Agenda of Waitākere Ranges Local Board

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

12 March 2015

Auckland Transport Update Report to Waitakere Ranges Local Board

File No.: CP2015/03054

Executive Summary

1. The purpose of the report is to respond to Local Board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to Elected Members about Auckland Transport’s activities in the Board area.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Receives the Auckland Transport’s Report

b) Approves in principle the concrete footpath with Black Oxide finish as the Board preferred option.

c) Approves that the sum of $217,000 from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund for Project 366, Mountain Road Pathway.

d) Approves an additional $6,000 to undertake consultation with affected parties for project 366, Mountain Road Pathway

Discussion

Monthly Overview and Implementation Issues Update

INFORMATION REPORT

PROGRAMME OF NEW FOOTPATHS IN 2014/15

2. Auckland Transport is unable to progress a programme of new footpaths in 2014/15 due to budgetary constraints and a high volume of other schemes going to construction.

3. It is hoped to restart the programme in 2015/16, subject to funding becoming available through the Long Term Plan.

4. It the interim, it is acknowledged that there are a large number of outstanding requests from members of the public and Local Boards for new footpaths.

5. Attached is a listing of footpath requests previously assessed by AT for design and construction. These schemes have already gone through a prioritisation process with a focus around connecting up with the existing network and linking to key destinations.

6. The Board may wish to consider funding design and construction of some schemes in its area, using the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

7. In order to advance any schemes that the Board wishes to financially support, it is desirable that decisions should be made as soon as possible.

REGIONAL LAND TRANSPORT PLAN (‘RLTP’) CONSULTATION

8. The draft RLTP is being consulted on alongside Council’s Long Term Plan. Both documents were released for public consultation on 23 January.

9. The RLTP represents the combined intentions of Auckland Transport, NZTA, and KiwiRail in terms of forward planning and priorities.

10. The current proposed plan, called the Basic Transport Plan (‘BTP’) in the RLTP, will deliver or complete a number of major projects including cycleways, roading projects in the north-west, a start on the City Rail Link, and progress on a number of public transport improvements. However, the BTP will also see many projects delayed and some pushed out of the ten year plan entirely. For significant progress to be possible on many of the Auckland Plan transport initiatives, alternative funding sources will be required.

11. In response, Auckland Transport looked at a number of options and the Auckland Transport Board has asked management to further investigate light rail as a means of addressing severe congestion and pollution on key bus routes in the longer-term. It was important to signal this as a possibility through the consultation phase, although work is still at a very early stage. The draft RLTP notes that any work on light rail is not currently funded and therefore a key focus going forward will be to identify alternative funding sources.

12. The draft RLTP can be found at www.at.govt.nz, consultation ends 16 March 2015.

Red Light Cameras Programme

13. Police and Auckland Transport are working together to reduce risk for road users at key Auckland intersections by installing red light cameras using NZTA’s methodology to identify intersections where red light cameras would likely enhance road safety.

14. During the period 2009-2013 there were 634 injury crashes and 1277 non-injury crashes caused by red light running in the Auckland area.

15. Based on the NZTA’s analysis, 75 sites were prioritised by Police and AT on the basis of potential crash-reduction savings. Of those, seven new red light camera sites were selected for installation and operation across Auckland in 2015.

16. Police will own and run two digital, dual function cameras capable of recording vehicles that run red lights and/or speed through intersections. They will initially operate in red-light mode only. This will bring the total number of red light camera sites across Auckland to 17.

17. The new cameras further support the wider programmes run by both organisations to encourage safer driving. Auckland Transport has recently delivered a Red Means Stop education and enforcement campaign supported by the Police, and a follow up campaign will be run in February.

Intersection	Owner	Infrastructure installation	Camera in trial mode	Camera in enforcement mode
Auckland CBD – Halsey Street & Fanshawe Street	Auckland Transport	December 2014	December 2014	Late January 2015
Avondale – Ash Street & Rosebank Road	Auckland Transport	December 2014	December 2014	Late January 2015
Pakuranga – Pigeon Mountain & Pakuranga Road	Auckland Transport	December 2014	December 2014	Late January 2015
East Tamaki – Te Irirangi Drive & Smales Road	Auckland Transport	December 2014	December 2014	Late January 2015
East Tamaki – Chapel Road & Stancombe Road	Auckland Transport	December 2014	December 2014	Late January 2015
Lambie Drive Interchange (east-bound off-ramp)	Police/Auckland Motorways Alliance	December 2014	January 2015	2015
Botany – Te Irirangi & Tī Rakau Drives	Police/Auckland Transport	December 2014	January 2015	2015

Streamlining Funding Model Developed Between AT and NZTA

18. The Transport Agency funds that are distributed to Local Bodies and organisations like Auckland Transport are gathered from excise duties on fuel, road user charges and vehicle registration fees and re-invested in transport-related projects. These funds help Councils and their Organisations deliver a range of public transport, roading and cycling and walking projects for their communities.

19. A new process has been developed by the NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport to allow more efficient use of staff time and resources in the assessment and prioritisation of funding proposals. Previously, both the Transport Agency and Auckland Transport would separately assess and prioritise/rate requests for funds.

20. Under the “one stop shop” designed by the two organisations, Auckland Transport can now assess projects up to $5m against the Transport Agency criteria itself without having to send its applications to the NZTA. Previously, funding requests required two separate assessments – one from NZTA and one from Auckland Transport – a process that sometimes led to duplicated effort.

21. Auckland Transport can now manage the new process for projects up to $5m on its own. The NZ Transport Agency’s confidence in AT reflects the strong relationship staff from the two organisations have developed, and the fact that both organisations have a good understanding of each other’s objectives and priorities.

22. The new process is expected to speed up approvals and result in lower administration costs. A station upgrade at Swanson on the western line is the first project to be approved under the new process.

LOCAL BOARD TRANSPORT FUND APPLICATIONS

23. Attached is the current Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Financial update for the Local Board’s information.

CAPTAIN SCOTT ROAD STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT APPLICATION

Update

24. Auckland Transport is currently carrying out a traffic volume/pedestrians survey on Captain Scott Road/West Coast Road intersection and the adjacent intersections. The purpose of this survey is to gather the essential information to allow AT to assess the impact of closing Captain Scott Road for traffic. As you may appreciate that when Captain Scott Road is closed for traffic, the traffic that was using Captain Scott will be diverted to the adjacent roads ie. Glendale Road and Bowers Road. Auckland Transport want to make sure these two roads are able to cope with the increase of traffic volumes. An update for the Local Board will be available in April 2015 once surveys are completed.

MOUNTAIN ROAD PATHWAY

25. As part of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund, the Waitakere Ranges Local Board is considering allocating some of their LBTCF to build a walking trail from Mountain Road to Opanuku pipeline track, a a distance of approximately 750m. The Local Board approved $15,000 for Auckland Transport to investigate options. A workshop was held on 26 February 2015 where the Local Board considered which option they would like to commit funds to.

Conclusion

26. Auckland Transport wants the Local Board to allocate the sum of $217,000 from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund, to the preferred option, (from Auckland Transport perspective - concrete footpath with Black Oxide finish) for Project 366, Mountain Road Pathway.

27. Also that the Local Board approve $6,000 to undertake consultation on the concept with the affected parties. It is important for the Local Board to note that subject to the outcome of consultation will determine what steps happen next.

ORATIA PROJECTS

28. As part of the Local Board Transport Capital fund, the Waitakere Ranges Local Board is considering allocating some of their LBTCF to the following projects in Oratia, which includes footpaths on both northern and southern sides of West Coast Road, kerb build outs and a pedestrian refuge on Shaw Road near its intersection with West Coast Road, and a parking reassessment on the southern side of West Coast Road, for further parking.

Update

29. The Local Board will need to decide how they would like to proceed with these applications.

RESPONSES AND PROGRESS REPORTS

PROPOSED PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON SUNNYSIDE ROAD & SUNHILL ROAD, SUNNYVALE

30. Auckland Transport has reviewed all comments from the previous consultation for parking restrictions on Sunnyside Road and Sunhill Road and Auckland Transport provides the Local Board with this update. During the consultation, concerns were received from affected residents that parking restrictions on the narrow section of Sunhill Road will encourage drivers to park vehicles on the road berms at times of high parking demand. Therefore, AT have decided to proceed with only the proposed parking restrictions at the bend of the intersection of Sunhill Road/Sunnyside Road at this stage. However AT will keep monitoring safety and operational issues related to parked cars on the narrow section of Sunhill Road and re-consider parking restrictions if necessary.

PARRS CROSS ROAD, GLEN EDEN-PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND

31. As part of the region-wide Safety Improvement Programme, Auckland Transport has identified the need to improve the operation and safety for pedestrians at the pedestrian refuge island located outside 125D Parrs Cross Road.

The proposed improvements include:

· Installation of new side islands and an upgrade of the existing pedestrian refuge. The upgraded pedestrian facility will significantly reduce the crossing distance for pedestrian.

· Installation of the ‘No Stopping at All Times’ road making as shown on the attached plan. This will result in loss of some on-street parking spaces. However, this is essential to improve pedestrian safety by providing a better view of approaching traffic as well as making pedestrians more conspicuous to drivers.

· Associated pram crossings, road marking and lighting improvements.

Response from the Local Board

32. The Local Board Transport Portfolio holder was happy in principle with what was being proposed.

PROPOSED UPGRADE TO BUS STOP INFRASTRUCTURE – CAPTAIN SCOTT ROAD, GLEN EDEN.

33. Auckland Transport PT has undertaken a review of the existing bus stops infrastructure along Captain Scott Road, this review has been undertaken to investigate the most appropriate locations for the upgraded infrastructure that will optimise the operation, while providing an overall consistency in design for the network. This review proposes the upgrade of three existing bus stops locations with the relocation of two additional bus stop locations along Captain Scott Road, in the Glen Eden suburb of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area. The area subject to this review is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Captain Scott Road Bus Stop Locations

34. Three bus stops have been identified for upgrade:

· Outside 18 Captain Scott Road.

· Outside 52 Routley Drive (located on Captain Scott Road).

· Outside 76 Captain Scott Road.

35. Two bus stops have been identified for relocation:

· Relocation of the existing bus stop from outside 44 to outside 50 Captain Scott Road.

· Relocation of the existing bus stop from outside 69 to outside 63 Captain Scott Road.

36. Auckland Transport is now moving to consult directly affected landowners, residents, and businesses on the proposed changes.

Detailed information on individual changes

37. Please find below details of the upgrade and relocation of the bus stops along this section of Captain Scott Road, Glen Eden.

Outside 18 Captain Scott Road

· Problem

The existing bus stop is unmarked and not installed to Auckland Transport’s Code of Practice (ATCOP) standards.

· Proposed Solution

An upgrade of the existing unmarked bus stop by relocating the sign to allow for a 9.0m exit taper of no stopping parking restriction, a 15.0m marked out bus box with a lead in taper to the bus stop by using the existing no stopping restriction.

· Benefits

The main benefit of this proposal is that the installation will better identify the location that is reserved for buses only and will provide additional manoeuvring space for buses to exit the bus stop freely.

· Disadvantages and Mitigation

The disadvantage to this proposal is the loss of an additional three on street parking spaces.

Relocated from outside 44 to outside 50 Captain Scott Road

· Problem

The existing bus stop is parallel to its pair stop outside 52 Routley Drive (located on Captain Scott Road) and is unmarked and not installed to ATCOP standards.

· Proposed Solution

Relocate the bus stop to outside 50 Captain Scott Road to ATCOP standards. This will require the installation of a new bus stop sign with adjacent 15.0m marked out bus box, a 13.0m exit taper of no stopping parking restriction utilising the exiting vehicle entrances and a 16.0m lead in taper to the bus stop of no stopping parking restriction.

· Benefits

The main benefit of this proposal is the introduction of a staggered pair of bus stops to avoid conflict of traffic lane use if both stops are occupied at the same time. Another benefit of the upgrade to the bus stop is this will better identify the location that is reserved for buses only and will provide additional manoeuvring space for buses to exit the bus stop freely.

· Disadvantages and Mitigation

The disadvantage to this proposal is the loss of an additional two on street parking spaces.

Outside 52 Routley Drive (located on Captain Scott Road)

· Problem

The existing bus stop is unmarked and not installed to ATCOP standards.

· Proposed Solution

An upgrade of the existing unmarked bus stop by relocating the bus stop sign so it is adjacent to the existing shelter, installing a 9.0m exit taper of no stopping parking restriction, a 15.0m marked out bus box and a 15.0m lead in taper to the bus stop of no stopping parking restriction.

· Benefits

The main benefit of this proposal is that the upgrading of the existing layout will ensure that the bus will stop adjacent to the bus shelter. Another benefit is that the introduction of road markings for the bus stop and the additional no stopping restrictions which will better identify the location that is reserved for buses only and will provide additional manoeuvring space for buses to enter and exit the bus stop freely.

· Disadvantages and Mitigation

The disadvantage to this proposal is the loss of an additional three on street parking spaces.

Relocated from outside 69 to outside 63 Captain Scott Road

· Problem

The existing bus stop is located in the intersection of Terra Nova Street and Captain Scott Road and is unmarked and not installed to ATCOP standards.

· Proposed Solution

Relocate the bus stop to outside 63 Captain Scott Road to ATCOP standards. This will require the installation of a new bus stop sign with adjacent 15.0m marked out bus box, with a 19.0m lead in taper to the bus stop of no stopping parking restriction and exit taper of no stopping parking restriction.

· Benefits

The main benefit of this proposal is the relocation of the bus stop away from the intersection to reduce the opportunity for possible conflict with vehicles entering and exiting Terra Nova Street and continuing along Captain Scott Road. Another benefit of the upgrade to the bus stop is that this will better identify the location that is reserved for buses only and will provide additional manoeuvring space for buses to exit the bus stop freely.

· Disadvantages and Mitigation

The disadvantage to this proposal is the loss of an additional five on street parking spaces.

Outside 76 Captain Scott Road

· Problem

The existing bus stop is unmarked and not installed to ATCOP standards.

· Proposed Solution

An upgrade of the existing unmarked bus stop by relocating the sign to allow for an exit taper over existing vehicle entrances, a 15.0m marked out bus box with a 15.0m lead in taper to the bus stop of no stopping parking restriction.

· Benefits

This installation will better identify the location that is reserved for buses only and will provide additional manoeuvring space for buses to exit the bus stop freely.

· Disadvantages and Mitigation

The disadvantage to this proposal is the loss of an additional two on street parking spaces.

The bus stops proposed to be upgraded are:

· Outside 18 Captain Scott Road.

· Outside 52 Routley Drive (located on Captain Scott Road).

· Outside 76 Captain Scott Road.

The bus stops proposed to be relocated are:

· Relocation of the existing bus stop from outside 44 to outside 50 Captain Scott Road.

· Relocation of the existing bus stop from outside 69 to outside 63 Captain Scott Road.

Response from the Local Board

The Local Board Transport Portfolio holder was happy in principle with what was being proposed.

CONSULTATION FOR PROPOSED THRESHOLD TREATMENT ON BETHELLS ROAD BETWEEN WAITAKERE ROAD AND WAIRERE ROAD

38. Auckland Transport (AT) would like to improve and increase drivers’ awareness at the 50km/h speed limit section of Bethells Road. The current threshold treatment conditions are not obvious to drivers.

Proposal

39. Auckland Transport proposes to remove the existing red patch ‘SLOW’ marking and install a new kerb buildout with planting and red patch ‘SLOW’ marking with 50/70 speed limit signs. This would provide drivers with a clear message to slow down their speed while driving through this section of road.

Response from the Local Board

40. The Local Board Transport Portfolio holder had no comments on this proposal.

PROPOSED PARKING CHANGE ON HORSMAN ROAD, WAITAKERE

41. Auckland Transport (AT) has recently received a number of complaints regarding visitor parking at the entrance to Goldies Bush on Horsman Road. AT has investigated this complaint and has identified two issues which appear to occur most notably during the weekends and the holiday periods.

42. Firstly AT acknowledges that there is limited space around the entrance to the Goldies Bush trail to accommodate visitor parking and that there is a risk that entrances to properties could be obstructed by parked vehicles.

43. Secondly Horsman Road varies in width and should vehicles park on both sides there are sections where the road would be impassable to most vehicles. This issue raised safety concerns amongst residents should emergency vehicles need access. AT considers the final section of approximately 180m to be most at risk of obstruction should vehicles park on both sides of the road. Horsman Road is a right hand bend in the final approach to Goldies Bush and vehicles parked on the eastern side can also reduce visibility.

44. AT recognises that there will continue to be demand for parking in this area and it is unlikely that this demand will reduce over time, however it is considered that this demand is confined to peak periods over the weekends and the holiday period. AT feels that restricting both sides of Horsman Road would be excessive and is therefore proposing to restrict the eastern side of Horsman Road as No Stopping At All Times from the entrance to Goldies Bush for a distance of 180m, see attached plan. This will resolve the problems outlined above.

Response from the Local Board

45. The Local Board Transport Portfolio holder had no comments on this proposal.

BETHELLS ROAD YELLOW NO-PARKING LINES REQUEST

46. Auckland Transport has received a request from a resident at Bethells Beach requesting the installation of broken yellow lines for people parking and walking to Lake Wainamu.

Update

47. Auckland Transport has carried out consultation with the affected parties. Auckland Transport has begun processing the resolution process and AT expects to have the restrictions installed in 3-6 weeks.

SAFETY CONCERNS AT CAPTAIN SCOTT ROAD AND WEST COAST ROAD

48. The Glen Eden Business Association, through the Local Board public forum, requested that Auckland Transport investigate safety concerns at the corner of Captain Scott Road and West Coast Road.

Update

49. More time is required to complete Auckland Transport’s investigation. A route optimisation has been done recently, however Auckland Transport now needs to do further investigation, such as traffic/pedestrian counts and traffic modeling, before determining if a problem exists and what solution is required. The Local Board can expect to receive an update by mid-March 2015.

SWANSON PARK AND RIDE UPDATE

Update

50. The key point for the Local Board to note is that the station works is not being progressed until further notice due to budgetary constraints. Once the LTP is consulted and adopted by mid 2015 AT should have a clearer picture of when the station works will be progressed.

As for the Park n Ride

• The works are on site and progressing well.

• Interaction with the adjacent Penihana site is working well.

• Storm water connections are being coordinated with the Penihana site.

• Earthworks are on programme with full site works restarting today after xmas.

• Project is on target for completion by early May 2015.

WAITAKERE RANGES DESIGN GUIDELINE UPDATE

51. The draft guideline has been made available to the Local Board, and Auckland Transport will be attending a workshop with the Board to discuss the draft and receive feedback on it. In a change to the previously proposed process, AT will be commissioning the work required to populate the guideline with photographs and illustrations relevant to the local area, following the workshop with the local board. Consultation with external stakeholders will go ahead in mid April 2015 once the draft document has been updated with photos and illustrations.

52. The guideline will be incorporated into the Auckland Transport Code of Practice, and the date of publishing will be timed to coordinate with the release of this.

NEW FOOTPATH REQUEST SHETLAND STREET

53. Auckland Transport has received a request for a new footpath through the Local Board Transport Lead.

Update

54. Auckland Transport has added this to the new footpath list for assessment.

ISSUES COMPLETED
Subject Name	Decision Description	Date Requested	Completion date
Proposal To Install A ‘No Stopping At All Times’ (Nsaat) Broken Yellow Lines’ Parking Restriction At Bethells Road, Bethells Beach.	Auckland Transport proposes to install NSAAT restrictions on Bethells Road from the bridge directly south of Tasman View Road to the Bethells Beach car park. The Local Board Transport Portfolio holder had no comments on this proposal.	November 2014	December 2014
Proposed Bus Stop And Shelters -112 Atkinson Road And 162 Atkinson Road	Auckland Transport does not believe that any changes are required to the proposal as a result of the feedback received and will be proceeding with the proposal of installing a new bus stop and shelters on Atkinson Road. The Local Board Transport Portfolio holder was happy with what was being proposed.	November 2014	December 2014
Shaw Road, Oratia - No Overtaking Lines Auckland Transport Is Proposing To Extend The Extent	The Local Board Transport Portfolio holder was happy with what was being proposed.	November 2014	December 2014
Crash Reduction – Henderson Valley Road / Pine Avenue / Parrs Cross Road Intersection Upgrade And Gateway Treatment	Auckland Transport is committed to improving road safety and reducing the number of fatal and serious injuries on the road network. The intersection of Henderson Valley Road / Pine Avenue / Parrs Cross Road was studied as part of the crash reduction route study of Henderson Valley Road. The Local Board Transport Portfolio holder was happy with what was being proposed	November 2014	December 2014
Proposal For Yellow No Parking Restrictions At Withers Road, Glen Eden	The Local Board Transport Portfolio holder was happy with what was being proposed.	November 2014	December 2014
Proposed Changes To The 100km/H Speed Limit Along Waitakere Road	Setting speed limits to reflect the road environment will encourage motorists to drive to the appropriate speed. This has the potential to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes. Waitakere Road has been identified as a high risk rural road within the Auckland Region. Crash data indicates that over the past five years there have been 44 crashes reported along Waitakere Road and 15 of these occurred on the 100km/h section. Of these fifteen crashes, six resulted in a fatal or serious injury. Auckland Transport is proposing to change the speed limits on that portion of the road currently a derestricted zone to 80km/h. The designated speed limits applying for the balance of Waitakere Road will remain unchanged. The Local Board Transport Portfolio holder was happy with what was being proposed.	November 2014	December 2014
1250 Parrs Cross Road, Glen Eden-Pedestrian Refuge	Installation of new 'No Stopping At All Times' road marking as shown on the attached plan. This will result in loss of some on-street parking spaces. However, this is essential to improve pedestrian safety by providing a better view of approaching traffic as well as making pedestrians more conspicuous to drivers. Associated pram crossings, road marking and lighting improvements. The Local Board Transport Portfolio holder was happy with what was being proposed.	November 2014	December 2014
Safety Concerns And Maintenance Of The Road Corridor At The Intersection Of Albionvale Road And West Coast Road.	Auckland Transport is proposing road marking improvements, these will allow motorists adequate visibility past the indented bus stop. Auckland Transport have considered relocating the bus stop, however this is undesirable as it would be too close to other bus stops to the east or west of the intersection.	November 2014	December 2014

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Update for Local Board	23
b View	AT - Waitakere Ward, 125 Parrs Cross Road - GE Pedestrian Refuge Island	25
c View	AT - Rural Speed Threshold Treatment - Bethalls Road General Layout 1 & 2	27
d View	AT - Proposed Parking Restriction change on Horsman Road, Waitakere	29

Signatories

Authors	Owena Schuster, Elected Member Relationship Manager (West), Auckland Transport
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

12 March 2015

Auckland Transport Quarterly Report to Waitakere Ranges Local Board

File No.: CP2015/01972

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to inform local boards about progress on activities undertaken by Auckland Transport in the three months October – December 2014 and the planned activities anticipated to be undertaken in the three months January – March 2015.

2. Attachments include:

· A – Auckland Transport activities

· B – Travelwise Schools activities

· C – Decisions of the Traffic Control Committee

· D – Report against local board advocacy issues

· E – Report on the status of the local board’s projects under the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Receives the Auckland Transport Quarterly Report

Significant activities during the period under review

Key Agency Initiatives

East West Connections

1. The recent community engagement on options received 120 online or written pieces of feedback, with more than 200 people attending open days, meetings, workshops and hui. This feedback is now being analysed and a summary of comments will be released in early 2015.

PT Development

Half Moon Bay Ferry Upgrade

2. The site investigation for this project is underway with initial consenting, marine survey and structural design works progressing in support of an Auckland Transport request to the Howick Local Board for joint project funding. Design work and the construction of the pontoon and gangway are programmed for 2015 with the physical works and construction in 2016.

City Rail Link

3. Auckland Transport is establishing a Community Liaison Group (CLG) for the CRL enabling works in the Britomart and Albert Street areas that may start in late 2015. Members of the CLG will include representatives of affected property owners or occupiers, CBD residents and others. This group will meet on a regular basis as the project progresses.

EMU Procurement

4. There are now 38 units in NZ with 28 of these being issued provisional acceptance. Manukau services are now run entirely with Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) and testing of these on the Western line to Swanson is progressing well. Manufacture and delivery is on programme.

Pukekohe Bus Rail Interchange

5. Funding of $1 million has been made available in the 2014/15 financial year to permit a phased ‘building block’ approach to deliver the bus and rail interchange.

6. The first phase delivers basic bus interchange infrastructure to accommodate the new bus network in late 2015.

PT Operations

Bus Improvements

7. Public Transport patronage totaled 74,506,244 passenger trips for the twelve months to October 2014 an overall increase of 7.7% on the previous year. Rail patronage totaled 12,124,025, up 17.6%, the Northern Express 2,580,225, up by 12.4%, other bus services 54,713,200, up by 6.25% and, ferry services carried 5,088,794 passenger, up slightly on the previous year.

Rail Improvements

8. Train timetables have been over-hauled and there is now an at least half hourly service on all lines, day and night, seven days a week, until the normal close of services on particular lines.

9. During peak travel times the southern and eastern lines now have six trains an hour with 3 trains per hour inter-peak. The Onehunga line has half-hourly services, all day, seven days a week. On the western line peak services remain at fifteen minute intervals with half-hourly inter-peak, evenings and weekends.

Ferry Improvements

10. An application from Explorer Group to operate ferry services from Downtown to Waiheke has been accepted and a service of twelve sailings a day commenced shortly after Labour Weekend.

11. Fullers have just commissioned a new vessel the Kotuku. She will operate across a number of Fuller’s services, including Waiheke.

Road Design and Development

Dominion Road

12. The cycle routes are progressing well with road works almost completed. New wayfinding signage is in the hands of a specialist supplier and is due for installation.

Albany Highway

13. Construction has commenced and major earth movements are underway opposite the Albany Senior College. New traffic controls are in place at the southern end of the works as preparations are made for building retaining walls and install drainage.

Tamaki Drive/Ngapipi Road Intersection

14. Detailed Design continues with consent applications due for submission early in 2015.

Lincoln Road Improvements

15. The registration of interest (ROI) has been completed and the shortlisted consultants have been invited to participate in the second stage of the tendering process for the detailed design phase. Property acquisition has been commenced.

Redoubt-Mill Road upgrade

16. Auckland Transport has identified the route for the upgrade of Redoubt Road-Mill Road corridor and applied to Auckland Council to designate land (Notices of Requirement) for the project. Letters and information has been sent to landowners to notify them of the route identified and the NoR lodgement. The council is expected to publicly notify the Notices of Requirement (NoR) for the designation in early 2015.

Cycle Initiatives

17. An information day has been held to share design concepts for the second stage of the Beach Road walking and cycling project. Stage two will deliver a streetscape upgrade and continue the cycleway along Beach Road from the intersection with Mahuhu Crescent through to Britomart Place. Construction is expected to begin in February and to be completed in July.

Services

Cycling

18. More than 90 women participated in the inaugural Frocks on Bikes event held at Hurstmere Green in Takapuna. The event labeled a ‘Summer Fling’ is part of Auckland Transport’s ‘Cyclings the go’ programme which is designed to encourage more Aucklanders to take up cycling for recreation, health and as a credible form of transport.

Shop by Rail

19. Auckland Transport launched a pre-Christmas awareness campaign highlighting how easy it is to access major shopping precincts around Auckland by train. The ‘Shopping Adventures by Train’ advertising directed Christmas shoppers to retail centres at Downtown Auckland, New Lynn, Manukau, Sylvia Park, Onehunga, Newmarket and Henderson.

Commute Travel Planning Programme

20. A national “Let’s Carpool’ survey was undertaken with those registered on the ‘Let’s Carpool’ website and 19.5% of the Auckland respondents identified carpooling as their main mode of travelling to work.

21. The completed report ‘Auckland Tertiary Institutions: Developing a Stategic Approach to Travel Planning 2014-2016, will be the basis of consultation on travel planning with tertiary institutions. The Commute team will be working closely with the Public Transport team to develop an on-line campaign to promote public transport and travel choices to tertiary institutions and their students.

Road Corridor Delivery

22. Good progress has been made with the delivery of the pavement rehabilitation and resurfacing programmes with 11.1 km of pavement rehabilitation and 187.1 km of resurfacing completed to date. We are on track to achieve the target lengths with this work expected to be substantially complete by the end of March 2015.

23. The table below outlines the target lengths set for the full year and progress to date:

Table 1: Renewal Target lengths

Work Activity	2014/15 Target lengths (km)	Completed lengths as at 31/12/14 (km)
Rehabilitation	37.4	11.1
Resurfacing	427.4	187.1
Footpaths	116.7	62.4
Total	581.5	260.6

24. Expressions of Interest have been sought in respect to the carrying out of street light maintenance across the region. The Expression of Interest (EOI) process will result in a shortlist of participants who will then be invited to participate in a Request for Tender (RFT) process in the New Year. There will be four geographically based contracts - North, South, Central and West.

25. These contracts will each be for a term of 4 years (with an option for two extensions of one year each at Auckland Transport’s discretion) and will commence on 1 July 2015. No contractor will be able to win or participate in more than two of the four contracts.

26. The work includes the carrying out of all maintenance, renewals and minor capital works on the street lighting network. It also includes the replacement of the existing 70W high pressure sodium luminaires with approved LED luminaires.

27. Tenders have been called for the carrying out of a number of pavement rehabilitation projects in the west and south areas. The work tendered comprises 15-20% of the total pavement rehabilitation programmes for these areas. The remaining projects are being carried out through our 10 area-based road maintenance contracts.

28. The purpose of tendering this work is to provide an opportunity for contractors other than our road maintenance contractors to bid for this work and also to benchmark the tendered rates in these contracts against the rates in our existing road maintenance contracts. This is part of an on-going commitment to maintain a sustainable contracting environment in the Auckland region.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
A	Schedule of activities undertaken for the second quarter (2014/15) ending 31 December 2014 and forward works programme for the third quarter (2014/15) ending 31 March 2015.
B	Travelwise Schools activities broken down by Local Board
C	Traffic Control Committee Decisions
D	Local Board Advocacy Report
E	Local Board Transport Capital Fund Report

Signatories

Authors	Various Auckland Transport authors
Authoriser	Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of activities undertaken for the sendon quarter (2014/15) ending 31 December 2014 and forward works programme for the third quarter (21014/15) ending 31 March 2015	37
b View	Travelwise Schools activities broken down by Local Board	51
c View	Traffic Control Committee Decisions	53
d View	Local Board Advocacy Report	55
e View	Local Baord Transport Capital Fund Report	57

Signatories

Authors	Tua Viliamu - Administrator Local Board and Reporting
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

12 March 2015

Consultation Feedback on Options to Mitigate Erosion along the Huia Domain Shoreline and Seawall

File No.: CP2015/00248

Purpose

1. To summarise feedback received during public consultation with respect to management options seeking to mitigate the effects of erosion along the Huia Domain shoreline and seawall.

Executive Summary

2. Public consultation seeking feedback on options to mitigate erosion at Huia Domain was undertaken between December 16^th 2014 and January 23^rd 2015 with known Huia-Cornwallis stakeholders and local residents.

3. A public meeting was held on December 16^th 2014 at the Huia-Cornwallis Ratepayers and Residents Association Hall. A hard copy of the options comparison was made available at the Huia Café and Store, as well has a copy made available online.

4. Two primary options to mitigate erosion along the Huia Domain shoreline and seawall were presented for feedback:

· Option 1: Repair and extension of the seawall; and

· Option 2: Removal of the seawall in order to restore a more natural coastal edge.

5. Consultation findings show opinion on this issue was largely in support of option 1, to repair and extend the seawall, with 70% of the submissions received, compared to option 2, to remove the seawall and restore a more natural coastal edge, receiving support from 30% of the submissions.

6. A further submission from a community collective of 130 people (2 already submitted separately) was received and requested a third option to be considered where a new seawall is built in place of the current seawall and extended in front of the toilet block.

7. The consultation feedback is largely in favour of retaining a seawall, but replacing the existing structure with an engineered rock masonry wall that does not require the provision of rock rip rap (initially identified as the material to be used for a basic repair).

8. The estimated cost of an engineered rock masonry wall is greatly higher compared to removal or repair of the existing seawall (see Attachment E). In addition, confirmation is provided that the regulatory framework (see Attachment F) requires consideration to be given to management options other than structural defences where possible, for example managed realignment.

9. Further public engagement is recommended to better inform stakeholders and residents of the research and refinement of options which have been completed to date. This will include the advantages and potential limitations of each option presented and required reference to the regulatory framework and related resource consenting requirements which will need to be factored into any preference(s).

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Receives the consultation findings to date for options to mitigate erosion along the Huia Domain shoreline and seawall.

b) Endorses the consultation plan proposed for further public engagement in order to provide the Huia stakeholders and residents with more comprehensive information around the options to mitigate erosion along the Huia Domain shoreline and seawall.

Discussion

10. The Huia Domain shoreline and seawall has been eroding over the last few years. Auckland Council engaged Tonkin and Taylor Ltd. (T&T) in 2013 to provide long term options that assist mitigating the erosion (see Attachment A). The recent acceleration in erosion and deterioration of the seawall integrity required a more urgent response and prompted a revision of T&Ts recommendations to two main options, either to repair the seawall (see Attachment B) or to remove it via a process of managed realignment (see Attachment C).

11. The two options were presented for public feedback as below:

Option 1: Repair and extend the seawall

· Rock riprap along base.

· Western extension of seawall past toilet block.

· Provision of fill and improved drainage immediately landward of seawall to obviate scour during overtopping events.

· Targeted beach sand redistribution to provide an additional storm buffer and improve amenity.

Option 2: Remove the seawall and restore a more natural coastal edge.

· Removal of the seawall and several trees to restore a natural coastal edge and related coastal processes.

· Relocation of high value park infrastructure, including toilet, playground and basketball court.

· Improved access, amenity and related use.

· Improved ability for the beach to respond to storm events and related effects of climate change (sea level rise).

· Diminished requirement for enduring maintenance or structural repairs.

12. 84 submissions were received for the two options that were presented for consultation. The support for the preferred erosion mitigation option has been recorded as follows:

Option	Percentage in support
1 - Repair and extend the seawall	71%
2 - Remove the seawall and restore a natural coastal edge	29%

13. A full list of submissions can be viewed in Attachment D - “Huia Domain Erosion Received Submissions”.

14. A number of submissions included comments that raised concerns around the extent erosion would continue if the seawall was to be removed, particularly after taking into account future sea level rise. The possibility that the reserve and surrounding properties would be flooded was of particular concern.

15. Many comments in support of retaining the seawall (repair or new) note some uncertainty around how much of the reserve would be lost through managed realignment, with some concerns the entire reserve would be replaced with beach.

16. The potential to lose a portion of the grassed reserve to beach was also mentioned by a number of submissions. Concerns were raised around future space for locals and visitors to enjoy the reserve, particularly during busy summer periods, as well as a desire to preserve a large playing field for casual sports games to use.

17. Many of the submissions that were in support of repairing the seawall commented on the number of times the seawall had been fixed in the past and advocated to “fix it once and fix it right”.

18. Concerns were also raised around the loss of the large shade trees that hold heritage value to a number of residents, one of which (the Norfolk Island Pine) is listed as a heritage tree in the Waitakere City District Plan.

19. Further to the options presented for consultation, a third option was proposed by a community collective following a community meeting held independent of the consultation process. The submission proposed Option 3 as follows:

· To keep the Huia Domain totally intact by constructing a well-engineered seawall, from the end of the toilet block to the Upland Road car park.

· The wall to be constructed so that it can be added to in height, if required over time.

· A 1.5m footpath should run along the top rear to the wall.

· No rip rap along the shoreline.

· Boat access via the existing ramp to remain.

20. 130 signatures (including 2 that already submitted separately) accompanied the submission advocating option 3. Taking option 3 into account, the percentage of support for each option have been revised as follows:

Option	Percentage in support
1 - Repair and extend the seawall	27%
2 - Remove the seawall and restore a natural coastal edge	11%
3 - Construct a new seawall	62%

21. Auckland Council requested T&T to prepare a high level feasibility assessment for Option 3 and provide a price comparison. Attachment E outlines how option 3 would be achieved and provides a rough order of costs for the coastal aspects of works for all three options. Taking the reserve works into account (relocation of toilet, playground, half court and car park) for Option 2 the estimated costs (rounded to 4 decimal places) can be compared as below:

Option	Cost Estimate
1 - Repair and extend the seawall (provision of rock rip rap adjacent to existing seawall and suitable drainage)	$560,000
2 - Remove the seawall and restore a natural coastal edge (including reserve works)	$860,000
3 - Construct a new seawall which extends past the toilet block (exclusion of rock rip rap in lieu of a preference for rock masonry)	$1,840,000

22. To note that the toilet block may still need to be relocated following repair or construction of a new seawall as overtopping during storm events is still likely to occur, having an impact on the toilet facilities.

23. However, this would not be urgent such as would be required for option 2 as the impacts could be managed until the toilet bock is scheduled for renewal.

24. Guidance provided by the Auckland Council consents and compliance team (see Attachment F) identifies that the regulatory documents such as the Resource Management Act (RMA), Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, Auckland Regional Policy Statement, Auckland Council Regional Plan and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, are generally in support of a managed realignment approach.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

25. A workshop was held with the Local Board on February 12^th 2015 to discuss the options to mitigate erosion along the Huia Domain shoreline and seawall. Public feedback received to date was also provided to the Local Board.

26. The Local Board requested further consultation with the public to provide more detail around each option, including the estimated cost and associated regulatory framework implications.

Maori Impact Statement

27. Local iwi were included in this consultation as stakeholders for the Huia Domain costal area.

28. Te Kawerau A Maki showed support for restoring the natural coastal edge and asked to be involved in the decision-making process going forward.

29. Ngāti Tamaoho noted that they have an interest in Huia but are happy to refer to resident iwi; however they are supportive of option 2.

Summary of feedback

30. It appears that while support is largely in favour of retaining the seawall, the community are not in favour of a repair that would require the use of rock rip rap.

31. The cost to build a highly engineered wall is very large compared to removal or repair (see Attachment E). Due to the current economic climate and commitment to predetermined capital projects, provision of funding for option 3 would not be supported by Auckland Council.

32. Further public engagement is recommended to better inform stakeholders and residents of the technical considerations of each option, as well as the estimated cost and regulatory framework implications that accompanies each option.

33. A consultation plan (see Attachment G) has been proposed in order to continue public engagement around the options to mitigate erosion along the Huia Domain shoreline and seawall.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Huia Domain Erosion: Issues and Options	65
b View	Huia Domain Erosion: Seawall Repair Options Memo	137
c View	Huia Domain Erosion: Managed Realignment Option	141
d View	Huia Domain Erosion Received Submissions	203
e View	Huia Domain Erosion: Option 3 comparison Memo	209
f View	Auckland Council Consents and Compliance memo	213
g View	Huia Domain Consultation Plan - Stage Two	217

Signatories

Authors

Kaitlyn White - Park Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

12 March 2015

No.	Option 1: Do you support to repair and extend the seawall?		Option 2: Do you support to remove the seawall?		Comments/Suggestions
No.	Yes	No	Yes	No	Comments/Suggestions
1	0	1	1	0	We were convinced by the presentation at the Huia Hall that to restore the natural coastal edge is the better option. This option retains the beach which is important as it is only useable for swimming and boating around the high tide time. Placing rocks in a similar way to that of the sea wall approaching Little Huia would render the beach virtually unusable for recreational use. If this method was used then consideration would need to be given to raising the level of all of the surface of the reserve as it already floods and gets inundated by the sea in bad weather. Investigation of the need for the drain running parallel to the road needs to be done as it would be a boon if it could be done away with. There will need to be a car park next to the play area. In our view a simply designed toilet with two pans and nothing else would suffice. There is great scepticism about the costs of the project. Experienced members of the community are certain that the cost will be substantially more than the estimates given at the meeting. Finally, we would like to congratulate the Residents and Ratepayers and Auckland Council for a very well thought out and presented presentation and particular thanks to the presenter whose name escapes us.
2	1	0	0	1	Nil
3	1	0	0	1	Nil
4	1	0	0	1	Nil
5	1	0	0	1	Nil
6	1	0	0	1	Fix wall properly with footings and structure.
7	1	0	0	1	Fix once properly.
8	1	0	0	1	Fix once right.
9	1	0	0	1	Fix once and fix right.
10	1	0	0	1	Nil
11	1	0	0	1	Please fix properly with wood
12	0	1	1	0	Let the water do its own stuff. Don't put my rates up.
13	0	1	1	0	Fix wall properly with footing and structure.
14	1	0	0	1	Fix wall to good standard.
15	1	0	0	1	The only flat grass area in Huia. Local children use all the time. Very popular for picnic and large gatherings.
16	1	0	0	0	Nil
17	1	0	0	0	Do a proper job so it doesn't breakdown in 5 years.
18	1	0	0	1	Leave all things alone. Repair sea wall and boat ramp on point and leave all else as is.
19	1	0	0	1	It is a seawall. Get it engineered properly. Do it once. Get it right, "first time". It is the only flat land around the bay for recreational use. Pipe the open drain beside the main road and raise the ground level to road height.
20	1	0	1	0	I think repairing the wall is a good short term answer. As the damage has been massive the past year which I have been actively been filming and photographing the damage. . .. . . but I do like the second idea of returning the shore line into a beach form rather than an ugly rock wall. Because I think the wall is a little dangerous and very ugly. Also if we are to try and turn it into a nice sandy beach front. Then we have to also look at the bigger picture which is the water in Huia is currently unsafe to swim in due to pollution. So I think if we are going down the road of returning the beach front onto a natural wall. We also need to look at solving the swimming issue too. As they both walk hand in hand together. There is no point in spending lots of money turning it into a nice beach front for swimming if people can't swim there. So I think we should also try and incorporate a better sewer system for Huia too. Then we will have a wonderful beach front, grass area for our children to play on and for people to enjoy as well as being able to swim safely. - I think as a long term solution this will be much nicer and will look much better than the current wall.
21	0	1	1	0	My understanding of this option is that the modification of the existing structure including excavation of the seawall footing and placement of rocks (similar to say the waterfront at Tamaki drive) and installation of an "island" to deflect the predominant wave pattern would be required. In my opinion this while functional still requires significant upfront capital investment, RMA conditions to be met and ongoing maintenance. Also in my opinion the aesthetics of this option is less desirable which is a major point of concern for me. In lieu of the other options this is my preferred solution. Fundamentally from what I have listened to being said, the option of keeping the existing wall as a structure is both expensive and unfeasible. We can neither repair nor maintain the seawall in it's current form to preserve the asset in perpetuity. My concerns fundamentally revolve around halting the erosion to protect infrastructure while preserving the character and aesthetic of the Huia bay and reserve area for residents and visitors. What we lose in the way of grass reserve I see as being gained in having a beach. I feel obliged to mention my needs may be different from others in the community however I have no sentimental attachment to either the existing toilet block, playground, 150 year old Norfolk Pine or Macrocapa trees. Some of the existing native species in the way of the restoration would be well worth saving or transplanting if possible. While the character of the bay will change (I have only known Huia with a seawall) and I would be sad to see the seawall go, the reality is that something needs to be done and of the options available along with the current + ongoing financial, time and RMA constraints the coastal restoration seems like a very feasible choice. Please take into consideration the specific needs for drainage required at the bottom of Upland road to [prevent problems for the residents of Upland road.
22	1	0	0	1	I support the option of repairing the seawall and completing the seawall to where it should have been built to. SUPPORT - Yes Option 3 - I support the option of repairing the seawall and completing the seawall to where it should have been built to. My initial reaction prior to attending the first public meeting was that I wanted the seawall in place. However upon listening to this proposal I could see the benefit (at a high level) but I wanted to think and analyze the ‘final’ likely outcome before making this submission. I have worked through the process of what the impact is; to the beach, the free green space of the domain, the trees, and to the community both local and visitors (most likely townies), both how it will affect us all now and in the future. The beach. Sure the beach will look great. It will look like every other beach so there is no shortage of natural looking beaches ‘out our way’. If the wall had been constructed correctly in the first instance the beach front would not be in the condition it is in now. I think we have established this as fact. Sand will come and sand will go as nature dictates, and long may she reign. Aesthetically a correctly constructed seawall should protect the beach front and sand will for some decades cover the seawall whilst in other decades the sand will move and expose the wall, until it returns again. It a well-documented cycle. The Trees. I love trees but I’m not a Greenie to the point where one cannot cut a tree branch so I am not emotional about trees. However these trees will not need cutting down if the seawall is built correctly. The Norfolk Pine is an iconic tree, as are the macrocarpa’s some of which are already lost (cut down by council). These exotic trees have some local historical value as well as providing great shelter from the wind. I’ve been using this domain since 1977 when I first moved to Huia and I’ve sheltered often behind those trees. I’ve climbed the Norfolk Pine multiple times. What a great tree. What a great view. I’ve been at the top during some hefty storms and have swayed with the tree while hanging on – Id probably make the 6 o’clock news now! A truly magical experience. Then there are the pohutakawha’s. Iconic. Nuff said. We should not remove the existing trees. The Green Space. Wow. Since 1977 I have had a lot of playtime here. From a teenager doing teen stuff to taking my kids for a walk there upon becoming a father. From a teen playing for the country (Huia) against the townies (Parau/Laingholm & Titirangi) at cricket to being an adult playing the same teams at traditional annual City vs Country match. This was and still is great community and family fun. Cricket, sport and BBQs. A great place for social family events. A place to connect. Even now the domain is often full of townies who come out to the only flat free green-space in the Huia environs. Go there any sunny day and watch what happens. People arrive, picnic, play games, do beach stuff. Family fun with lots a laughter & tears too where one stubs ya toe or gets tackled to hard in a game of touch rugby… After carefully plotting the expected space required to ‘manage’ a new beach we would lose around 30% of the green grass. We would lose about 40% of the parking. There would be not enough room to have the multiple games of sport simultaneously as occurs now. You could not have as many simultaneous visitors as parking would be gone. You could not have as many simultaneous people on the domain as there will be not enough room. The population is not getting smaller. We can expect greater use requirements for this park so we cannot lose any of the ground. We just cannot afford to lose it. Our beach culture is to strong to lose the green space. This is what kiwis do. Go to the beach. Picnic on the grass. Enjoy each other’s company. We learn to get along here. We learn to be tolerant when a ball gets kicked into our lunch! We even get to interact with others when we challenge others or allow them to join our game of cricket. Aint that just grand. We cannot afford culturally to lose any green space. I oppose the loss of any green grass. The community. I’ve covered everything that goes on in the domain I think. I key thing is our population is getting larger and land is not being produced to accommodate this growth – particularly within Huia. Huia is a magic place. It has its own special power and it’s the power of relaxation. Do we want people, families, townies to be able to come out and enjoy being a kiwi? Do you want families to enjoy playing games together? Learning from each other? I’ve enclosed a copy of a very recent article “Life Lessons From Beach Cricket” from The Western Leader from a renown kiwi ‘family guy’ Nigel Latta about how important it is to play simple games of cricket, and other sporting activities. Its about what a great vehicle these interactions are to teaching kids how to behave, to learn manners, how to interact and interface with others…I didn’t need an expert to tell me this but it does validate my points. Having a venue to have good old fashioned fun is priceless. Do not take this away or limit the community to achieve great things. I do not support the removal of the seawall and the consequences this will impose of the wider community. The cost is just too high. I have attended both public meetings at the Huia Hall and I support 100% the total redesign and building of a proper seawall, as opposed to repairing the dismal seawall that has been erected so far. At the 2nd public meeting we called this new wall Option 3 as it was not a repair but new. OPTION 3 We should look at constructing a wall that does the job intended. This wall should be constructed so it can be added to in the future if required (in regards to height). A public walkway along the top would be an asset to everyone, as well as acting as a water barrier reducing ‘a washout from behind’. Lets build something iconic. Huia has become a destination. We can make this location even more special. There was a local program on telly (TV7) called The New Old & I think this sums up exactly the asset we need to construct here. Something that is new and will operate correctly, but has those old values, look and feel. A character asset. Something that will be in keeping with our history. The river beach should be incorporated in the design to ensure this stays there although I’m sure over time that sand also will move about. It always has. It comes and goes from that location also. We need the seawall to maintain the current grassed environment for all the reasons outlined below in the reasons why we cannot support Option 2 (managed solution’). The seawall is vital to ensure that the shoreline integrity is maintained in its current position, the trees are protected and that families both local and visitors can have free space. Free space is priceless in Huia, if not all suburbs around Auckland. But in Huia this is the only flat grassland that anyone has to play on – be you young old small large human or animal. I support the construction of a new improved seawall that protects the whole beach front. I would like to present my submission to the Local Board in person. I wish to present my submission in person I support the construction of Option 3, a new seawall with New-Old features that fit in with our bay. Although out-of-scope I propose that the removal of the power pole on the beach be included within this proposal as an ‘extra’ so that budgeted expense falls outside this project – however the pole must go, it is obscene. The pole removal can be done separately.
23	0	1	1	0	No thanks. The latest additions to the seawall have made it pretty ugly; I'd rather not see anything more substantial than that. And any seawall seems like a pretty temporary thing given the forecast sea levels to 2100. The more natural the better, so I'd rather not see a geobag sitting on the mud at low tide - prefer the comprehensive option if affordable (moving toilets and all that). That said, it would be nice if the big old pohutakawas north of the toilets can stay. I'm pleasantly surprised that Auckland council is looking at this sort of solution. Really good to see, and thanks Paul for an excellent presentation.
24	0	1	1	0	The seawall is horrible - ugly and annoying Beach access would be easier. It would look much better.
25	1	0	0	1	With so many aucklanders visiting And playing here every day and so little place to stop and do so anywhere else here why would you remove a treasure and risk road access to hundreds of homes, learn how to build a deflecting sea wall as in England. Keep our park Don't take away just as you can't see the future growth in Auckland, this is an asset park. The trees hold the ground plant more not chop down existing ones.
26	1	0	0	1	Nil
27	1	0	0	1	Huia is not only a coastal community; it also serves as significant recreational area for people from all over Auckland. I think that the sea wall should be raised, extended and developed into a hard surface promenade which will enhance the existing. amenities for years to come
28	1	0	0	1	There has been a lot of money spent on the sea wall in recent times. It currently protects many valuable features in the Reserve and we shouldn't sacrifice them. My observations are that the sand is always on the move. It shifts in cycles triggered by storms, but doesn't actually leave the bay. I would like to see the wall remain. We should be actively repairing small failures when they developed rather than letting them turn into major problems. The wall at the western end is floating above the sand level. It needs its foundations extending down to the firm sediments shown in the typical section. Removing the rock in front of the toilet block has accelerated the flanking erosion off the end of the wall. The wall should be extended past the toilet block and the car park with a sloping profile rather than matching the near vertical one. Additional sloping rock fill at the toe of the existing wall at intervals would help reduce the wave energy and support the wall. Suitable impervious topping behind the wall to stop the scouring should be laid. The seawall alongside the Little Huia road copes with larger storm surges and we should adopt its features.
29	1	0	0	1	The key issue is the loss of 4000m2 of land that is most regularly used along the foreshore. - Once lost this area can never be re-covered used. I have only lived in Huia for just over two years and even I have come to value the amenity that it offers both visitors and residents. - Quite simply it works for those just taking a stroll of for the Music in the Parks that was held there last year. - The presentation also plays down the loss of the trees that at the playground these are substantial and would be environmental crime to lose them. - Further trees nearer the toilet block now that define the park would be closer to the sea with Option 2 and it would be a tragedy to lose these in the future because of a decision now I have been a Civil Engineer with 25 years experience. I worked for companies in the UK where this kind of solution was used to replace failing sea defences and were successful. However the difference being that there were salt marshes and dune systems adjacent to the sea and not a public amenity area. The success of those projects relied on the sea doing its own thing in a remote area that was unused; the polar opposite of what is happening in Huia. - The comparison with Muriwai is misleading there the failure was one of cliff rather than wall with the requirement to provide a natural solution to tie into the existing sand dunes, the topography at Huia is totally different. Being a Civil Engineer there are usually three types of solution to a problem. - Do Nothing, Do Something and Do Minimum. - Option 2 for me comes in at the Do Minimum - Mayor Brown wants Auckland to be a Liveable City removal of a significant percentage of Huia Domain goes directly against that. - Bite the Bullet do a proper "Do Something" solution creating an engineered solution that has the prime objective of preserving as much of the domain as possible.
30	0	1	0	1	The projects consulted on under special consultation in line with the Local Government Act were the Glen Eden Upgrade and the Oratia Master plan. These aligned with the objectives in the 10 year long term plan. While misleading the public that the Glen Eden and Oratia projects were to be funded (they were not) the local board and council really had other objectives which apparently include the Huia Seawall. Questions to local board representative if Oratia and Glen Eden are not funded then what are the boards largest projects and capex projects for this year have still not been answered. No capex list was published accounts. So I await with interest as we see what the real projects for this year were. Apparently Huia sea wall is one.
31	1	0	0	1	Nil
32	1	0	0	1	I strongly agree to the re-construction of a new sea wall which will be properly engineered and is desired to protect Huia Domain in it entirety. - The Huia park and beach is one of the most popular parks around Auckland which is full every weekend of summer with people from other suburbs and tourists so for the council to want to take away over 50% of the park and let 'nature' takeover is one of the most pathetic excuses I have ever heard and is an insult to all residents of Huia who have been here for generations and want to be able to enjoy the park for generations to come. - I also understand that it will cost more in the long run to move the playground, move the toilets, cut down all the beautiful iconic trees + more than it will be to repair the wall.. It’s a no brainer really. - My Parents own the farm opposite the park which has Huia's local cemetery for all residents of Huia to be able to have their ashes buried there and this lets them remain in our beautiful Huia forever - If the wall is taken down the water will eventually make its way up to the road and then spill over into our farm land and kill all our native trees and take all peoples graves who are buried there. - So my choice is the new Engineered wall which can be added to over the years if the ocean continues to rise. I think this is one of the most horrible and unpractical options i have ever heard and it makes me awfully sad to know the people we voted into council to protect and look after our community would even suggest this option. The park is a very special place for all people of Huia as well as people from all over Auckland who visit our special place all throughout summer. The option of cutting down all our beautiful water front trees, taking away our toilets (which there is nothing wrong with them at all), our bbq areas, our playground, our basketball courts and our wet lands which is full with wild life and make our park over half the size it is now is absolutely disgusting. How can this option look better than repairing. The council cannot tell us what the water, tides and sand will do over the next 100+ years as no one knows. I am the 5th generation of my family to live in Huia and the water, sand and sea levels have constantly changed since my nana was a child and the photos and stories she would tell us, same with my mother.
33	1	0	0	1	As a resident of Huia I see how many people, groups and families enjoy using the reserve. To see us lose alot of it would be upsetting to all!
34	0	1	1	0	I fear that Option 1 would be a "bottomless pit" of future maintenance expenditure and might not necessarily solve the problems. Like many others, I'd be very sorry indeed to lose trees. I'm not so bothered by the loss of some of the reserve area, and I think that a more natural coastal edge would be attractive. A row of pohutukawas would be great if possible. I'm definitely opposed to the idea of a load of rocks or other structures out in the bay/on the sand. Also, we have seen a lot of "sound and fury" from some parts of the community, most of it very uninformed (or under-informed). Outrage and protest seem to be default positions for some people, whatever is proposed. My view is that we should be guided by what professional experts think best. Although I am the Co-President of the Huia-Cornwallis Ratepayers Association, I'm making this submission in my personal capacity, not as Co-President.
35	1	0	0	1	The cost over 35 years is not massive and Huia is not a great recipient of council funds in plenty of other areas. - Footpaths/street maintenance/inorganic collections some to mind. - This is an area for use for considerable longer time than 35 years. future generations wont thanks you for reducing the size of a recreational area The changing population of Huia from batches to commuters and now more working via internet means the domain will be high demand by locals for those future generations. The case study given was the moving of a car park and some access. not apples with apples this is a park area of a reasonable size used by locals and many/many visitors, any reduction will detrimental to users. If you want natural ...seriously? Suppose the dams will have to go? aren’t they reducing water flow allowing the current current/sand movement. This should be preserved for all of AKL, it would be fair to say that currently AKLers generally will be more affected than locals by its size/usability reduction. - Although I struggle to think of where the nearest large recreational area is that I would trust children to travel to by say bike? - As the demographic of the area continues to evolve there will be even more of a requirement for this area by locals. Already the local child population has grown which has resulted in childcare/groups that weren't here when we moved into the area.
36	0	1	1	0	Nil
37	1	0	1	0	Nil
38	1	0	0	1	Nil
39	1	0	0	1	As a Huia resident the reserve has been an important part of my family and friends lives. We met others frequently at the reserve for different occasions which ensures maintaining a close knit community. The summer sounds bring business to the only shop in Huia. It is pivotal to our community to ensure that the reserve is saved and maintained for the community now and in the future so other can utilise it for group sports gathering and an option for other events.
40	1	0	0	1	The Reserve is a loved an important part of the community, It is often used an very loved, option one allows for it to be there for many more generations. Unless you're going to compensate the loss of existing reserve by extending it elsewhere then this isn't even an option.
41	1	0	0	1	Huia domain is an integral part of the Huia community- reducing the size would, in my opinion, remove a focal point for Huia citizens. PLEASE repair the wall and keep the domain as it is!!
42	1	0	0	1	The park is a great place for kids to play in Huia. The wall is necessary and it will cost a lot to take it down. I think it should be restored and a concrete strip put in behind it to stop erosion happening at the park side of the wall and causing the issues we have now. Take the wall away and long term the road may disappear and then access to little Huia and Whatipu also when there are king tides or unusually high tides for other reasons maybe excessive rain fall etc. some people may get stranded and it may cost us and the council more money. I live in Huia and I believe the majority of the Huia residents would like to see the wall fixed and the park remain.
43	0	1	1	0	The seawall has failed and future efforts to repair and sustain are also likely to fail during storm events. The seawall also has a negative visual impact on the domain and is not in line with the natural surroundings. Ongoing maintenance is expensive. Any form of man-made structure will prevent the beach from achieving a natural alignment and response to the levels of wave energy and currents it is exposed to. Erosion during storm events to form a more dissipative beach profile to high energy wave events is a normal response. Again, given the environment and location of the beach, natural processes should be permitted to occur. Removal of the seawall and relocation of existing infrastructure i.e. toilets and playground amenities, is a more logical response to the current beach issue. This provides space for the beach to erode and prograde as required in response to wave and tidal events. It provides a more natural and less man-made feel to the domain and beach. It also prevents future costs to maintain and repair seawalls and other protective measures, all of which to date have failed in high energy wave events. Given the lack of long term data in relation to beach face changes there is the possibility of an extended period of beach progradation under different energy conditions further mitigating the issues caused during erosional events.
44	1	0	0	1	From a pure geographic erosion point of view option 2 may make more sense but for the people who live in and enjoy using Huia option 1 is by far the better option as it preserves a greater section of usable reserve space.
45	1	0	0	1	Nil
46	0	1	0	1	I believe repair of the existing wall is a waste of Ratepayers funds as the core structure of this wall has been proven to be substandard. I believe there is not enough sound data to be sure that this option will not result in a new seawall being built to protect the road when the domain has been completely washed away! The scale of the existing domain is only just big enough and the trees on the waterfront provide protection from the wind for people using the domain. Perhaps more importantly, too little thought has gone into the effect of this plan on the drainage of stormwater from Upland road, and the effects on the environment and trees at the boat ramp and across the road. I would like council to consider adopting a 3rd option to keep the Huia Domain totally intact by constructing a well-engineered sea wall, from the end of the toilet block to the Upland Road car park. I would like the wall to be constructed so that it can be added to in height, if required over time. A 1.5m footpath should run along the top rear of the wall. No rip rap along the shoreline. I would like boat access via the existing ramp to remain. Lastly, I am confident this can be done at a similar budget (or below) to existing plans and precedent has been made with the construction of a new seawall at Maraetai.
47	1	0	0	1	I actually support option 3 that was discussed at the recent meeting in the Huia Hall on Thursday 15th January. We had representatives from the Waitakere Local Board and many local residents whom all passionately reject any removal of the reserve area. If this was to go ahead it would be an absolute crime, this is a heritage park area where all is protected against such absurd suggestions regarding removal of historical trees etc. Maybe Council could employ a new engineering company or at least get a second opinion on such a sensitive subject, Tonkin and Taylor do not have a great track record for other projects and decisions they have made in the past.. Absolutely and unequivocally not in any way shape or form support option 2.
48	1	0	0	1	Possibly larger rocks in deeper and in a natural form rather than cementing smaller rock together. (Like along the road to Little Huia)
49	0	1	1	0	I personally don't like the look of a man made wall. I would like to see a more natural looking beach.
50	1	0	0	1	It is about time the council sent our rate on things that our community needs. The sea wall needs to be built with a footing and build properly Do not wash rate payers money on option 2. The council needs to start spending money on small community we are all getting sick for been left out we are part of Auckland to
51	1	0	0	1	We would like to see the wall redesigned and reinstated, retaining the size of the present Huia Domain. We do not wish to see the wall removed, nor current trees and infrastructure. We believe with good engineering and design a wall can be built that is both functional and fits into the surroundings. Decent drainage, etc will help. Hundreds of people have used the Huia Domain for gatherings, picnics, sports games, bike riding, dog walking, celebrations, etc this summer - almost to record proportions we would think. We do not wish to see existing infrastructure diminished.
52	0	1	0	1	Loss of the small beach if buried under a pile of rocks would detract from the friendliness of the area for children and ease of access for swimming and would be likely mean more dogs among people in the green area of the park rather than on the beach. Also aesthetically undesirable. The beach also provides space for the oystercatchers that are such a feature of Huia. - If the choice were only between these two then this would be the better of the 2 options but see 1E below. I definitely do not support this option as it renders the domain too small to be of use for groups such as the Polynesians playing their version of cricket. I do not believe it adequately addresses rising sea levels and storms such as have accelerated the current damage and which will lead to more of the Domain being nibbled away and also increases the vulnerability of the road near Upland Road to major events and risks damaging the only access road for a number of residents (and we don't all have boats!). Loss of the parking at the Upland road end would cause inconvenience for many and replacement parking would likely nibble away more of the Domain. The Domain has a long social history and distinct character and with some trees still reflecting early residency and others now of a size to provide useful shade this should be preserved. It is extremely popular with people from the west but also many visit from other parts of Auckland. The shop also attracts visitors, many of whom also visit the Domain. With the expected population increase in the west so there will be more visitors. The Domain has comparatively safe beach and swimming for young children and has a less formal and overcrowded feel than Cornwallis. - Thus I am not in favour of anything that reduces the usefulness or character of the existing domain. I was unable to attend the recent meeting in Huia where a gathering of residents requested rebuilding or restoring the current sea wall. I strongly endorse that motion. I know the Council needs to save money, but I would suggest do it once and do it well and so help preserve the character and viability of a park that is a local and Auckland asset with a unique character and history, and make it safe against rising sea level and most storm damage for a number of years more. At the same time drainage into Huia Bay from the road alongside the Domain and also from Foster Bay needs to be addressed for the health and safety of swimmers.
53	0	1	1	0	The scientists and engineers whose job and passion it is to spend their lives looking at this sort of thing clearly and unequivocally stated at the public meeting, their utmost confidence that removal of the sea wall and a restoration to a natural environment WILL WORK. It is worth noting that even if we say 'yes we like that idea' all it does is give them permission to do further research to MAKE SURE IT DOES WORK. It does not give a rubber stamp go ahead. That happens after a further consultation period down the line. This time is just to say "we are open to looking at that idea". I think the current sea wall and beach are pretty ugly and makes both the beach below it and the space directly on top of it unusable. If it were more like Kaitarakihi (for example) I would go there a lot more often. The space that they are talking about 'removing' is NOT used by many people as a matter of course, far from it. In fact the most I have ever seen it used is by (my own) children making huts under the trees. Or people walking their dogs at high tide. The boat ramps are not used either, locals and visitors favour either Little Huia or Foster Bay, because of tidal restraints. The positives about taking it back to the 'red line' in the plans are that it would make Huia Bay far more beautiful and usable as a beach space. It would ensure the removal of the ugly power-lines and toilets (the toilets would then be reinstated) and we could ask for an even more cool playground than we already have. How can that be bad? The space that we all currently use would still be there, and with the planting of grasses etc, the sand would collect and build a strong and stable natural environment (like it has done by the store where there is no wall) and that would stand the test of time and save a lot of money in the long run. The major thing I dislike about the natural coastal option is the removal of the large trees on the foreshore. In particular the Norfolk Pine, which is of historical significance and great beauty. I also have some concerns that there we maintain a decent playing field for people and that the toilet block definitely be reinstated and the playground improved with some consultation about what we would like to see there (as mentioned). I would also like to be involved in the process to photographically document it for historical purposes, whichever way it goes.
54	1	0	0	1	Nil
55	0	1	1	0	Nil
56	0	0	1	0	Did I miss the bit that said exactly what the changes/improvements are? Repairs obviously need to be done and if the playground/carpark have to be moved, where is it suggested they go? How long will the process take? Will there be improved beach access at the end of it? Same as above. (Option 1) And - is there a sacrifice of beach use for a natural coastal edge? Muriwai beach/carpark area is now looking fantastic. If we can achieve that then I am all for reparation as naturally as possible.
57	1	0	0	0	Observation shows that the present Huia Domain is a highly utilised area by both visitors and locals. - The Domain is also the only flat recreational area available in Huia and the loss of any area would be a disaster. - It appears that the present wall was built on sand and at a depth that did not supply a sound/solid base. - Given that the projected land loss of option 2 is only a guess at best a new engineered seawall I see as the only solution. - The heritage Pohutukawas that would surely be affected by option 2 are also an issue.
58	1	0	0	1	We have an existing wall which should be repaired. This would be the cheapest option in the long run, and the job could be done now. I do not wish to see the park reduced in size, the toilets, playground, trees removed and then reinstated elsewhere, to make room for the natural coast option. This would be less invasive and could be done straight away, getting the job done and finished quicker.
59	0	1	1	0	Although I would prefer to support this option, my observations over the years have been that this is an expensive and inadequate response to the problem that will need ongoing support and repairs I support this option as long as the large, old Pohutukawa tree can be protected. It's hard to think about losing part of the domain which is a wonderful place for all people to enjoy. However, after seeing the ongoing damage from the king tides I believe in letting mother nature "do her own thing" in this situation.
60	0	1	0	1	Option 1 is not a satisfactory option. Option 2 is not a practical option especially from the aspect of cost and its unproven suitability for our location and ecology and tides and stormwater outlets. To keep the Huia Domain totally intact by constructing a well-engineered and possibly contoured sea wall, (see Lower Huia Dam face), from the end of the toilet block past the Upland Road carpark to opposite No. 1212 Huia Road, Huia where the existing seawall stops. Distressed area outside the existing toilet block to be reinstated urgently by whatever means, (including rock) and then to eventually be walled off by extending the sea wall to a tapered end by the bridge end of the Huia Domain. The wall should be constructed so that it can be added to in height, as required over time dependent on seawater flow into the Huia Bay area. A 1.5m concrete footpath should run along the top rear of the wall. No riprock to be placed along the foreshore in front on the sea wall. We would also like to see boat access via the existing ramp and all existing stairways to the beach to remain. Consideration should also be given to the natural stream/culverts flowing down Upland Road and along that section of the sea wall heading towards 1212 Huia Road.
61	1	0	1	0	I would like to know more about what kind of sea wall would be provided - no information was provided on this in the presentations The quality of information provided was very poor and required specialist knowledge to understand. A summarised and balanced document detailing both options in laymans terms would have been far more helpful. To read a presentation without the notes from the speaker is only getting half the information. Was a presentation done locally? If so I was not aware of this despite being a resident of the area.
62	1	0	1	0	The documents online didn't outline the repair and extension of the seawall. So this option cannot be considered by the pubic making your consultation floored. - The current park is a very nice historical piece of land and it would be great to be able to keep it as is with all the trees providing shelter. And the option the keep the wall needs to be as detailed and the removal option. Both options for the removal of the seawall look plausible, but more information needs to be provided on keeping the seawall. I think it is very poor for the council to provide such limited information online without the notes from the presentation included. - Both options of keeping or removing the wall needs equal amounts of information provided. - The information provided shouldn't be a copy of a consultant’s presentation without notes. It should be balanced with all information provided suitable for the audience of the whole community, not the few with a technical background. - Was a public meeting held? If so how was the local community notified? We didn't receive anything via the mail or see any flyers or the like around. - I expect our community to be at least notified of public meetings for the contributions we make to your organisation. -
63	1	0	0	1	Remedial work to what is already there should be done so that valuable recreation space for the residents of Huia - ratepayers - is not lost.
64	0	1	1	0	I think this is the best solution and if the research has been done well as per the muriwai case study then it will improve the access to the Beach and the long term future and sustainability if we let nature do is things. From what I see sea walls are always problematic. I would support it going back to natural. I would hope that part of this would be to improve what remains of the Huia reserve, upgrade the playground and toilets. I would also hope that there is ongoing monitoring of the sea level and the threat to the road and the houses and a plan put in place should it occur. Reverting to natural would hopefully give us better access to the foreshore.
65	1	0	0	1	I would like to submit my thoughts on the Huia Domain Management Options. - I feel that a properly built sea wall will be the best option to protect the reserve (and in time road). - The upside being that it should stop the majority of damage to the reserve in the first place, and what damage is sustained will be easier, quicker and cheaper to repair. A sea wall also retains the option of modifying the foreshore in the future if need be. If the foreshore is reshaped now and problems arise it may be difficult to get consent or approval to rebuild a protective wall. - The present area is well utilised and a reduction in area would lead to congestion and loss of amenity during busy periods of the year. - While I like the idea of a nice beach area with no sea wall I doubt this would work in practice. - Having lived in Huia for 25 years I feel I have good knowledge of sea conditions around the Huia Reserve during South-Westerly storms (particularly when coinciding with a Spring tide). - I cannot see that a reshaped beach area would survive such a storm(s) without major damage and I note with concern that the option for establishing a beach further back from the present sea wall position says that there will be no on-going cost. - Does this mean that after a storm and the new beach and reserve is badly damaged that there would be no remedial work? - And if the sea continued to advance towards the road when would a decision be made to stop this, and how? - I also feel that this option is being pushed as somehow returning the foreshore to its natural state, when in reality the Huia stream that should have a big impact on how everything interacts has two dams just up the valley, somewhat negating any well-intentioned ideals of returning the area to a natural state. - I read in the NZ Herald today about Auckland beaches and their management. It was stated that the council prefer soft barriers and are trying to move away from solid structures. So I guess that as usual this feedback/consultation is to let the public feel good about being involved in the process, when in reality the major decisions on this project have already been made.
66	1	0	0	1	I support Option One as I feel it is the most Practical. I have lived here for 53 Years My family history goes back further than that and we have seen many changes. Due to and since the Lower Dam installation many changes happened over a period of years. Some faster than others. I know how it used to be.where the original road ran. - I find it hard to believe how the last restoration of the sea wall was done (and I use those words lightly) what a joke. It was never installed properly and in my eyes was a 'make do' attempt at making it look good It was never put implemented with any real substance. - As a community member I strongly object to Option Two for many reasons, just ridiculous to propose to loose land that has always been there, and so much of it. - Option One is the only Option at this stage I would support. This option two is a joke. Loose that much land that has been there for so long. and the Trees and all other things proposed, with such a huge retreat of Space. This is the only flat piece of land for our children to play on for the community to use for our Sporting events, This land use to support 2 Houses and families with Farm Land and now it is Parkland that is so widely utilized, by not just our community but the Thousands who visit to do the same. Just ridiculous to proposed this as an Option because it simply isn't!
67	1	0	0	1	It would be an utter tragedy to dismantle the seawall that the community want to keep. This would not happen on Mission Bay or the North Shore. The Seawall is integral to the whole area, trees, playground and toilet block it must be repaired.
68	1	0	0	1	Nil
69	0	1	1	0	Nil
70	1	0	0	1	Absolutely necessary to retain the natural fauna i.e ..pohutakawa trees as well as the protection of the properties adjacent to the bay foreshore buffer zone especially when a large swell refracts into the bay pushed upwards with the predominantly south westerly trade winds, storm surges etc
71	1	0	0	0	I believe the better option is to restore the wall and protect the area from erosion. - The shoreline in Huia is a very beautiful place to be - to take your family, sit in the shade - let them play and enjoy the lovely environment - a "user friendly" park. - I think that by removing the seawall and "restore a natural coastline edge" will leave the coastline looking barren as the trees that are there will be "eroded away" by the sea. - Those trees are necessary for shade, and they beautify the little park that is there - otherwise it will be another Auckland Council park - this one another for children - with absolutely no shade whatsoever leading it to end up being too exposed to even take you children there in the summer. - Yes, I know you will plant more but no doubt they will be shrubs - useless in the argument of shade. - Just restore please - it works for all.
72	1	0	0	1	It's a valuable resource for the community and visitors.

73	0	1	1	0	Not as proposed. A proper, aesthetically pleasing wall is required. The wall would require a deep footing, some land reclamation at the western end of the beach to deal with the wave action as described by the marine engineer at the public meeting, and development of good access to the beach. Huia is worth the expense. The structure proposed would be ugly and not in keeping with the natural beauty of the area. A proper seawall would be expensive but could be built to allow for further development if sea levels rise as anticipated. We support this option in principal, but only if further modelling is done to determine the effects of a significant rise iin sealevel. If rising levels mean retreat of the domain to the road, then a wall is inevitable in the long run and any benefits of having a natural coastal edge will be lost. The benefits of having a natural shore are many, but would need to be accompanied by an environmental plan to protect birdlife. The area is becoming very busy and some protections are urgently needed (enforceable bans on vehicles on the beach, no jet skis within the bay, dogs on leads etc). The playground is not a great resource as the equipment available is not to current standards. Apart from throwing, the current plan structures receive very little use, especially by children outside of the toddler age range. Therefore replacement would be a benefit to visitors. Urgent attention to preserving the natural environment at Huia is required. This would involve fully documenting the current state of affairs - populations of bird species, current threats to these, health of the shellfish populations in the bay, more detailed monitoring of pollution levels in the bay. Perhaps, this current concern with erosion of the domain could provoke a wider review of the area.
74	1	0	0	1	This is the most cost effective option and we get to keep all our infrastructure, toilets, playground, skateboard ramp and domain grass area that took many years to obtain in the first place. After walking through the big Huia domain area in question, I do not believe Councils projections of how much domain area will be lost to the sea is correct. Directly behind the sea wall the domain has significant fall towards Huia Road. The harbour would consume all of the domain and then a sea wall would have to be established to protect the road, so no cost savings would ever be made. This whole process is just an excuse for Council employed specialists to exercise their field of academic specialty.
75	1	0	0	1	The park area can be/is used 100% of the time, while the beach area is only used a fraction of the time due to it needing to be high tide to actually swim in the bay. - Not to mention that there is plenty of swimming/beach area around Huia, while the domain is the only real flat area for recreation. - Rebuilding the sea wall and maintaining the domain at it's current size is the most efficient use of the land. - Alternatively, cutting down the tree line and moving the wall back a little, while keeping the playground and toilets unmoved is a cost effective alternative if moving the wall back that little bit would make a difference to the longevity of the wall. I have lived here all my life, and anyone who has witnessed a storm here could tell you how much work the sea wall does during a storm, and how easily a natural shore line would be damaged by one. As above, keeping the park both large, and separate is the most efficient use of the land. Sure it would be nice to have a deep coast line of sand for sunbathing and activities, but again, the beach area is only really usable a fraction of the time, and most beach sports are done better at the domain anyway. It would be beneficial to keep a boat ramp where it currently is, or at the other end by the toilets. It would also be beneficial if the car park area by the current boat ramp was extended slightly to include the uneven grassy area between the car park and road that is currently only really used by 4WDs with boats when the car park over flows. It would be a waste of time and money to relocate the playground and toilets for either option.
76	1	0	0	1	I live at 1222 Huia Road Huia where any proposed changes to the existing sea wall would ease. There is no problem at present of any potential flooding at our house as long as status quo is maintained. Any changes that MAY result in any damage the Council needs to indemnify us of any cost resulting from those changes. Removal of any tree from the park would contradict the fact Huia is in a World Heritage Park. If I was to take this action with large mature trees on my property the Council would have me in front of the environmental court prosecuting me. The removal of the toilet block is an unnecessary cost. When I questioned this at the second public meeting the local board member from Parau inferred it came out of a different budget. When I pointed out to her that all Council money comes from ratepayers she left the room. No, stupidity I wish to appear in front of whoever will be making this final decision to make a further Verbal submission.
77	0	1	1	0	We do not support the redevelopment of the seawall (Option 1), and look to an alternative solution along the lines of Option 2 (restore natural coastal edge). As a general policy, we do not support hard structures or hard engineering solutions within the CMA/foreshore, and seek natural solutions or a mix utilising ‘soft engineering’ design to achieve good engineering and environmental outcomes.
78	0	1	1	0	Thoughts re this are to remove existing sea wall and replace with natural large rocks carefully placed often work in these instances.
79	1	0	0	1	I do feel strongly about this and would like my voice heard. The only option as I see it is to have the seawall repaired/replaced. I do not see how the natural coastline option would work. We have seen several king tides combined with low pressure weather patterns in the past few years which has seen very high tides and storm surge. Combine this with wave action and nothing other than a boulder wall would have a chance of stopping further erosion to our park. Personally I am surprised the council has taken this long and let the amount of damage occur to date, if this was on the east coast no council would have acted so slowly. We are lucky with the environment we have in Huia, the wrong decisions will see then lost forever.
80	0	1	1	0	Nil
81	1	0	0	1	Groynes to break up the swell/surge in order to reduce the destructive damage occurring down near the toilet block. Do not want our park to disappear to become just a beach front! It appears option beach or park! Want park as low tides leave plenty of areas for beach and sand will build up against seawall if rebuilt to higher standard! Down near the toilet block the water pipe is above the sand on the beach which is vulnerable to damage- BBQ area frequently under water for long periods- wrongly placed! Have years of videos of waves taken along wall of domain. Presently the entire Huia Domain can have sea flowing towards drain and near road- this will intensify with natural option.
Total	70%	28%	30%	65%

Further to the options presented for consultation, a third option was proposed by the community. 130 signatures were received in support of option 3. The submission outlining option 3 is below:

Huia Community Submission on Huia Domain Erosion Mitigation

20/01/2014

Executive summary

This submission by 78 Huia and Cornwallis residents has been created through the process of a community meeting held on Thursday, 15 January 2015, and subsequent signatories.

Present at the meeting: 67 community members and three Waitakere Ranges Local Board members.

At the meeting, presentations were made about:

· The implications of Auckland Council’s Option 2 (remove the sea wall and restore a natural costal edge)

· The differences between the current wall, the council’s option 1 to repair and extend the wall and a new Option 3 being proposed at the meeting.

After everyone who wished to speak had done so, the meeting willingly reached a consensus on the wording of a joint submission outlining what we want for the Domain and Foreshore project. This is detailed below, along with the main points of the discussion.

We do not support either Option 1 or Option 2. Instead, we propose a new Option 3 of a well-engineered sea wall, called Huia Domain Protection, as follows:

“To keep the Huia Domain totally intact by constructing a well-engineered sea wall, from the end of the toilet block to the Upland Road car park.

We want the wall to be constructed so that it can be added to in height, if required over time. A 1.5m footpath should run along the top rear of the wall. No rip rap along the shoreline.

We want boat access via the existing ramp to remain.”

Main points raised during the presentations and discussion

Speaker: Tim de Roles (resident, architect and coastal design specialist) on implications of Option 2.

Acknowledged what a difficult job it is for council to deal with hundreds of km of coastline, and cost of dealing with erosion.

· The Huia project may possibly set a precedent for rest of Auckland – other communities may request similar solutions to climate change.

· Had 4 x 100yr events on the wall affecting domain. Can’t call them 1:100 with that regularity. Indication of effects of climate change we are faced with in region.

· Domain is precious – one of few flat areas to kick ball around, in most weather conditions because it is sheltered from the foreshore by trees – don’t think we can afford to give away any of the 1.83ha of reserve.

· Worked very carefully through Tonkin +Taylor’s recommendation of Option 2 and feels they haven’t considered the incredible preciousness of flat ground, close to sea with ambience of domain.

· If option 2 proceeds, the flat area for playing informal sports gets diminished by 60% [note: figure revised since meeting]. (That is the open area running between the skate ramp and existing playground.) The bund is not included in loss of open area, which would increase the loss even further. 5m buffer line is additional to recession.

· Ground at foreshore will be lower, hence more likely for sea in large floods to wash right across domain, even with work done. The swale that forms a natural barrier between road and playground would also be lost. Removing the Upland Rd car park further exposes private properties to floods.

· Trees: Posited Norfolk Pine as a “neo-native” – iconic across Auckland. Macrocarpa iconic as pioneer trees. The tide will come up to the Kahikatea at the Upland Road car park – they will have to go because they can’t stand salt water against roots. Extending the wall will preserve pohutukawa behind toilets.

· Option 3, Huia Domain Protection, of a 200m stretch of engineered wall would preserve flat open area and ability to sit on a seat at high tide. We don’t have to shift playground or toilet block, or remove trees.

Speaker: Peter Riem (resident) on engineered wall idea further researched.

Engineered wall needs to have:

· Deep foundation, not sitting on sand and to sit on something solid – only 70cm below at surface currently

· Could be constructed at two levels – first 1/2m then 1m so the water hits two obstacles and loses energy.

Additionally:

· Wall at Maraetai has a 3m base, Tongan stonemasons built it, nice slope in front, then have a sheer wall, can add to it over time. Wall is fully-drained so any water flows straight back out again.

· We need to future proof the wall at Huia by ensuring it can be added to.

· We need a clear boundary between the Domain and the beach.

· Michelle Parker concerned Option 2 will mean water encroaching onto her property across the road from the Domain.

· What we are trying to do now is get the council to seriously look at Option 3.

· Difference between option 1 + 3: Option 1 = riprap on the beach – takes up beach, erodes down into stones = stony beach not sandy. Seems like a ‘strawman’ option, short-term solution.

· Option 2 has a groyne coming out. Do we want to incorporate a groyne into Option 3? It doesn’t work at Foster Bay.

Chairperson	Sandra Coney, QSO
Deputy Chairperson	Denise Yates, JP
Members	Neil Henderson
	Greg Presland
	Steve Tollestrup
	Saffron Toms

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Sandra Coney	· Waitemata District Health Board – Elected Member · Women’s Health Action Trust – Patron
Neil Henderson	· Portage Trust – Elected Member · West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director · Weedfree Trust – Employee
Greg Presland	· Portage Trust – Elected Member · Lopdell House Development Trust – Trustee · Titirangi Residents & Ratepayers Group – Committee Member · Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust – Trustee · Combined Youth Services Trust - Trustee
Steve Tollestrup	· Waitakere Licensing Trust – Elected Member · Community Waitakere – Trustee · West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director
Saffron Toms	NIL
Denise Yates	· Ecomatters Environment Trust – Trustee · Keep Waitakere Beautiful Trust – Trustee · Huia-Cornwallis Ratepayers & Residents Association – Co-chairperson · Charlotte Museum Trust – Trustee

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Sandra Coney	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee
Neil Henderson	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee · Living Cell Technologies Animal Ethics Committee – Member
Saffron Toms	· Ark in the Park – Governance Group Member

Who	Why are they likely to be interested?	Method of engagement
Waitakere Ranges Local Board	Governance of local parks	Email and Public meeting
Auckland Transport	Management of assets close to Huia Domain	Email and Public meeting
Regional Parks	Management of assets close to Huia Domain	Email and Public meeting
Watercare	Management of assets close to Huia Domain	Email and Public meeting

Who	Why are they likely to be interested?	Method of engagement
Local iwi	Mana whenua	Email and Public meeting
Huia-Cornwallis Residents and ratepayers association	Interested resident group	Email and Public meeting
Huia community	General interest in Huia	Public meeting to be held at Huia-Cornwallis residents and ratepayers association hall, flyer drop and posters to advertise
Waitakere Ranges Conservation Network	General interest in Huia	Email and Public meeting
Waitakere Ranges protection society	General interest in Huia	Email and Public meeting
Waitakere Branch of Forest and Bird	General interest in Huia	Email and Public meeting
Huia Beach and Store Cafe	General interest in Huia	Email and Public meeting
Laingholm Roundabout Incorporated	General interest in Huia	Email and Public meeting
Friends of Whatipu	General interest in Huia	Email and Public meeting
Huia Museum	General interest in Huia	Email and Public meeting

Risks/Issues	Recommended mitigation
Community could be adverse to possible reduction of recreational land in Huia Domain	· Ensure options are explained in detail and provide visuals of what the future Domain might look like.
Community expectation is high	· Ensure understanding of long term consequences of proposed options. · Ensure community is well informed of the details around each option.
Rate of erosion requires urgent action	· Ensure public are kept informed on a regular basis

Date	Activity	Who is responsible?
March 12^th 2015	Formal approval of consultation Plan from Local Board	Waitakere Ranges Local Board
April 7^st 2015	Public meeting at the Huia-Cornwallis Ratepayers and residents association hall	Kaitlyn White and Paul Klinac
April 24^th 2015	Consultation closes	Kaitlyn White
April 30^th 2015	Workshop with Waitakere Ranges Local Board	Kaitlyn White and Paul Klinac
May 2015	Results of consultation and recommendations of work plan are formally reported to Waitakere Ranges Local Board	Kaitlyn White

Authors	Tua Viliamu – Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau