Beach works mistake hugely frustrating

LETTER

Re: Wainui Beach works: Council ‘now has to fix the problem’, May 8 story.

The collapse of the private wall at Wairere Road, believed to have been there since the 1940s, led to emergency work at a cost of $28,840.

“Because of the haste it was not subject to full structural design . . .” Now the rocks “would need to be removed to gain consent”. Ongoing conflict, it was reported, was the result of tension between protecting private property versus protecting the community beach asset.

Presumably the emergency works have been funded by the 113 beach-front properties. It is extremely disappointing in these strained financial times that nearly $30,000 of contributions has been spent in such haste.

The beach-front community then cannot be assured that those we entrust our money to are following due process and spending our money in line with the beach management strategy. This leads to enormous frustration, and frankly disbelief, that the coffers are to be reached into again “to fix the problem”.

The long-standing “conflict”, trips to the Environment Court and Planning Tribunal, hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants now results in 2017 with not even a “sorry, we have wasted your money”.

From our perspective — those living here overlooking the said dune — we believe the emergency rocks are bedding in successfully to the shape of the dune, trapping sand, and vegetation is establishing and stabilising the area.

We are sorry the mistake was made but surely the rocks can be incorporated into the plan retrospectively. This would ensure the original spend is not wasted, nor money spent removing them.

Can these rocks be left as a trial, to see if these structures might work better on a fierce beach such as Wainui compared to the suggested “sand push-up”?

Could a consent be sought in retrospect, thereby saving money and setting about a trial of this logical engineering structure?

These rocks could be extended down to the Stock route and further, if only to counteract the effect of increased water movement at Wainui from the Sponge Bay housing development.

Don’t we want to protect Wainui Beach so it remains one of New Zealand’s iconic beaches and surf breaks?

Beach community members

Response from GDC management:

We share the frustration of the Wainui community and are also disappointed in the sub-standard process undertaken for emergency works to replace the wall.

Because of the urgency to undertake the works, the construction was not subject to a thorough structural design and no consideration was given to the values of the Wainui Beach Erosion Management Strategy — which was developed with local residents for the purpose of protecting and preserving this iconic beach.

A retrospective resource consent is needed for the work. Coastal engineering consultants Tonkin and Taylor have found the rocks installed behind the wall would need to be removed because they would not meet RMA requirements for the consent. These rocks will likely be reused in the Tuahine Crescent revetment wall.

The council will lodge a consent to implement work on the correct structural design. When this is ready we’ll meet with the residents to present the design and discuss any concern, so people can then make formal submissions through the notified consent process.

In the meantime staff would be happy to meet with the writer and answer any questions.

Re: Wainui Beach works: Council ‘now has to fix the problem’, May 8 story.

The collapse of the private wall at Wairere Road, believed to have been there since the 1940s, led to emergency work at a cost of $28,840.

“Because of the haste it was not subject to full structural design . . .” Now the rocks “would need to be removed to gain consent”. Ongoing conflict, it was reported, was the result of tension between protecting private property versus protecting the community beach asset.

Presumably the emergency works have been funded by the 113 beach-front properties. It is extremely disappointing in these strained financial times that nearly $30,000 of contributions has been spent in such haste.

The beach-front community then cannot be assured that those we entrust our money to are following due process and spending our money in line with the beach management strategy. This leads to enormous frustration, and frankly disbelief, that the coffers are to be reached into again “to fix the problem”.

The long-standing “conflict”, trips to the Environment Court and Planning Tribunal, hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants now results in 2017 with not even a “sorry, we have wasted your money”.

From our perspective — those living here overlooking the said dune — we believe the emergency rocks are bedding in successfully to the shape of the dune, trapping sand, and vegetation is establishing and stabilising the area.

We are sorry the mistake was made but surely the rocks can be incorporated into the plan retrospectively. This would ensure the original spend is not wasted, nor money spent removing them.

Can these rocks be left as a trial, to see if these structures might work better on a fierce beach such as Wainui compared to the suggested “sand push-up”?

Could a consent be sought in retrospect, thereby saving money and setting about a trial of this logical engineering structure?

These rocks could be extended down to the Stock route and further, if only to counteract the effect of increased water movement at Wainui from the Sponge Bay housing development.

Don’t we want to protect Wainui Beach so it remains one of New Zealand’s iconic beaches and surf breaks?

Beach community members

Response from GDC management:

We share the frustration of the Wainui community and are also disappointed in the sub-standard process undertaken for emergency works to replace the wall.

Because of the urgency to undertake the works, the construction was not subject to a thorough structural design and no consideration was given to the values of the Wainui Beach Erosion Management Strategy — which was developed with local residents for the purpose of protecting and preserving this iconic beach.

A retrospective resource consent is needed for the work. Coastal engineering consultants Tonkin and Taylor have found the rocks installed behind the wall would need to be removed because they would not meet RMA requirements for the consent. These rocks will likely be reused in the Tuahine Crescent revetment wall.

The council will lodge a consent to implement work on the correct structural design. When this is ready we’ll meet with the residents to present the design and discuss any concern, so people can then make formal submissions through the notified consent process.

In the meantime staff would be happy to meet with the writer and answer any questions.

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.

Wiki Gerrard - 2 months ago
GDC management can't seem to manage much, rather waste money on consultants - who know what??