Envision the future now:
Give the region an edge



A challenge to Hawke’s Bay District Council
and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to protect the coastline and ensure a sustainable and visionary future for the communities of Haumoana, Te Awanga and Clifton.

Under siege from the sea and local authorities:
A community response rejecting the two-option proposal from the Hastings District Council (HDC) and the Hawkes Bay Regional Council (HBRC) that ratepayers cover the cost of 13 groynes or accept a managed retreat as the ocean encroaches on homes along the waterfront.

As a result of the Te Awanga and Haumoana Coastal Hazards Community Open Day and public meeting on April 29 and the Affected Beach Home-owners meeting on May 4, a committee was selected and met on 6th and 26th May to consider this proposal.

In order to have some legal and political status the Walking on Water (WOW) group is an incorporated society, a sub-committee of the Haumoana Citizens & Ratepayers Association, with support from the Te Awanga Progressive Association, growing support from other local and region organisations and a representative on the Matahiwi Marae Committee. Our goal is to inspire the councils in conjunction with the wider community to deliver an outcome we can all say ‘Wow!’ to.

What they’re saying:
“Properties in coastal hazard zones will be destroyed, unless communities can find a cost-effective means of preventing beach erosion and inundation over the long-term ,”
Hawke’s Bay Emergency Management Group.

'We've got no protection whatsoever and we're not allowed to put protection in," John Rowling, Te Awanga resident, prevented from completing a concrete wall to protect his property, even though he had applied and received consent,
No seawall allowed at Te Awanga TVNZ, 14-04-2002

“We have the opportunity to address two environmental issues by simply utilising scrap tyres filled with concrete to construct an artificial reef to protect our coastline. …Not only do you avert an environmental disaster in the waiting by removing those tyres but you also create a marine habitat which protects our coast. In the long term it could become a tourism opportunity…”
 Submission to the Haumoana-Te Awanga community meeting  4-05-2009

“Hastings is not that far above sea  level. The airport is only just above sea level. If we got one big one we’d be in trouble. Hawke’s Bay would be in trouble,”
Haumoana faces big decision, quoting Pete Judd of Grange Road, HB Today, circa August 2002

“The council had responded ‘poorly’ to the erosion issue and in particular, had done very little to help the community…In terms of the management of the coastal area, both the HBRC and the HDC passed the responsibility onto each other, further implicating the ability to properly manage the erosion issue,” Student Jamie Boyle, 2005 Thesis for the School of Geography and Environmental Science in Auckland

Walking on water

Sometimes the best solutions are not found in the list of options offered by those resigned to a particular viewpoint, but arise from creative thinking that focuses on opportunities and positive outcomes.

If you start with a problem and keep reinforcing the difficulties, objections and opposition you become part of the problem. If you start with a solution and remain determined to move toward that goal, surprising things can happen, particularly if you have an entire community supporting and working with you.

A field of 13 groynes which the Hastings District Council (HDC) and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) claim may be ineffective, and so costly people will be forced to leave the affected areas, is not a viable option. By declaring the annual rated cost of these structures would significantly reduce property values, the local authorities have created further unnecessary fear in our community.

A ‘managed retreat’ from the impacted area, with no specific plan on how that might be achieved, and the proviso that no further works would be allowed to protect properties was equally unhelpful and would no doubt hugely costly to those residents involved.

What we are seeing here is a failure of consecutive councils to come up with any constructive solutions that are acceptable to the local communities other than surrendering to the elements.  

Despite a decade or more of meetings, consultations and reports the councils persist with their planned evacuation; moving up to 60 properties from the ‘hazard zone’ and letting the ocean have its way.

The very fact this issue has arisen again, with the councils placing impossible demands on ratepayers or abandoning those most at risk, is attracting considerable media interest and consequently impacting house prices, insurance premiums and the future stability and security of the people in these communities. (Ref 18 - 24)  

One individual who has huge confidence in this region’s future was devastated when insurance for several of his properties was revoked within days of the April public meeting called by the councils. (Ref 31:0)

His treatment by local authorities; who incidentally charged him $70,000 for RMA consent to build a wall protecting one of his existing properties — more than double the cost of construction — is a perfect example of how red tape, not hard engineering, is the biggest obstacle faced in protecting our coastline.

The pedantic use of the RMA to frustrate individuals and organisations from protecting their assets is rife along this coastline, from the 21 houses currently under direct threat to the Clifton Motor Camp. As a result the sea has taken more public and private property.

Misusing the Resource Management Act based on local interpretations and a heavy handed local bureaucracy that prevents private attempts at protecting private property is shameful, particularly when many of those properties are still required to pay rates on property that has already been washed away by the sea.

It seems the community needs to remind local authorities of their obligations and responsibilities in coastal management, including preventing erosion and potential inundation and protecting roads between the coast and private property.

If the council’s concerned don’t come up with a genuinely creative option to transform this local threat into a regional asset, they may be forced into action by central Government initiatives. Such action is currently under discussion at the highest levels in the Environment Ministry. A visionary plan is needed to prove our local authorities are thinking ahead of the game (Ref 31:0).

The issues relating to the prevention of erosion in the Haumoana-Te Awanga-Clifton community have been so badly managed that they’ve even become part of coursework at the School of Geography and Environmental Science in Auckland, where one student tried to understand why no action had been taken.

The 2005 thesis from student Jamie Boyle concluded:  the Hastings District Council responded ‘poorly’ to the erosion issue and had done very little to help the community.

From interviews conducted with 70 residents, along with HBRC and HDC council representatives, he said it was clear both sides held the opinion that it was not their responsibility to mitigate erosion due to the fact the residents themselves choose to live there.

In terms of the management of the coastal area, both the HBRC and the HDC passed the responsibility onto each other, further implicating the ability to properly manage the erosion issue.  The general conclusion from the council bodies was that the houses within the hazard zone were not valued highly enough to allocate funding to prevent erosion…” (Ref 16:0)

This is a 70-year old problem that has been mishandled and swept under the carpet too long. The evidence was abundantly clear well before the road in front of the present at-risk homes was washed away many decades ago, and a ‘managed retreat’ first proposed and acted on by some homeowners back in 1970.

In the following 40-years the coastline has continued to be eaten away by the ocean. Some makeshift attempts have been engaged in, as is evident by the rusting railway pylons on the Clifton foreshore, but never maintained or followed through.

The ‘do nothing’ approach of previous councils was reprehensible but to continue down that track is an offence to the people living in these communities and diametrically opposed to council claims that this region is one of the tourist wonders of Hawke’s Bay.

Meanwhile the motor camp at Clifton Camping Ground, administered by the Hastings District Council on land owned by the Conservation Department, continues to loose valuable ground each year. That this is allowed to continue is a source of bewilderment to the community and the nation.

Why would you want to oppose and even actively prevent the efforts and generous offers of locals to try and save this heritage land and important tourist location. If Clifton Camp goes then soon access to the golf course and Cape Kidnappers itself will be eroded.

All along the coastline there are points of cultural and historical significance relating to early Maori and the first settlers. The Hastings District Council’s own thesis (Archaeological Survey or Te Awanga Parkhill Area prepared by the Hasting District Council by Opus International Consultants Limited in 2004) attests to this, and there is much oral and as yet unpublished written history to add to the record.

Meanwhile, every year or so another house or two at Haumoana-Te Awanga is undermined by the sea. Already there are areas where the sea, at times, pours into endangered wetlands and streams. At low points or breaks in the primary dune and crest, high seas come across the road and unless some serious ‘hard engineering’ solution is implemented, inundation will soon follow.

The Hastings District Council for example seems happy to promote this coast as an important tourist and recreational asset on its pamphlets and web site (Ref 32:0) but the fact the area has been neglected and is in dire need of significant infrastructure work to sustain future growth and development.

If the sea breaches the coastline and nothing is done to hold it back, it is likely to keep coming, taking row after row of houses and then the reclaimed land, and highly profitable low lying vineyards, orchards and farmland will be under threat. (Ref 14:0)

Well before then people across the country will be asking, why didn’t local authorities, tasked with the safety, protection and development of the region do something to prevent this?

Councils involved must preserve, protect and plan ahead or generations ahead will judge them for their failure to act. It’s time to front up and tackle the kind of foreshore development that will give this region a literal ‘edge’.

The challenge

This is a challenge to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, the Hastings District Council, the Napier City Council (if indeed the various local authorities can agree to work together) and the Conservation Department to think outside the square; to think big and take a positive stand. It’s time to seriously consider ways this crisis might be turned around to deliver major benefits, not only for the residents of Clive, Haumoana, Te Awanga and Clifton but the whole region.

The proposals put forward for the management of ‘coastal hazard’ areas along the waterfront are far from visionary. It is clear that the option of 13 groynes at $1.8 million each with the cost 90 percent shared by residents at around $26-$30,000 a year (annual targeted rate), is no option at all. (Hang on a minute the first one only cost $200,000).

Even if it was pursued, we are further dissuaded by the councils with their statement that it is unlikely resource consent would be granted. Even if applications were made, we are told the same engineers and consultants who scoped out the groyne option in the first place, would have to be consulted once more at a cost of around $500,000. What a pointless exercise.

It is clear the councils do not expect this option to be pursued as the community cannot bear the cost or take the risk as outlined. In fact the benefits of 13 groynes, as explained in the material sent to residents and at the meeting on Wednesday April 29, would be minimal. Other hard engineering options were briefly mentioned but not explored.

That leaves the managed retreat approach, relocating houses, roads and infrastructure back from the coast, based on the perceived need at the time. Of course the majority of residents are forced to concede this is all that is left for them to do. They have been backed into a corner.

Along with this there is the sinister proviso that underlines this option that residents must agree not to pursue any major public or private efforts to protect their properties or stop erosion at Te Awanga and Haumoana.

A new approach is needed.

Rather than putting the wider community offside with the negative way in which these options were presented the councils need to look at other options that are more likely to be supported by the people of Haumoana, Te Awanga and Clifton.

‘Hard engineering’ options including artificial reefs and sea walls have not been scoped out as plainly or convincingly as the groynes. So much data was offered to promote and then dismiss the plan for 13 groynes, and so little on the alternatives.

The reality is the existing groyne, south of the Tukituki river mouth — as ugly as it is — has been successful, even though ther councils have failed to maintain it. It was tested and proven before the consent was extended to 2028.

That raises the question why several others should not be added at appropriate locations along the coast in conjunction with a sea wall and possibly even an artificial reef. This might end up costing considerably less than the debatable $18.1 million quoted by HDC and HBRC, and achieve a better outcome for all concerned.

Give us some real options, hope and confidence that the future of our coastline is in hands that have some respect for its citizens and their property rather than the dismal excuses for options currently offered. Let’s get a vision and go for it.

The proposal in brief:

In fact we would like to present you with a first stage alternative plan that we believe should be treated with the utmost urgency. Included as part of our submissions is a fully scoped out proposal drawn up and costed by engineering experts.

This includes five groynes to deflect the power of the ocean and help stabilize and replenish the foreshore between Clifton Rd, Haumoana and the existing groyne near the Tukituki River plus a sea wall to protect the houses immediately under threat. (See independent report Haumoana Foreshore Stabilisation prepared by Opus International Consultants Ltd. WOW document Ref 39:00)

The commissioning of this work has been generously undertaken by a member of this community and includes a solid structural seawall and public access walkway around the 21 houses currently at risk. It would tidy up the existing area of ongoing destruction, protect the shoreline and the properties concerned and become the first major step in the wider Walking on Water proposal.

The only thing we require from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the Hastings District Council at this stage is to help remove the obstacles to these developments going ahead. We’re not asking anyone to contribute to construction costs at this stage, simply to facilitate and absorb any costs involved in gaining resource consent.

If it is proven that the obstacles in gaining consent lies beyond the powers of either council then we would ask for your support in taking this issue to central government and the Environment Court for approval. (Ref 36:0, Ref 37:0)

Background to a coastal drama
Groyne option undermined

The battle for some positive action by local authorities to protect the coastline and address erosion along the Haumoana-Te Awanga- Clifton coastline has been going on for decades.

Where action was taken, it appears as little as possible was done in order to pacify residents and then largely to meet council obligations in relation to the ‘public’ Domain, for which it has responsibility anyway.

At a public meeting with 40 residents at the Haumoana Community Hall on 13 July 1998 an application for three groynes “to reverse the erosion of the beach in front of the Haumoana Domain, and prevent flooding of the domain area” was “strongly supported” by residents.

Within weeks an application was sought for resource consent for placement on the southern side of the Tukituki river mouth. However days after approval was granted,
applications for the second and third groynes were withdrawn. The remaining groyne was constructed in February 1999 and over a five year period closely monitored for adverse effects either along the coastline or on the environment.

During 2002, after calls for more coastal protection, the councils resurrected the idea of two more groynes but slapped on the now familiar proviso that ratepayers and residents would have to pay 90 percent of the estimated $300,000 cost. (Ref 14:0)

By the time the temporary consent for the existing groyne expired in May 2003 no complaints had been received and the official review stated “the groyne appears to be acting as intended”. No further consultation was thought necessary. Letter from Hawke’s Bay Regional Council design engineer Kamen Ganev to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council consent officer, 16-11-1998 (Ref 3:0)

Consent was then extended for a further 25 years ( to 31 May 2028). In handing down that decision the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council said the existence of the groyne “would have “limited actual or potential adverse effects on the environment”, was “not contrary to any relevant plans or policies” and the activity was “consistent with the purposes and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

If in fact that is the case, why then are there now concerns that future plans for groynes would not gain Resource Management Act approval? (Ref 3:1)   Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Resource Consent approval 16 May 2003  The fact is other groynes previously constructed at Ngaruroro in October 1988 and a second one on December 1993 must also have proven their worth otherwise the council would have exercised its option to have them removed.

Attempts to have additional groynes to protect south Haumoana were stalled again and again by what seems to be a determined effort to do nothing, or make it so difficult to achieve anything. The reality is no-one wants to spend any money in Haumoana or Te Awanga. Unfortunately a very narrow minded view is being taken with no sense of the huge recreational and tourist possibilities likely to emerge in this area if the right infrastructure is put in place.

It seems the councils hope that the constant demands from this community for a better deal will eventually give in to the inevitable and, along with the houses under threat, will simply go away.

In November 2006 after 18 months of deliberation a local working party of councilors admitted they had failed to identify a preferred solution to the coastal erosion problem further south at Haumoana and Te Awanga and “engineering experts” were called in to try and sort things out.

They had failed to get a consensus; in other words ideas, opinions and agendas continued to clash until it was agreed to disagree. Stalemate. A joint forum requested three engineering experts go over the options and report back by April 2007. There was much grumbling by the council about the expected cost of $20,000. The outcome of course was the two options we are now faced with; 13 user pays groynes or managed retreat.

However it remains as clear today as it was in November 2006, May 2003 and in 1998 that residents want a hard engineering solution. Why was all the investigating and debate begun all over again, when the issues had already been worked through when the first groyne was agreed to? So-called council experts continue to say there isn’t enough information about the long term impact of groynes, despite all reports to date saying the existing test case groyne is working well. Ref 20:0 Officials dither as sea eats into land, Hawke’s Bay Today, Lawrence Gullery, 21-11-2006

In fact the very earliest studies at the Haumoana groyne, based on volumes stored in the first 236 days alone, suggested an average of 62,400 cubic metres a year was being returned to the beach. HBRC Assett Management Group, Internal Report, Shoreline Modeling, prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, September 2005.

Where does the gravel go?

Ironically the greatest cost in creating groynes we are told is $1.3 million to find enough gravel to backfill each of them. Considering local authorities have a caretaker and management role of the local rivers and seabed which are so full of gravel that huge fortunes are made in mining it each year, this is a strange situation.

Even when attempts are made to restrict the amount of gravel taken by commercial concerns from local rivers and at Awatoto; regardless of genuine concerns that northward drift replaces what is taken leaving a deficit on beaches south of the Haumoana groyne, the councils continue to extend permits and give way to appeals. (Ref 17:0, Ref 41)

The idea put forward that contractors taking metal from nearby rivers should tithe one truckload in 10 (for example) to replenish the beaches at Haumoana-Te Awanga seems to have some merit. This proposal has been made in the past so why has it been ignored?

An agreement between the Conservation Department and the local authorities could ensure existing and future arrangements with contractors were achieved on this basis. This could be seen as giving something back or even ‘paying it forward’; a good conservation and community principal in action.

If there’s a reluctance to do this voluntarily, perhaps there should be an audit at the local weighing station just in case they’re taking more than they should?

Sea wall has appeal

Local authorities have previously been approached with the idea of constructing a seawall, but there has been strong opposition even when local people have attempted to protect their own properties with private structures. It is as if the ‘retreat option’ is now taken forgranted. ()

However, the idea of a sea wall has huge appeal if it is approached creatively and the end result is viewed as a regional asset. (Ref 34:00, 35:00, 36:0 & Ref 37:0)

A well designed wall with robust foundations could form the basis for a cycle track and walkway, ultimately linking with the Rotary Centennial Pathway Trust cycle track which runs as far as Blackbridge and is proving so successful. In fact cycle and walkways are very much in favour at the moment and council’s who help construct and promote them are creating a real community health and recreational asset.

In a wider context it could form part of Prime Minister John Key’s national cycle-way and be eligible for some of the central government’s $50 million funding. Rather than waiting around why not make an application for that funding now in anticipation of this project succeeding?

Has the council put in a submission yet for some of this funding? Many councils already have. If the Hastings District Council has not made a request, why not? If not, is this another example of its lack of forward planning for the region? (Ref 27:0)

As well as being a cycle and coastal walk way, it should be wide enough for couples strolling along other arm in arm to pass each other comfortably while heading in opposite directions or for runners to jog along its length, and be passed by skaters and skateboarders. Families heading out for a picnic could find an appropriate spot to sit on bench and tables at key points along the route or cast a fishing line off the edge (or walk out onto a groyne at the right tide, for the same reason).

This could be the preferred route for walking dogs and even horse-riding (employment could be created cleaning and maintaining the track and the attendant landscaped areas of native bush and shrubs on the landward side of the walk).

The seawall-walkway could be a significant tourist attraction, with information points along the way, highlighting relevant historical, cultural, scenic spots or vantage points. It could be a focal point for an extended arts and crafts trail, access to the animal zoo and car museum, with options to go to the nearby orchards, walk or ride to wineries, restaurants, the world class golf course or on to Cape Kidnappers and the Gannet Colony.

For those who regularly use quad bikes or dirt bikes, wakeboards or surf gliders the space between the wall and the ocean would still be wide enough at most places to permit this during normal tidal activity, with  access ramps at appropriate locations to enter and exit. With the groynes in place possibly even launching boats or kayaks at a designated point might become a mainstream activity.

A competition could be held for the design and construction of attractive sculptures and Maori carvings and other 3D installations that would compliment the art and culture trail at relevant places along the walkway. Perhaps the commissioning of these works could be partly sponsored and made into a prestigious affair?

Construction and comparison

The seawall could be constructed of steel foundations or huge concrete pylons pounded into the ocean floor with shaped concrete top with non-corrosive fences along the seaward side, steps down to the beach at set intervals for low tide access.

On the seaward side rocks and large stones, layered in a coated steel net, shaped down to the ocean might be the way to go, or perhaps scalloped concrete in the shape of a wave to go with the force of the ocean?

In fact much of this work has already been done in costing out a wall. Did the council give the esd design and Auckland Stonemason’s design and quote serious thought or was it simply dismissed because of concerns about the RMA and the possibility that consents might not be approved? This community requests that you look again at this proposal and call for expressions of interest from other parties as soon as possible.

Such a wall could be built in stages and for less cost than 13 groynes. A levy of $2000-$5000 from the wider community — recovered over five rating years — should cover the cost and make the entire project achievable with input from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Hastings District Council, possibly the Department of Conservation and Land Transport New Zealand.  

By comparison the Coastal Walkway in New Plymouth has provided an ideal buffer to the wild west coast ocean, preventing erosion and turning the sea front into an attractive place where people now daily go walking, cycling, sightseeing, picnicking or just to enjoy the ocean view.

The New Plymouth wall has transformed that region into one of the most go-ahead cities in the country, winning international recognition and awards for its architecture and design and its environmental impact.

This 7km Coastal Walkway is a perfect case study. Erosion was a major issue that needed to be addressed. One groyne at Fitzroy and action from a visionary mayor and they're winning tourism and engineering awards all over the world.

The council there sees that walkway as part of its coastal management policy and extension plans — another 4km currently under construction with significant funding from Land Transport New Zealand — are possible because it has worked so well. (Ref 26:0)

NB: Peter Atkinson (Duffell Watts) the senior engineer responsible for the New Plymouth Coastal Walkway has shown a strong interest in the problems at Haumoana-Te Awanga-Clifton  and is eager to discuss the options and consult with the HBRC and HDC

Why can’t Hawke’s Bay get a similar vision for the Haumoana-Te Awanga-Clifton region as a continuation of the wider coastline plan that we see in Napier?

The Napier foreshore, alongside the city centre at least, has been transformed into what is increasingly becoming an attractive world class waterfront. In the longer term thinking that cycleway-walking track-seawall that has its beginning at Haumoana-Te Awanga-Clifton could continue through Clive, where there’s already an artificial sea wall, and along the waterfront to Napier? 

Individuals experienced in this type of construction believe it would cost far less that the full groyne field ‘proposed’ by the councils. (Some basic idea of cost may be indicated in the attached Ref 35:00)

A tender process from local landscape architects, construction companies and contractors would ensure the best possible deal. The challenge would be to find the most suitable source for large boulders and rocks (bound by coated steel nets?), the steel and concrete and the sculptured concrete paving. 

A well designed sea wall from Clifton to the Tukituki river mouth based on engineering best practice (and there are plenty of examples worldwide) could become a major asset to this community and to the many thousands across Hawke’s Bay who use this area as a recreational ground.

While numerous studies from around the world are inconclusive about the potential for sea walls to escalate erosion or other ecological problems, many suggest there are no overt negative consequences. Central government has already evaluated several worldwide studies. (See: http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/casn147.pdf).

If the walkway was aesthetically pleasing and did not rise higher than the existing primary mounds it would not block the view of beachfront residents, but still offer security against the sea in times of overtopping, confidence in future development and maintenance of their properties, and in the value of their properties.

It would be good for local businesses and even attract more tourist related activity, small business activity, encourage home improvement and attract residents to Haumoana, Te Awanga and Clifton. If the sea wall proposal has potential it needs to be considered and plans drawn up (through an RFI process initially) and put forward as soon as possible for consideration

A revised proposal to combat coastal erosion, protect the community and produce an attractive feature for the region could still include several groynes at critical points, to lessen the impact of the ocean on the most threatened areas, and possibly even an artificial reef.

A rubber reef?

About 100,000 tyres stockpiled on a Crown-owned block of land at Pandora site in Napier are posing an environmental threat and potential fire hazard, after a plan to export them to China for recycling fell through. Cost of removal is being put at about $500,000.

The situation in Haumoana -Te Awanga-Clifton may present an ideal solution if the various groups tasked with the removal of the tyres can work together with those looking to resolve the issue of coastal erosion. (Ref 28:0) Tyre-dump mountain poses growing threat, Hawke’s Bay Today, Doug Laing, 29-04-09

While some people are laughing at the idea of using the controversial Pandora tyre mountain as a resource for creating an artificial reef it may not be a bad idea. Fill them with concrete, strap them together and sink them at an appropriate location where it will have most impact on easing the pounding on the coastline, attract new marine life and be good for fishing. Perhaps it could be located adjacent to the existing reef off Clifton.

 If positioned strategically it may help ease the flooding and erosion that are destroying the Clifton Camping Ground, and will ultimately threaten access to Cape Kidnappers and the related tourist assets on the foreshore. It might also increase the surf break, itself a strong tourist attraction.

“…ongoing marine research indicates these structures (artificial reefs) actually increase the amount of sea life rather than simply attracting existing fish. Ironically what would seem at first to be horrible pollution on the seabed, may actually serve to enhance the environment.

Artificial reefs are in fact one of the most biologically rich ecosystems in the world. Reefs such as those in South Florida are most important for their role in protecting their coastal communities from storms, wave damage and erosion by decreasing the speed of wave action…

We have the opportunity to address two environmental issues by simply utilising scrap tyres filled with concrete to construct an artificial reef to protect our coastline. …Not only do you avert an environmental disaster in the waiting by removing these tyres but you also create a marine habitat which protects our coast. In the long term it could become a tourism opportunity…” Submission to the Haumoana-Te Awanga community meeting. (Ref 29:0,)

A more courageous solution to the problem of the erosion along this marvelous and highly under-rated section of our coastline is way overdue. It would certainly be one way to restore mana to an area that has been overlooked for too long. (Ref 30)

Relocate, remove or retreat?

Residents in the houses most impacted by the ocean bombardment have every reason to be concerned. They are currently being given no practical option other than to physically move their homes back from the waterfront or relocate to some as yet undesignated site, largely at their own cost.

While consents would not be needed to relocate the buildings, residents would have to pay for the land they relocate to, and building consents would apply to anything done to make those homes habitable again. On agreeing to the retreat option they will be constrained from doing anything to further protect the properties they own.

And of course there’s the statement in the briefing papers that the removal of the first of those houses would have to start “quite soon” with the cost, apart from the amenities and public buildings and roads, being borne by the community (estimated staged retreat is $7.4- $11 million).

There needs to be some clarity for those residents about what is proposed. Some of the homes are obviously beyond repair, while others are withstanding the deluge through private attempts to ward off the ocean. Without an organized approach, agreed to by all parties, these piecemeal efforts at property protection will fail and the ocean will continue to eat into the coastline. (Ref 5:0; Ref 13:0; Ref 15:0, Ref 40:0)

With the seawall-walkway approach, combined with strategically placed groynes and possibly an artificial reef, the power of the sea may be lessened along this part of the coast. Some homes will no doubt have to be removed but this course of action could provide some relief to other home owners who might move existing structures to the back of their sections, or with a sea wall extend their tenancy for many years.

Agreeing that no major private or public erosion protection works will be permitted on agreeing to a ‘managed retreat’ however raises major concerns about the local authorities willingness to act to protect a community as risk.

Will the sea just be allowed to take the next layer of houses and then the next street as the sea moves closer? Will there just be a pile of ugly rubble left where the houses were, so the place looks like a bomb site? These questions need to be answered urgently.


Tidying up behind
First things first

Repeated requests to develop short-term and long-term plans have resulted in very little action other than soft engineering efforts such as planting and building up the primary dune in places, both of which have been washed away in heavy seas and high tides.

Surely hard engineering needs to come before soft, and indeed the success of any backfill, replenishment, landscaping and planting depends on this. Get your foundations right then build up the landward stabilising of the environment and beautification.

Regardless any major earthworks at the edge of the ocean must take care to protect wetlands and other important natural environments, ultimately enhancing the coastline through organized landscaping and planting of native bushes, plants and shrubs and low growing trees with deep roots. (Ref 4:00; Ref 6:00, Ref 11 & 12)

Change of attitude needed

The major obstacle preventing the adoption of an encompassing vision for the communities involved is funding and heavy-handed bureaucracy; it seems pride in that the ‘Kiwi can do  pioneering attitude’ and the concept of working together, has given way to partisan thinking that focuses on the problem rather than the solution.

Council, committees, boards and individuals base their decisions on budgets and what they can squeeze from ratepayers and voters, believing they know best rather than consulting with and investing in the communities they are supposed to represent. This approach focuses on cost savings, rather than investment and creative ways to raise capital, such as sponsorship, partnership and public-private co-operation.

Stopping sea walls being built, preventing people from protecting their own property and dismissing the concerns of ratepayers, wears down community resolve. This local community in particular, feels under siege not only from the ocean but from its local government representatives.

Instead of encouraging creativity, inviting and supporting new ideas and capitalising on community resources, the entire region is suffering because its representatives are not celebrating and acting on its greatest assets. Tourism numbers have been declining for almost a decade. The wine country branding is fine, Art Deco is a wonderful way to capitalise on the obvious architectural assets and the period theme, but the region has much more to offer.

Tourists want a range of options and the region needs to not only attract international and domestic people here but to make the region sticky, to keep people here for longer periods and have them coming back, not just for the wine, occasional concerts and art deco festivals.

Currently the 300 tourism operators who are members of the Hawke’s Bay Wine Country Tourism Association are lobbying the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to develop a strategy before businesses start failing. Both Hastings and Napier City Councils and the regional authorities have to work together if Hawke’s Bay is ever going to have a sustainable tourism industry.

Currently we have one of the lowest international visitor numbers of any region in New Zealand. The industry has been slow to react to market changes, everyone’s doing their own thing, there is no sound marketing plan. Why? Because the tourist industry is fragmented and local authorities and those involved in the broader industry aren’t working together. In short, the region lacks an embracing vision. (Ref 38:0)

Currently we have one of the lowest international visitor numbers of any region in New Zealand. The industry has been slow to react to market changes, everyone’s doing their own thing, there is no sound marketing plan. Why? Because the tourist industry is fragmented and local authorities and those involved in the broader industry aren’t working together. In short, the region lacks an embracing vision. (Ref 38:0)

So what’s this got to do with the ongoing erosion of the Haumoana-Te Awanga-Clifton coastline? This area, perhaps more than any of the areas that comprise Hawke’s Bay, represents all of the different features and assets that make the region special: world class vineyards, restaurants and golf course, orchards, the gannets at Cape Kidnappers, a car museum, a zoo, a thriving creative community of artists, sculptors, woodworkers, craftspeople, media specialists, writers, designers, a rich Maori and European history and much more. 

Those are the ingredients that have enabled many world tourist destinations to shine out from the crowd. Of course the greatest asset may well be its location, right on the ocean; with an amazing look out back on Napier City and out to Cape Kidnappers; a unique location for fishing, boating, walking and cycling with some of the best sunshine hours in the country. The potential for small businesses to relocate here, for new café’s and restaurants, for people working from home, to new investment and development is enormous.

 To capitalise on all of this however requires the local authorities to remove the obstacles to innovation, to ensure the infrastructure is in place to support future growth and to deliver security and confidence to businesses, residents and tourists.

Neighbouring councils that compete with each other rather than co-operate, steal energy and momentum from the broader community. As the beer advert says “you are defined by what you say no to.” The approach should be: what’s good for Hawke’s Bay and how can we achieve that.

What’s needed is the kind of leadership and teamwork that can truly make a difference when it comes to big projects like this, an approach that encourages development and creativity rather than wearing people down with administrivia, endless paperwork with horrendous consultants fees and consent costs.

The Rotary walkway came about through community-based thinking. There is a way forward and it’s not about allowing the coastal communities of Haumoana-Te Awanga and Clifton to be washed away by the sea; its not about taxing people off their land to put in 13 groynes or agreeing to a managed retreat.

Let’s envision a future and act now to give the region an edge.

Summary of intent:
Listen to the people

Without an attitude of goodwill, co-operation and a willingness by local authorities to work together with the community on a long-term and short-term plan; as has been promised on several occasions in the past, this small but breathtakingly beautiful area risks further neglect.

If the proposed retreat is allowed to occur without a plan for protecting the coast; a hard engineering solution like a sea wall and a beautification component, this area will become more like a war zone than a scenic and recreational asset.

The problem to date is that community views and ideas and the desire for a visionary solution meet a different kind of wall, a wall of bureaucracy.

To use the Resource Management Act as an excuse to do nothing is unacceptable. For councils to prevent people from acting to protect their own properties then refuse to co-ordinate and enable a coastal-wide seawall is negligent.

Rather that putting the onus back on to the ratepayers, local authorities must be seen to take a lead in a creative solution that restores the confidence of a community that is now suspicious and even fearful of what might happen to their neighborhood if current plans go unchallenged.

It’s time the local authorities responsible started listening to some of the great ideas that are coming out of this community; architects, construction firms, strategic thinkers and innovators, who are prepared to put their own efforts into helping to design and construct such a seawall.

It’s time to take an inventory of what resources might be bought to bear if local authorities were prepared to work with each other and the community.

“Residents have come to believe that their input is not valued…Other outlying communities, Clive, Whakatu, Flaxmere and Camberley have had the opportunity to develop a community plan in partnership with the Hasting District Council. Te Awanga and Haumoana would like the opportunity to plan and work together on a 2015 vision before any final solutions are reached.” Steve Grant Clifton Rd beachfront owner for 21 years and Jane Grant resident for 14-years

Perhaps it’s time to redirect all the energy that has gone into proving the problem to work on solutions and commit to a new set of options: a sea wall-walkway, fewer groynes and an artificial reef of concrete filled tyres (A prototype module is currently being demonstrated by a visionary Napier man who is eager for his idea to be used in this context. Con Reiter phone 8310150 Ref 30:0).  

Rather than mocking or dismissing the sea wall option as ‘too expensive’ or not practical it should at least be scoped out before other decisions are sealed in concrete. In years to come a visionary move like this could be hailed as a breakthrough in engineering and a huge source of pride, economic benefit and community satisfaction.

All it needs is some entrepreneurial spirit to champion and facilitate this approach. When the community is canvassed on the final decision, add this option alongside the ‘13-groyne or retreat’ option and let the residents and ratepayers have the final say. If this is the outcome then the council’s concerned need to be brave enough to carry that out.

If necessary, and if this community feels that its views are not being taken seriously, this matter will be escalated to a national level. It could become a test case for other communities seeking to protect their own assets who find themselves up against bureaucratic mindsets; and the sometimes ridiculous constraints of resource management laws, that are misapplied by those who have their own goals in mind.

It may be said the council and the residents cannot afford to do any of the above. We say we can’t afford not to.

Unless the option of a seawall/walkway-fewer groynes-artificial reef is given serious consideration the matter will be taken up with the Local Government Minister Rodney Hide, the Environment Minister Nick Smith and the Ministry of Conservation.

Hard engineering not a hard decision

Haumoana-Te Awanga-Clifton residents reject the current options of 13 groynes at a cost of $18 million to the local community and ‘managed retreat’ of houses under threat, proposing instead:

1. That the HBRC and HDC approve in principal the construction of five groynes to help stabilize and replenish the foreshore between Clifton Rd, Haumoana and the existing groyne near the Tukituki River. (See independent report looking at a three groyne option: Haumoana Foreshore Stabilisation prepared by Opus International Consultants Ltd. WOW document Ref 39:00)

2. That a sea wall and public access walkway be constructed to protect the 21 houses immediately under threat and tidy up the existing area of ongoing destruction, as the first major step in the wider Walking on Water proposal.

Both the groynes and the first stages of the seawall-walkway are part of a wider community-led proposal. Initial details of construction, cost and an architect’s impression of how the wall and public access walkway would appear are presented in supporting documents. The commissioning of this background work, including consultants report, drawings and specifications, has been generously undertaken by a member of this community, at no cost to ratepayers or the councils involved. We believe to get things moving, the HDC and HBRC need to give this work priority.

3. We seek the backing and support of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the Hastings District Council to help remove the obstacles to these developments being undertaken ‘with urgency’. This means that the councils would either waive any consent costs involved or undertake to absorb any resource consent costs. We would like to see that consent process begun as soon as possible and fast tracked. If it is proven that the obstacles in gaining consent are beyond the powers of either council then we would ask for your support in taking this issue to central government and the Environment Court as the first stage in a major coastal protection infrastructure development. (Ref 36:0, Ref 37:0)

4. Arrange to have one member each from the Hawke’s Bay District Council (HBDC) and Hastings District Council (HDC) as key liaison people for the WOW group as it seeks to strengthen its proposal and streamline resource consents. These persons would be required to attend occasional meetings of the group and speak at public meetings to outline the position being taken at dates to be arranged.  NB: We place a vote of no confidence in Mike Adye who has consistently opposed any hard engineering options in this region and has openly expressed his opposition to such community initiatives.

5. If the councils are not satisfied that the WOW proposals for five groynes and the first stages of a coastal wall and walkway, then we request expressions of interest be called for through a request for information (RFI) from parties interested in the design and construction of the project as outlined.  After evaluation and consultation with the communities involved we would like to see a public tender for construction of groynes and seawall.

This process should include a second and third groyne at the river end of Haumoana (and bolster and tidy the existing structure with regular maintenance which has so far not occurred) with two or more groynes at the southern end of Haumoana Beach where they are most likely to protect the area of coast currently under siege. This must be engineered and designed as part of the walkway. This option, if adopted must be proven to be more cost effective and functional than the existing WOW proposal.

Submission prepared by
Walking on Water (WOW)
An action group nominated to represent citizens of Haumoana, Te Awanga and Clifton, now affiliated as a sub-committee of the Haumoana Ratepayers Association




Contact person and convener:
Ann Redstone
Phone: 06-8750005
Email: agoodin@xtra.co.nz