Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« Thames Community Board | Main | The Auditor General Responds »

Massive Coromandel Marine Development Explained

Council has today explained how it sees the various projects around Coromandfel Harbour will likely progress.

It is pretty breath-taking in irs scope, and the costs overall falling back on our Council are likely to be substantial, regardless of the remarkable statement by our Mayor Goudie on costs. This is the first time this has occurred since the proposals first came to light, and both she and her successors should be held to account to ensure that this is followed through. Here, it is repeated:

"Our Mayor Sandra Goudie says it's important to be clear any such proposals need to be privately or central government-funded as our Council is in no position to fund them."

This includes the 800m pier proposal to accommodate a 60-80 berth marina by an outfit called the Pier Trust. .

Any marina proposal, and even Gilbert James' remarkable marine facility in Coromandel  town will need to be closely watched to ensure that Council involvement is purely supportive as outlined in the PR, and not financial under any circumstances. The Whitianga Waterways experience, and lessons learnt should never be forgotten in the enthusiasm to get marine/marina facilities up and running. 

But overall, the PR sets out a comprehensive and probably achievable proposal.




PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (5)

It took the best part of 20 years to get Whangamata Marina built, and 11 years for Tairua Marina, neither of which were directly funded by Council (although rate payers did contribute through the back door in both cases in various ways). The impediment to progress will not be in the LTP or any Council decisions, it will be in the RMA process to come in all situations. Council should be very careful to mitigate what could be very sizeable legal costs defending their position in environmental and high court.

May 24, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterHello Sailor

Putting aside for the moment the major environmental problems with dredging up toxic sediment in the Coromandel Harbour, this is just one in a series of recent projects being promoted where the effects of future sea level rise do not seem to have been properly considered. On the one hand we will almost certainly need enhanced sea transport as road links become more problematic – e.g. Thames coast road issues. And it may be possible to engineer a new wharf/Marina to cope with rising seas. But what about the lower parts of Coromandel town itself?. How are these areas to be protected from 2 m of sea level rise – which is the new benchmark approved by the TCDC when it accepted the projections in the latest Government guidance on coastal hazards. A quick look at the indicative coastal flooding maps from regional Council show that just 1 m of sea level rise would inundate all of the Lower Coromandel CBD up to the intersection with State Highway 25. We have to stop looking at individual projects in isolation and start considering the wider cascading threats to the communities that those projects are meant to be serving.

May 25, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterDenis Tegg

2 metre sea level rise.
The pier might need to be a little longer.
I guess on the plus side the 'premium' marina berths will be closer to the Coro CBD.
Anybody in the market for a house boat yet?

May 25, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterRussell

This is a tough subject, and I can understand the need to try and make light of it. But as this editorial in the Dominion Post points out – "Ignorance is bliss – right up until the seawater is soaking through your slippers."

"For flood-prone and coastal property owners it's time for the cold water: scientific consensus is the waters will rise, we can't build seawalls around the whole country, and the chilly sting will be felt whether it's delivered by insurers, government databases or warnings on property LIMs."

So before we start pouring millions of dollars into a few pet projects we first have to consider whether some towns (or large chunks of some towns) actually have a future. There are signs of some progress progress – TCDC has set aside $2.6 million for coastal Hazards and a report released yesterday suggests central government is going to take the lead with a nationwide risk assessment and plan, and resolve the thorny issue of who gets help and who pays.

May 26, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterDenis Tegg

Well said Denis - as usual, you are 'spot-on' with your comments. My impression is that more and more people as taking a very close look at what you have been saying for a very long time, and while presently mute, the pollies are increasingly taking note as if their futures depend on it. Strange that!

May 29, 2018 | Registered CommenterBill Barclay

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>