Option 1 from 2021 review) Specific suggestions for Tahuna: Install new lighting along both sides of fields near modelers pond Replace poles with taller ones on main reserve Concerns that an all-weather turf would inevitably become focused on serving needs of co-located clubs like FC Nelson, Suburbs and schools An all-weather turf may come at the expense of reduced maintenance for existing grass fields ---‐--------- Upgrading Tahunanui Reserve Facilities: Tahuna FC strongly supports upgrading facilities at Tahunanui Reserve Current amenities like changing rooms are extremely substandard - old, rundown, and leaking With 6 senior teams and plans for a youth program, the club requires better facilities Opportunity to transform the reserve into an integrated community hub for summer and winter sport codes Request for Tahuna FC to be included in any consultation on new shared facilities impacting operations Propose exploring housing Tahuna FC in any new multi-code facility for surf lifesaving and summer sports Could create operational efficiencies and reduce maintenance costs Provide a vibrant, sustainable community hub for year-round sport and recreation Facilities should match the world-class status of Tahunanui Beach environment I am a member of Tahuna Football Club and I fully endorse the collective views of my team which are summarised above. Thanks |
| Option 1 | Alarge amount was spent on the turf at Trafalgar Park and facilities at Saxtons Field at little or no cost to the sports involved whereas the Aero Club are charged commercial rates for ground rental rates and landing fees when the western grass would be sufficient for them as their park. They do not run a commercial operation , just a sporting club that help establish the current air port. |
| Option 1 | environmental impact trumps sport needs |
| Option 1 | all facilities will always need Continuous upgrading even an all weather one so they can't be left with less maintenance going forward. Continue upgrading to maintain them in good condition |
| Option 1 | Where regional / international constraints require the use of man made surfaced sports fields then having sufficient facilities to cover regional participants is a reasonable use Council funds. However, extending this out to all playing fields is IMHO not ideal as grass facilities are readily accessible for other recreational purposes by the public e.g. Walk dog / picnics etc. |
| Option 1 | While it does require continual mowing and waterinbmg, artificial turf has a large carbon footprint, and you lose the benefits of grass, such as cooling and moisture absorption. |
| Option 1 | I do not support artificial turf as it is both a heat sink (creator of the heat island effect) and sheds micro plastics into waterways and the environment. Where sports fields are implemented use living grasses. |
| Option 1 | Sports are sport. Part and parcel are the challenges of variable weather and pitch conditions. Investment in artificial grounds decreases the ‘sporting’ in sports and introduces depreciating assets that will only require more money to upgrade, replace, or remove in the future with a likely long period of degraded services before their demise. |
| Option 1 | Sports is one of the most highly funded areas by Council. Large numbers of Nelsonians do not play sport, especially the contact team sports. I would like Council to place more of the burden of of the cost of field maintenance on the clubs that use the the fields. |
| Option 1 | Nice idea but not worth the cost when we have storm damage to deal with and constrained finances. Pay down debt instead. |
| Option 1 | I give support to Option 1My comments include- if Council is not prepared to increase residential rates appropriately, it cannot afford such an asset: it would be a “nice to have” project: rather than “essential”- do Councillors genuinely believe that the project would be “ canned” if the sports codes raised (other than from Council) only 40 - 45% of the capital costs.- My cynicism is such that I firmly believe that a future Council would succumb to pleas of “poverty” (or “inequality” in comparison to arts funding) concerning the suggested maintenance costs of $36k – much less to annually fund depreciation in “cold hard cash”. I may well be wrong (and I acknowledge a reference to “same basis as similar facilities”), but I am not aware of any sporting entity that is asked to fund depreciation annually in cash- My grand-children will not be happy at having to play their sport on sub-standard grounds when the money for upkeep of the usual sports grounds is curtailed, and they are not allowed on the sacred new turf |
| Option 1 | spending massive amounts on few artificial fields is a total waste of money |
| Option 1 | The construction of an all-weather turf is not a priority. It is more expensive than what we're already doing and will have a negative environmental impact. |
| Option 1 | The field is a luxury not a necessity, especially when facing rate rises in the current financial climate |
| Option 1 | Artificial turf is just horrible from an eco point of view (emissions, microplastics and end of life rubbish). Grass is good! |
| Option 1 | If Council decisions are based on reducing carbon emissions, then the question shouldn't even be in this consultation. The Nelson Tasman Climate Forum's submission details the emissions footprint of artificial turf in comparison to grass. In addition the leaching of microplastics into the environment from the turf is unacceptable, and again shouldn't even be considered. The need to landfill the turf is yet another nail in the coffin for this bad proposal. The acts of installing, replacing and then removing the turf will create microplastics, again, a bad decision for the environment.Even if we had this all weather turf, it would not meet the needs of all the sports clubs, and so would still require many games to be played on existing sports grounds. I think all sports fields should be upgraded to improve their drainage over time, if that is the reason for some fields being worse than others. Also the issue of sea level rise needs to be considered in terms of best use of investment funds. |
| Option 1 | In a time of financial difficulty, this feels like wholly wasteful spending. Furthermore, building an all-weather turf in a potentially at-risk climate area that is clearly biased towards a limited number of sports is unnecessary, as these sports can already play outside for the most part while other sports that cannot lack indoor facilities entirely. Where is the proposed funding for public INDOOR tennis courts, then? Or indoor track and field/gymnasium? Why does rugby always get all the preferential treatment? An upgrade to the fields is sufficient without building a wasteful plastic all-weather turf. |
| Option 1 | I don’t believe an all weather sports turf is necessary if sports grounds are going to be upgraded and properly maintained. |
| Option 1 | I do not support the turf because of a) the on-going environmental issues associated with the artificial turf (greater carbon emissions, more micro plastics and more waste;b) the amount of money that has already been spent on Nelson sports facilities including Saxton field. There needs to be a better balance towards heritage and the arts. |
| Option 1 | Comment: |
| Option 1 | What always happens with these types of purchases is that the budget blows out massively, almost immediately after the paperwork is signed. Will end up costing residents 3 or 4 times the initial estimate. We shouldn't do this right now, more important things need attention |
| Option 1 | we need more flood lighting around all training parks to benefit more people. The all weather pitch will be to hard to give everyone equal rights. Rugby will want it all for themselves. A focus on upgrading the existing areas will be better for the people and the environment. More lights in the playing fields make them safer not only for those playing but also the general public. It is so cool going down to Tahuna and seeing Football and rugby teams, men and woman training on the week nights. BUT they are all fighting for lit up space. Let’s expand the lights out and bring more to Tahuna playing fields!! |
| Option 1 | I think it will only benefit the local club, and not the nelson community. Having more lights so night games can be played would ease the congestion of games on a Saturday/Sunday. |
| Option 1 | Although an all weather field may be nice - now is not the time!! |
| Option 1 | We support Option 1 of retaining the current approach to sports field management. |
| Option 1 | Could this not be privately funded ? |
| Option 1 | We do not agree with the recommendation and favour option 1 (retain current approach).We consider there is insufficient data supplied to endorse the proposal, although we note the requirement that the clubs involved have some “skin in the game”.It is unclear in the LTP as to the extent of usage of the facility, or how bad a handicap the present arrangements are, and it appears that the area is primarily being developed as a training facility.At a time when there is significant pressure on rates and compelling reasons to apply funding in other areas, we oppose such investment in what is an unclear and possibly low-priority application.We are not averse to this being reconsidered in the next Annual Plan, with suitably expanded supporting data. |
| Option 1 | Support Option 1 - Retain current approach of continuing to improve existing sports fields. |