I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board will be held on:




Meeting Room:



Thursday, 9 July 2015


Waitakere Ranges Local Board Office
39 Glenmall Place
Glen Eden


Waitākere Ranges Local Board









Sandra Coney, QSO


Deputy Chairperson

Denise Yates, JP



Neil Henderson



Greg Presland



Steve Tollestrup



Saffron Toms



(Quorum 3 members)




Glenn Boyd

(Relationship Manager)

Local Board Services (West)


Tua Viliamu

(Democracy Advisor)


3 July 2015


Contact Telephone: (09) 813 9478

Email: Tua.Viliamu@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz






Waitākere Ranges Local Board

09 July 2015



ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Update from Ward Councillors                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                5

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          6

12        Manukau Harbour Forum: Legislative Change Requiring Agreement by Resolution 7

13        New Road Name Approval for the Residential Subdivision by Neil Construction Ltd at 4-10 Christian Rd and 19-25 O’Neills Road, Swanson and 16a & 16b Christian Road, Swanson, otherwise known as the “Penihana” Subdivision Development.        25

14        Huia Domain Erosion Mitigation Options                                                                 31  

15        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 



1          Welcome


2          Apologies


An apology from Member Greg Presland for absence was received.


3          Declaration of Interest

Members were reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

Specifically members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

At its meeting on 28 November 2013, the Waitakere Ranges Local Board resolved (resolution number WTK/2010/5) to record any possible conflicts of interest in a register. 


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

·       West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director

·       Waitakere Task force on Family Violence – Appointee

Saffron Toms


Denise Yates

·       Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Committee member

·       Ecomatters Environment Trust – Trustee

·       Keep Waitakere Beautiful Trust – Trustee

·       Huia-Cornwallis Ratepayers & Residents Association – Co-chairperson

·       Charlotte Museum Trust – Trustee


Member appointments

Board members are appointed to the following bodies. In these appointments the board members represent Auckland Council.


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


There was no changes to the register.


4          Confirmation of Minutes


That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)         Confirms the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 25 June 2015, as a true and correct record.



5          Leave of Absence


At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.


6          Acknowledgements


At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received.


7          Update from Ward Councillors


An opportunity is provided for the Waitakere Ward Councillors to update the board on regional issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.


8          Deputations


Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Waitākere Ranges Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.


At the close of the agenda no requests for deputations had been received.


9          Public Forum


A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.


At the close of the agenda 4 requests for public forum had been received.


10        Extraordinary Business


Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:


“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-


(a)        The local authority by resolution so decides; and


(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-


(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and


(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”


Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:


“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-


(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-


(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and


(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but


(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”


11        Notices of Motion


At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

09 July 2015



Manukau Harbour Forum: Legislative Change Requiring Agreement by Resolution


File No.: CP2015/11658





1.       To request that the Waitākere Ranges Local Board resolve on recommendations made by the Manukau Harbour Forum regarding membership and delegations to the forum. This is to ensure that the forum has a valid agreement between all nine member boards in place prior to 31 July 2015 to comply with recent changes to the Local Government Act 2002.

Executive Summary

2.       In 2014 amendments were made to the Local Government Act 2002 that affect the Manukau Harbour Forum as a joint committee of nine local boards.

3.       The forum’s existing terms of reference do not cover all the requirements under the amended legislation, as the resolutions from each member board adopting the terms of reference and establishing the forum need to be the same, i.e. showing agreement between all nine boards.

4.       In light of the above, in order for the forum to exist after 31 July 2015 all member boards will need to show agreement by resolution on the following:

i)        The number of members each local board may appoint to the joint committee;

ii)       How the joint committee chairperson and deputy chairperson are to be appointed;

iii)      The terms of reference of the joint committee;

iv)      What responsibilities are to be delegated to the joint committee by each appointee local board; and

v)      The process for amending the agreement.

5.       At its business meeting of 8 June 2015 the forum resolved as follows:

b)      Requests that this report be forwarded on to the nine member boards recommending that each board:

i)       Appoints one named member and one named alternate member to the Manukau Harbour Forum

ii)       Confirms that the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Manukau Harbour Forum will be elected by a majority of members at the first meeting of each electoral term

iii)      Confirms the revised Terms of Reference for the Manukau Harbour Forum as appended to Agenda reports

iv)     Delegates authority to the Manukau Harbour Forum to make decision within its terms of reference noting that any significant or controversial decisions will only be made by the forum with the confirmation by resolution of all the member boards that would be affected by the decision.

v)      Confirms that any changes to this agreement will be agreed first by the Manukau Harbour Forum then recommended to the nine member boards for their approval, noting that resolutions must be identical

v)      Notes that in order for the nine member boards to agree on this new binding agreement for the Manukau Harbour Forum, the resolutions made in respect of recommendations b) i)-v) above (with the exception of b) i) where appointees must be named) must be identical and that in the absence of identical resolutions by all member boards the Forum will not meet the requirements under clause 30a of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Act 2002.


6.       A copy of the revised terms of reference is appended as Attachment A.




That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Agrees with the recommendations of the Manukau Harbour Forum and resolves to:

i)        appoint one named member and one named alternate member to the Manukau Harbour Forum

ii)       confirm that the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Manukau Harbour Forum will be elected by a majority of members at the first meeting of each electoral term

iii)      confirm the revised Terms of Reference for the Manukau Harbour Forum as appended to Agenda reports

iv)      delegate authority to the Manukau Harbour Forum to make decisions within its terms of reference, noting that any significant or controversial decisions will only be made by the forum with the confirmation by resolution of all the member boards that would be affected by the decision and that the local board will reserve the right to hold and promote a different view to that of the forum on any issue that may impact the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area.

v)      confirm that any changes to this agreement will be agreed first by the Manukau Harbour Forum then recommended to the nine member boards for their approval, noting that resolutions must be identical

vi)      note that in order for the requirements of this new agreement for the Manukau Harbour Forum to be reached, the resolutions of each of the nine member boards made in respect of recommendations a) (i)-(v) above (with the exception of a) (i) where appointees are to be named) must be identical and that in the absence of identical resolutions by all member boards the Forum will not meet the requirements under clause 30a of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Act 2002.   




7.       In 2014 amendments were made to the Local Government Act 2002, in particular Schedule 1AA Clause 5 reads as follows:

Requirement to enter into agreement under clause 30A of Schedule 7

(1)     This clause applies to a local authority that appointed a joint committee under clause 30(1)(b) of Schedule 7 before the date of commencement of clause 30A of Schedule 7 if that committee remains in existence after that date.

(2)     The local authority must, within 12 months of the date of commencement of clause 30A of Schedule 7, enter into an agreement under that clause with every other local authority or public body that has appointed members to that joint committee.

(3)     If an agreement under clause 30A of Schedule 7 is not entered into within the period specified in subclause (2), the joint committee is deemed to be discharged by the local authority.

(4)     Nothing in this clause applies if the joint committee referred to in subclause (1) was constituted or continued by, or required to be constituted or continued by, an enactment other than this Act.

8.       Each of the Manukau Harbour Forum’s member boards previously resolved varying membership and delegations (Attachment B). The Act requires agreement by resolution which means all resolutions from the boards need to be the same.

9.       Analysis has been undertaken by Auckland Council’s legal services team as to whether the boards at the time of establishment covered all the necessary points within the legislation (Attachment C).  This analysis shows that the requirements of the legislation for agreements in regard to joint committees have not been met and the member boards will need to pass new resolutions to satisfy all the requirements of the amendments to the Act.

10.     The Forum’s resolutions of 8 June 2015, based on advice from staff, were intended to keep these provisions as close as possible to what has been previously agreed by the majority of member boards.

11.     At the same meeting, the forum also took the opportunity to make a number of minor revisions to its terms of reference, which staff had been working on in consultation with the forum following a workshop on 13 April, at which this issue was originally raised with the Forum.

12.     It is important note that unless this new agreement comes into effect on or before 31 July 2015, the forum will technically cease to exist. In order to achieve this, the recommendations must be resolved, in full and unamended, by all nine member boards.


Local Board Views and Implications

13.     Local boards have previously agreed, through adoption of the forum’s terms of reference, that the Manukau Harbour is a regional asset and it was appropriate that Local Boards will collectively contribute to strategies and outcomes that enhance the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of the harbour. The forum has been seen as an effective mechanism to achieve this.

14.     The role of the forum is to champion the sustainable management of the Manukau Harbour and adjacent communities. It developed a vision and strategy in line with this which was adopted in September 2014.

15.     The forum has no budget allocated to projects and relies on the member boards to fund projects for its work programme.

Maori Impact Statement

16.     Workshops of the Manukau Harbour Forum were held on 13 April and 8 June 2015 to discuss the ongoing role of mana whenua in relation to the forum. Some minor changes were made to the forum’s terms of reference as a result of this to reflect the forum’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi, and its desire to work with mana whenua on an ongoing basis.

17.     The forum anticipates receiving further advice and options regarding the formalisation of its relationship with mana whenua.

Implementation Issues

18.     The new agreement must be entered into by all member boards prior to 31 July 2015.







Manukau Harbour Forum Revised Terms of Reference



Resolutions by member boards



Assessment of resolutions by member boards





Mary Binney - Local Board Advisor - Maungakiekie-Tamaki


Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

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


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

09 July 2015



Manukau Harbour Forum Joint Committee – Terms of Reference

1. Introduction

The formation of a forum to champion the sustainable management of the Manukau

Harbour and adjacent communities has arisen through the collective aspirations of

local boards bordering the harbour itself. Local Boards have a statutory responsibility

and are democratically accountable for identifying and communicating the interests

and preferences of the people in their Local Board area in relation to the content of

the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Auckland Council.


The Manukau Harbour is a regional taonga/treasure for all the peoples of Auckland. It is therefore appropriate that Local Boards collectively contribute to strategies and

outcomes that restore and enhance the well-being of the harbour itself.


2. Background / Context

Prior to November 2010, agencies generally approached issues of community

concern in alignment with the previous local authority boundaries, and somewhat

independently in each area. Five legacy territorial authorities and the Auckland

Regional Council had a direct interest in the harbour due to proximity. Under the

Auckland Council, the following local boards[1] share a boundary with the harbour:

·    Waitakere Ranges

·    Whau

·    Puketapapa

·    Maungakiekie-Tamaki

·    Otara-Papatoetoe

·    Mangere-Otahuhu

·    Manurewa

·    Papakura

·    Franklin


There is sufficient commonality of issues and interests, for synergies to be gained

from a sub-regional approach to advocacy in relation to the management of the

Manukau Harbour. This is also supported by the legislative imperative for local

boards to work together where the interests and preferences of communities within

each local board area will be better served by doing so.


Likely benefits of such an alliance are early identification of and response to

emerging issues, a more cohesive approach to multi-causal problems, and greater

efficiency and effectiveness of planning and interventions. These benefits are

particularly pertinent planning matters relating to:

·    Auckland Council’s statutory obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi

·    The Auckland Plan and the Unitary Plan

·    The Annual Plan and the Long-term Plan (LTP)

·    The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008

·    The 1990 Manukau Harbour Action Plan

·    National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards

·    The activities of CCOs in relation to the harbour and the coastal environment

·    Other harbour and coastal ownership and management issues


3. Purpose

The purpose of the Manukau Harbour Forum is to provide for a means of collective

Local Board advocacy on issues affecting the Manukau Harbour, and the adjacent

foreshore. Issues to be addressed by the Forum may include:

·    Restoration of the health and wellbeing of the Manukau Harbour

·    The role of Mana Whenua in relation to the Manukau Harbour

·    A unified management-approach to the Manukau Harbour

·    Advocacy on issues related to both natural and human activities affecting the harbour foreshore

·    Wastewater and stormwater discharges

·    The strategic removal of mangroves and Pacific oysters

·    Coastal erosion mitigation opportunities

·    The enhancement of marine and coastal habitats that assist with increased


·    The preservation of sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries within

the harbour

·    The protection of Maui’s Dolphin and other species

·    Catchments and tributary streams that flow into the harbour

·    Access to the harbour

·    The role of the port operation at Onehunga


4. Principles

The Forum is in principle collectively accountable to the wider community for

supporting the development and delivery of the community’s vision in relation to the

Manukau Harbour. In practice, individual members are accountable to their own

boards and to the constituents whose interests they represent.


The Forum:

·    Is strategic, not operational

·    Deals only with matters where collaboration and synergy add value (it does

not duplicate what already exists, or deal with matters that are better dealt

with more locally, i.e. it does not work at a single board level) though it may deal with issues that impact some but not all member boards.

·    Is committed to Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi, and it will work actively to ensure that it also acknowledges and recognises the interests of mana whenua through continued development of an open relationship with mana whenua

·    Recognises the local, regional, and national significance of the Waitakere Ranges and its foothills and coasts, as set out in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, and acknowledges the statutory obligations to protect the Heritage Area.

·    Will focus on commonalities rather than differences.


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

09 July 2015



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

09 July 2015



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

09 July 2015



New Road Name Approval for the Residential Subdivision by Neil Construction Ltd at 4-10 Christian Rd and 19-25 O’Neills Road, Swanson and 16a & 16b Christian Road, Swanson, otherwise known as the “Penihana” Subdivision Development.


File No.: CP2015/12755





1.       The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board, for new road names for 13 roads created by way of Subdivision at 4-10 Christian Road, 19-25 O’Neills Road and 16a & 16b Christian Road, Swanson and shown in attachment A

Executive Summary

2.       Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the Council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming for the Auckland Council.

3.       The street names under consideration are of men and women who went to World War 1 from the Swanson district. In some case these are names of individual men, most of whom died in WW1. In other cases, where several family members went, the family name is used. For example, both James and William O’Meara were killed during WW1, so the proposed name is O’Meara Street. The Mettam family sent four soldiers – two of whom died - and a nurse. They are commemorated in Mettam Drive.

4.       Local Iwi groups were consulted by The Waitakere Ranges Local Board. A representative of the Board contacted seven Iwi about the proposed road names, writing to six and speaking directly with Te Kawerau a Maki. The table below provides a summary of responses.


Form of consultation



Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Trust


No objections

The proposal occurs within area outside of NWOK’s rohe and therefore we refer to Ngati Whatua Ōrakei

for their consideration and comments.

Ngāti Tamaoho Trust


No response


Ngati Whatua Orakei Trust


No objections

With regards to the names submitted for the new Penihana subdivision, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei (NWŌ) tautoko these suggestions from Neil Group Ltd.

Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority


No response


Te Ara Rangatu o Te Iwi o Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua


No objections

We leave this issue for the other mana whenua to respond to and engage.

Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua


No response


Te Kawerau a Maki


No objections







5.       The names Mettam Drive, Forbes McCammon Drive, Samuel Cassidy Avenue, Frank Newton Road, William Wallbank Crescent, O’Meara Street, Vincent McGrath Crescent, Gilbert Hall Way, Briddock Way, Paitry Place, Arthur Rolfe Lane, David Rogers Lane proposed by the Applicant are recommended for approval to the Local Board.



That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board,

a)      Pursuant to Section 319(1)(j), of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the road names Mettam Drive, Forbes McCammon Drive, Samuel Cassidy Avenue, Frank Newton Road, William Wallbank Crescent, O’Meara Street, Vincent McGrath Crescent, Gilbert Hall Way, Briddock Way, Paitry Place, Arthur Rolfe Lane and David Rogers Lane, proposed by the Applicant, for the 13 new roads created by way of subdivision at 4-10 Christian Road, 19-25 O’Neills Road and 16a & 16b Christian Road, Swanson.



6.       The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allowed that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the Council’s approval.

7.       In 2014, Auckland Council approved an Application for a combined land use and subdivision consent to undertake a subdivision creating 295 residential allotments at 4-10 Christian Road, 19-25 O’Neills Road and 16a & 16b Christian Road, Swanson. The subdivision contains roads, that will provide all allotments with road frontage. The consent holder has proposed to label the roads, Mettam Drive, Forbes McCammon Drive, Samuel Cassidy Avenue, Frank Newton Road, William Wallbank Crescent, O’Meara Street, Vincent McGrath Crescent, Gilbert Hall Way, Briddock Way, Paitry Place, Arthur Rolfe Lane and David Rogers Lane (SUB2014-607).

8.       Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names set out below meet the road naming policy criteria:

Road 1:              Mettam Drive

Road 2:              Forbes McCammon Drive

Road 3:              Samuel Cassidy Avenue

Road 4:              Frank Newton Road

Road 5:              William Wallbank Crescent

Road 6 & 10:     O’Meara Street

Road 7:              Vincent McGrath Crescent

Road 8:              Gilbert Hall Way

Road 9:              Briddock Way

Road 11:            Paitry Way

Road 12:            Arthur Rofle Lane

Access Lane:     David Rogers Lane


Local Board views and implications

9.       The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan (2012-2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to Section 319(1)9j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to Local Boards.

10.     The Applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines.

11.     Mettam Drive, Forbes McCammon Drive, Samuel Cassidy Avenue, Frank Newton Road, William Wallbank Crescent, O’Meara Street, Vincent McGrath Crescent, Gilbert Hall Way, Briddock Way, Paitry Place, Arthur Rolfe Lane and David Rogers Lane all meet the criteria set out in the Road Naming Guidelines.

12.     As the Applicant’s preferred names Mettam Drive, Forbes McCammon Drive, Samuel Cassidy Avenue, Frank Newton Road, William Wallbank Crescent, O’Meara Street, Vincent McGrath Crescent, Gilbert Hall Way, Briddock Way, Paitry Place, Arthur Rolfe Lane and David Rogers Lane meets the criteria, it is recommended for consideration for approval.

13.     The decision sought from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

14.     Consultation was undertaken with NZ Post and all suggested names were accepted.

These names have the approval of the Swanson RSA.

Māori impact statement

15.     The decision sought from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the World”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

16.     Consultation with local Iwi was undertaken and all suggested road names were accepted.


17.     The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that the appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.








Penihana Diagram





Andrew Foley - Subdivision Advisor


Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

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


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

09 July 2015



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

09 July 2015



Huia Domain Erosion Mitigation Options


File No.: CP2015/11586





1.       To provide the Waitākere Ranges Local Board with information on management options for the mitigation of erosion at Huia Domain, and the results of public submissions following consultation.

Executive Summary

2.       Huia Domain is a coastal reserve that lies at the head of Huia Bay, on the low-lying flood plain of the Huia Stream.

3.       In 2014 the erosion along Huia Domain accelerated to the point where the foundation of the seawall was undermined, compromising its stability.

4.       To the west of the seawall, increased exposure has resulted in erosion of the unprotected, reclaimed coastal edge. The erosion was threatening a series of fronting Pohutukawa trees and the toilet block which prompted emergency works to be implemented in June 2015 (including provision of a temporary seawall).

5.       Auckland Council engaged Tonkin and Taylor Ltd to develop a number of long-term management options to mitigate against erosion along Huia Domain. Following the first round of consultation a community collective submitted a proposal for a third option. Three high level options are currently being considered and were presented to the public for consultation in April 2015:

·        option 1: repair and extend the seawall

·        option 2: managed beach realignment

·        option 3 (community submission): extended new seawall.

6.       In the development of a preferred, long term erosion mitigation solution for Huia Domain, a series of key factors should be considered, including:

·           regulatory framework

·           impact on coastal processes and effectiveness (considering the future pressures of climate change on the system)

·           funding availability and cost (including future maintenance costs)

·           mana whenua values

·           local community and stakeholder values.

7.       Each of these factors has been worked through to assist the Waitākere Ranges Local Board when deciding on the preferred option.

8.       The regulatory framework is generally supportive of managed realignment in the broadest sense of soft engineering. Coastal processes, effectiveness and longevity are most catered for in managed realignment.

9.       Funding up to $753,736 is available in the 2015/2016 financial year to renew the seawall structure at Huia Domain. Further development of the structure beyond the existing will require funding from additional sources such as from the Governing Body.

10.     Mana whenua values are more aligned with soft engineering options but also have concerns for the potential effects of erosion to property and cultural heritage. Therefore, they seek a balance between erosion mitigation and natural processes. 

11.     Consultation with the local community and stakeholders to date has derived that the majority are opposed to a managed realignment approach, and strongly favour construction of a new seawall to protect all of Huia Domain in its current form.

12.     It is clear that all three high level management options have their costs and benefits, and not one option suits all of the criteria. Therefore, an integrated solution that incorporates both restoring natural processes, and the preservation of Huia Domain, requires further investigation.

13.     Working closely with mana whenua, the Waitākere Ranges Local Board and local community representatives will be important when determining an integrated solution that fits the criteria outlined above. This approach is suggested as a plausible next step towards deriving a management response which seeks to obtain collective support.



That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receives the information and consultation feedback provided on options to mitigate erosion at Huia Domain



14.     Huia Domain is a coastal reserve that lies on the low-lying flood plain of the Huia Stream, at the head of Huia Bay. A map of Huia Domain is available as Attachment A, where the orange line is the property boundary.

15.     The eastern and central area of the bay, including the majority of Huia Domain, has been armoured by a 245 metre long grouted rock seawall, believed to have been originally constructed between the 1930’s and 1950’s and repaired over the years with tipped rock (Tonkin and Taylor, 2013).

16.     The existing seawall has prevented landward retreat during storm conditions and swell events that are coupled with elevated tides. However, the structure has essentially reached the end of its design life and is exhibiting typical failure mechanisms.

17.     In 2014 the erosion along Huia Domain accelerated. The depletion of sediment and associated beach lowering has resulted in undermining of the foundation of the seawall, compromising its stability.

18.     The undermining of the seawall has also resulted in a number of large voids opening up behind the wall as backfill material is washed out from the base. This has been exacerbated during storm events which have induced overtopping of the seawall and removal of material landward of the crest.

19.     To the west of the seawall, increased exposure has resulted in erosion of the unprotected reclaimed coastal edge, threatening a series of fronting pohutukawa trees and the toilet block. Erosion to the west of the seawall has also occurred as a result of:

·        end effects, impoundment and wave reflection induced by the existing seawall

·        low sediment availability, with less sand entering the beach system than leaving

·        alongshore drift moving sand to be deposited and retained in the near shore intertidal area at the Western end of the bay.

20.     In response, Auckland Council commissioned emergency works along the frontage to address these immediate issues. Works have comprised of filling the voids in the seawall and construction of a 70 metre temporary rock revetment along the unprotected coastal edge to the west of the seawall. A retrospective resource consent for the works is currently being prepared.

21.     These emergency works are considered to be a temporary measure with a limited design life of one to two years, with a requirement for continued repair and maintenance of the structures during this time. Since the completion of the works, two small voids adjacent to the in-filled sections have already been identified and scheduled for repair through council’s shoreline monitoring.

22.     The emergency works enable additional time to complete comprehensive consultation and the associated decision-making process regarding a longer-term solution at Huia Domain.

Long Term Erosion Mitigation Management Options

23.     There are currently three high level management options that the Waitākere Ranges Local Board is considering for the long term mitigation of erosion at Huia Domain.

24.     Auckland Council engaged Tonkin and Taylor Ltd (T&T Ltd) to develop a number of options to mitigate against erosion along Huia Domain. A series of seven options were originally considered, with two high-level options preferred.

Option 1: Repair and extend the seawall

·           Repairs undertaken on the face of the existing seawall.

·           Provision of rock rip-rap that would occupy a three metre wide strip seaward along the base of the existing seawall.

·           Provision of fill and improved drainage material behind the existing seawall to prevent scour during overtopping events.

·           Provision of a new seawall at the western end of the Domain in front of the toilet block extending around the western car park to the bridge abutments.

·           Targeted beach sand redistribution (from west to east) to provide an additional storm buffer and improve amenity.

·           The works would span a total of approximately 145 metres.  The emergency works rock revetment completed in June 2015 is assumed to remain in place.

·           It is assumed the central stair access to the beach would be blocked unless the stairs were additionally extended seaward.

Option 2: Managed beach realignment

·           Removal of existing seawall with 15 - 25 m set back (loss of approximately 4,000m2 of grass reserve) to restore a natural coastal edge and related coastal processes.

·           Removal of several trees (including the large heritage Norfolk Pine and Macrocarpas at the eastern end of Huia Domain).

·           Relocation within the domain of high value park infrastructure, including the toilet and wastewater facilities, playground, basketball court and eastern car park.

·           Retention and repairs of the existing seawall at the eastern end of Huia Domain around the car park.

25.     The above two options were presented to the community and local iwi for consultation. Consultation feedback for these options was presented to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board at their March 12th business meeting.

26.     As part of the initial consultation feedback a community collective proposed a further option to the local board. This option to replace the current seawall with a new, upgraded seawall that extended past toilet block.

Option 3 (community submission): Extended new seawall

·           Construct a new rock masonry seawall, from the end of the toilet block to the Upland Road car park, to keep the Huia Domain intact.

·           Wall to be designed for present conditions but with the ability to increase the height of the wall over time, if required.

·           Provision of a 1.5 metre wide footpath along the top of the wall.

·           No rip-rap along the shoreline to improve aesthetics.

·           Boat access via the existing ramp to remain.

27.     The new seawall option was presented by Tim De Roles at the public workshop held on 14 April 2015, as shown in Figure 1.The design is for a terraced seawall with a three metre wide footpath at the crest of a low wall, with an up-stand wall providing protection at the landward edge of the footpath.

28.     The design has been reviewed by T&T Ltd (2015) with the following observations and assumptions made:

·        The proposed wall is to be located at the same location as the existing wall and will extend along the entire shoreline from the beach access ramp at the eastern end of the domain to the western edge of the car park (approximately 270 metres).

·        The section of new wall is to be placed landward of the emergency works rock revetment at the western end of the beach (rock armour left in-situ).

·        The design shows a crest level of 1.7 metres above Auckland Vertical Datum (AVD). This is lower than MHWS (Mean High Water Springs) of 1.82 metres AVD. It is therefore proposed the crest level is increased to 0.3 metres above MHWS (2.1 metres AVD). This will still result in regular inundation of the footpath during storm and king tide events.

·        Assuming a 0.1 metre cross fall on the path, the crest of the landward up-stand wall will be 2.8 metre AVD. This approximately corresponds to the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) event. Therefore, wave overtopping and scour of the domain behind the wall will still occur periodically and this frequency will increase with future sea-level rise.

·        The design shows a reinforced concrete wall faced by stone. It is likely that it will be more cost effective to do a grouted stone wall with a concrete footpath where the existing rock can be re-used. Drainage will also be required with weep holes at 2.0 metres.

·        The foundations are shown to be based at 1.0 metre. Considering the ongoing beach erosion, foundations should be founded below the seabed levels of the intertidal beach. Based on survey data this is approximately 0.7 metres, therefore a foundation depth of 0.4 metres to allow for contingency is recommended.


Figure 1: Concept sketch of the new terraced seawall provided by Tim de Roles


Key Considerations for Long-term Management Options

29.     A number of key factors should be considered when developing a preferred, long term management option for coastal erosion. These include:

·           regulatory framework and statutory requirements

·           impact on natural coastal processes and effectiveness of response (considering the future projections of climate change and related sea level rise.

·           funding availability and cost (including future maintenance costs)

·           mana whenua values

·           local community and stakeholder values.

30.     Each of these factors has been worked through to assist the Waitākere Ranges Local Board when considering a preferred management response.

31.     The below subsections provide overarching guidance to each of these factors before the long term options are presented and appraised. 

Regulatory framework

32.     The development and appraisal of appropriate coastal management options must be drafted with consideration of the existing regulatory framework and supporting guidance.

33.     The guidance provided by the statutory documents is generally in support of a managed realignment approach.

34.     The hierarchy of key statutory documents are outlined below.

35.     The New Zealand Resource Management Act, RMA (1991) and its subsequent amendments have a purpose to promote the sustainable management of natural resources (Section 5). This includes the coastal zone and prompts us to consider its integrated and holistic management in a manner that is sensitive to the functioning of natural coastal processes.

36.     Following on from the RMA, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (2010) includes key objectives that further support sustainable coastal management including:

·        Objective 2: To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect natural features and landscape values through:

-         Recognising the characteristics and qualities that contribute to natural character, natural features and landscape values, their location and distribution;

-         Encouraging restoration of the coastal environment.

·        Objective 4: To maintain and enhance the public open space qualities and recreation opportunities of the coastal environment;

-        Maintaining and enhancing public walking access to and along the coastal marine area…;

-        Recognising the potential for coastal processes, including those likely to be affected by climate change, to restrict access to the coastal environment and the need to ensure that public access is maintained even when the CMA advances inland.

·        Objective 5: To ensure that coastal hazard risks, taking into account climate change, are managed by:

-        Locating new development away from areas prone to such risks;

-        Considering responses, including managed retreat, for existing development in this situation; and

-        Protecting or restoring natural defences to coastal hazards.

·        Policy 25: In areas potentially affected by coastal hazards over at least the next 100 years:

-        Discourage hard protection structures and promote the use of alternatives to them including natural defences.

·        Policy 27: In evaluating options:

-        Focus on approached to risk management that reduce the need for hard protection structures and similar engineering interventions.

37.     At a regional level, the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (1999) includes targeted policies and objectives with respect to the provision of coastal engineering structures:

·        Objectives 7.3.1, .3, . 10, Policies (iii),, 7.4.10, where existing development is threatened by a natural hazard, coastal protection works should be permitted only where they are the best practicable option for the future. The abandonment or relocation of existing structure should be considered amongst the options;

·, .9 and …The abandonment or relocation of existing structures and the use of non-structural solutions shall also be considered amongst the options.

38.     Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal (1999):

·        Policies 12.4.1, 12.4.10 b: …. where doing nothing, or abandoning or relocating any landward development or structures, are not practicable options; and… c the proposed structure is the most appropriate method… having regard to… alternative methods including the use of non-structural methods, … unless it can be demonstrated that the structural solution is the best practicable method for remedying or mitigating the hazard.

39.     Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, Part 2, Regional and District Objectives and Policies:

·        Chapter C: Auckland-wide objectives and policies – 5 natural resources – 5.12 Natural Hazards: Policy 5: Consider hard engineering coastal protection works to protect development only where existing natural features, such as sand dunes in coastal hazard areas will not provide protection from the natural hazard present and enhancement of natural defence systems is not practical.

·        Chapter D: Zone objectives and policies – 5 Coastal zones – 5.1 General Coastal Marine zones – 5.1.15 Structures: Foreshore protection works – hard protection structures:

-                Avoid a proliferation of hard protection structures in the CMA by requiring:

§  Hard protection structures to be located landward if MHWS where practicable, particularly if the structure is for the purpose of protecting private assets;

§  Evidence to demonstrate that the adjoining landward area, or development in the CMA, is at risk from a coastal hazard and the degree of risk;

§  Evidence to demonstrate that the options of non-intervention, managed retreat, abandonment or relocation of any landward development or structures are not practicable;

§  Evidence to demonstrate that the proposed structure is the most appropriate method for remedying or mitigating a coastal hazard having regard to the entire area affected or potentially affected by the hazard, and taking into account alternative methods, including soft engineering works.

·        Policy 6, under 5.12 Natural Hazards: Avoid hard engineering solutions in ONCs, HNCs and SEAs. Where it is appropriate for hard engineering solutions to be located in coastal areas, structures must be located as far landward as possible to retain as much natural beach buffer as possible.

Influence and impact of coastal processes

40.     The second key factor when identifying a preferred long term erosion mitigation option for Huia Domain is the influence of coastal processes.

41.     Along with their aesthetic and recreational value, beaches are an important natural coastal defence. Beaches play a key role in dissipating wave energy as waves break and run-up the beach. This process subsequently reduces the exposure of immediately landward assets. Furthermore, beaches are dynamic features of the coastal zone with the ability to adapt to changing conditions over time, such as wave climate and climate change. This highlights the importance of maintaining the beach at Huia as a natural coastal asset.

42.     The provision of hard engineering structures can have negative impacts on the natural functioning of the beach and the wider coastal system through three main processes:

·        Impoundment (or placement loss): is the loss of beach area by the occupation of a structure and solely impacts the area upon which the structure is sited. Impoundment also affects the amount of sediment that can enter the beach system as the structure prevents the normal seaward movement of sediment that would have occurred along the protected area without a structure.

·        Passive Erosion: is the presence of a hard structure creates a fixed point at which normally occurring shoreline change can be more readily noticed (e.g. beach level dropping seaward of the seawall and shorelines continuing to recede).

·        Active Erosion: is the process where the seawall induces or accelerates natural erosion. Scour is a potential effect that has been observed at the down-drift end of seawall structures as a result of wave reflection from the end section of wall. The process is controlled by the wall orientation, the incoming wave angle, wave height and period.

43.     The existing seawall is believed to be causing all three of the above processes to influence Huia Bay. Therefore, repairs or construction of a new seawall will result in a continuation of the above issues.

44.     It is also important to consider how coastal processes may influence the effectiveness and longevity of the structure.

45.     In the case of Huia Bay, the continual degradation of the beach with reduction in sediment supply and further beach lowering is likely to expose council to future high maintenance costs.

46.     The future impacts of climate change must also be considered. Sea-level rise will have a critical impact on future coastal erosion. As mean sea-level rises, the base level for wave attack along the coastline will increase, in turn increasing the exposure of the coast. Historically in Auckland, tide gauge records between 1899 and 2015 for the Waitemata Harbour show an average annual rise in mean sea level of 1.6 mm/yr.

47.     Future sea-level rise is predicted to accelerate, with projected increases of:

·        0.3 metres by 2050 (Wright, 2014)

·        0.5 - 1.0 metres by 2100 (Hollis, 2014)

Funding availability and cost

48.     Upfront capital cost and ongoing maintenance costs are both important factors to consider in any long term management response/option.

49.     Hard engineering solutions come with high capital build costs, as well as enduring maintenance costs within the design and consenting ‘life’ of the structure. This may include underpinning if beach levels continue to lower, regrouting and replacement of rock armour following storm events. At the end of a structures design life, a potential expectation for replacement, such as is currently being experienced at Huia, means the ongoing costs to ‘hold the line’ should be carefully managed.

50.     Soft engineering solutions can vary in terms of upfront costs and enduring maintenance depending on the initial establishment of the beach area and its subsequent effectiveness as a natural coastal defence. However, future maintenance costs are significantly reduced as the approach is intended to work with natural processes; the beach is a dynamic feature and able to replenish itself over time.

51.     Budget of up to $753,736 (as of July 2015) is available to renew the Huia Domain seawall in the 2015/2016 financial year, in a like-for-like manner.

52.     Any works to develop or extend the seawall beyond existing will need further funding from alternative sources such as from the governing body.

Mana whenua values

53.     Te Kawerau a Maki have met with the Waitākere Ranges Local Board and council staff to provide their view on the Huia Domain erosion mitigation options. Their views are summarised below, where Te Kawerau a Maki: 

·        take a long-term view to natural coastal processes or interventions. If it takes 30 years so be it. We focus on the best outcome, not the most convenient”.

·        do not support ‘hard engineering’ solutions when alternatives are feasible. These are considered imposing to the natural world, and deliver short-term outcomes that are costly in the long-term with no environmental benefits

·        “Support ‘soft engineering’ solutions where possible. These manipulate natural processes rather than seek to control or confront them. They also have higher environmental and cultural benefits, and lower long-term costs. We view these approaches as sustainable”

·        “Do not generally support reclamation or construction of hard structures within CMA. There are however instances where this might be considered/supported if carefully designed with Te Kawerau a Maki”.

·        While valuing natural processes, we do have concerns regarding erosion and the effects to property and cultural heritage. To this end we seek a balance between erosion retardation and natural process”.

Local community and stakeholder values

54.     At their 12 March 2014 business meeting the Waitākere Ranges Local Board requested further public engagement to provide the Huia stakeholders and residents with more comprehensive information on the options to mitigate erosion along the Huia Domain shoreline and seawall.

55.     The second round of consultation included the two options presented by council staff and the third option submitted by the community as previously outlined above.

56.     The second round of consultation included a public meeting at the Huia-Cornwallis residents and ratepayer’s hall on 14 April 2015. T&T Ltd’s senior engineer presented options 1 and 2 and a community representative presented option 3.

57.     Following the public meeting, an online survey was opened to enable the public to provide feedback on the options, as well as rank the options according to preference.

Public meeting feedback

58.     There was a large turnout to the public meeting. A few clear points were derived from the initial feedback at the public meeting, which are summarised as:

·           the preservation of Huia Domain and protection of the road in the long term (200 years or more) is very important to many local Huia residents

·           families, visitors and events all use the reserve and facilities so it is important that these remain

·           there is a desire to provide protection to all domain trees, particularly from salt inundation

·           there are concerns around future sea level rise and the resulting impact on the reserve and surrounding properties

·           there is a desire for a reserve management plan to manage the issues across the entire domain.

59.     At the public meeting a petition was presented to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board members with 864 electronic signatures from around New Zealand and the world to “re-build our sea wall to protect the Huia Reserve and all native heritage trees there”.

60.     Following the public meeting the Huia Domain Protection Group (HDPG) formed and made a submission to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board, available as Attachment B.  The online petition was also included in the HDPG submission.

Online survey feedback

61.     There were 266 responses to the online survey. The full survey results and comments can be viewed as Attachment C. The below table summarises the responses.



Do not


Option 1 - Repair and extend the seawall




Option 2 – Managed beach realignment




Option 3 - Extended new seawall




62.     The results of the survey were strongly in favour of  option 3, to build an extended new seawall, with 72% of submitters strongly supporting this option and 78% ranked this as their most preferred option.

63.     The results showed the little support for option 2, managed beach realignment, with 69% of submitters not supporting the option at all and 78% ranking this as their least preferred option.

64.     Opinion on option 1, repair, was divided, although the feedback was slightly more against the repair with 52% not supporting option 1, compared to 38% supporting option 1.

Summary of community values

65.     It is clear from the consultation feedback that a number of key values are important to the local community and that any option going forward needs to take into consideration protection of these values.

66.     The key community values derived from the online survey  feedback are:

·        efficiency in public expenditure

·        preservation of trees

·        preservation of usable open green space

·        enhancement of beach and reserve

·        history and character of the area

·        protection of houses, road and graveyard

·        retention of facilities (toilet, playground, basketball court, boat ramp, BBQ/Picnic area, playing field)

·        beach access

·        restoring natural coastal processes and adapting to future sea-level rise

Analysis of Long-term Management Options

67.     The following is an analysis and appraisal of the three long term options with respect to the criteria presented above. This analysis has been worked through in collaboration between Auckland Council’s Coastal Management Services and Local and Sports Parks West units.

Option 1: Repair existing seawall

Regulatory framework

68.     This option relates to the repairs or maintenance of a previously consented structure.

69.     However, maintenance works under the original consent for the seawall only apply to the replacement or maintenance with a like-for-like structure.

70.     The rock rip rap would extend an additional three metres seaward into the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) and entails an upgrade of the structures original function through the dissipative nature of the fronting rock rip-rap. As a result, additional consents would be required for the rock rip rap and the westward extension of the structure.

Impact on coastal processes and effectiveness

71.     The seaward extension of the structure into the CMA will introduce increased interaction with coastal processes.

72.     The fronting rock armour will reduce wave reflection and subsequent scour currently experienced at the toe of the masonry seawall. This may encourage the regeneration of beach levels but is likely to be hindered by the extension of the structure below MHWS.

73.     The future impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise, will introduce further limitations regarding the effectiveness of the repair option and associated maintenance commitments. Increased sea-levels will increase the future likelihood of wave overtopping; particularly as the crest level of the existing structure will not be increased. Subsequently the recreational value of the Domain will be reduced and trees will be compromised with salt inundation over time.

Funding availability and cost

74.     Preliminary costing of the repair option has been provided by T&T Ltd and has been refined based on the rates provided for the initial emergency works at Huia. A total rough order cost of $125,000 has been calculated. This excludes resource consent fees which are estimated to be $20,000 - $50,000.

75.     The existing seawall is not founded on bedrock, loss of backfill material and the opening of subsequent voids is likely to continue, despite the rock rip rap protection. Therefore, considering the poor condition of the existing seawall, continuous repair costs will be associated with this option.

76.     The toe of the structure will also become increasingly exposed to wave energy which will introduce costs associated with the replacement of rock armour and the infilling of additional voids.

77.     Upfront repair costs of the existing seawall would be funded by the renewal budget; however the construction of the new extension will require funding from additional sources.

78.     Ongoing maintenance may be difficult to commit to as a result of the parks maintenance savings that are being driven by Auckland Council’s Long-term Plan 2015 -2025.

Mana whenua values

79.     The repair of the existing seawall is a hard engineering solution and subsequently not supported by mana whenua

Local community and stakeholder values

80.     A total of 38% of the online survey respondents were in support of option 1 and 52% were not supportive of option 1.

81.     This option will preserve the history and character of Huia Domain in the near future by maintaining and reinforcing the status quo and preserving the threatened trees. However, as noted above, these benefits (related to retention and land) may not be realised into the future given the potential future impacts of climate change and sea-level rise.

82.     Another key limitation of the option is reduced amenity and beach access from the Domain.  


Option 2: Managed realignment

Regulatory Framework

83.     The regulatory framework requires coastal practitioners to consider, and where appropriate apply, managed realignment and soft engineering techniques.

84.     The avoidance of hard engineering structures and the restoration of the natural coastal environment is encouraged in the statutory documents. As a result, it is clear that the guidance is supportive of a managed realignment approach.

Coastal Processes

85.     Managed realignment involves the deliberate breaching or removal of hard defenses to allow the coastline to realign. The main objectives of the approach  is to restore a more natural coastal edge, enable the rehabilitation of intertidal habitats and ultimately create a coastline that is more resilient to storm events and sea-level rise.

86.     Historically, there has been significant human induced modification of the bay which has had a negative impact on sediment pathways and subsequent beach levels.

87.     The key advantage of this option is the restoration of a natural coastal edge. Removal of the existing seawall will enable the coastline to readjust to its natural alignment with incoming wave energy. This process will result in an initial loss of land and several trees but as sediment transport and processes are restored to their natural state the fronting beaches should naturally be replenished and stabilise within the bounds of acceptable change.

88.     The enhanced beach area will act as a natural buffer to the adjacent land. Considering the beaches role in dissipating wave energy, it will act as a natural defence to coastal storms and future sea-level rise.

89.     However, it should be noted that a beaches natural response to rising sea-levels is to ‘roll back’ which may induce gradual erosion of Huia Domain over time. The rate of this process is dependent on the future rate of sea-level rise, which is in turn dependent on future climate change mitigation. Considering this uncertainty, continuous shoreline monitoring of the site would likely be required if any managed realignment approach is adopted, with ‘trigger levels’ established where future erosion mitigation measures could be implemented (e.g. provision of a backstop wall, beach replenishment, raising of reserve or road levels).

Funding availability and cost

90.     The refined cost estimate for managed realignment (excluding reserve works) was   provided in a memo by T&T Ltd (2015) and was estimated at $260,000. When taking into account the requirement to relocate the toilet block, playground, basketball court and car park this cost increases to an estimated $760,000.

91.     Removal of the seawall should fit the criteria for the use of the renewal budget. There is also $250,000 currently allocated to renew the toilet block in the 2016 - 2017 financial year that could be used to relocate the toilet block. Additional funding would be required for relocation of the other park assets and any new plantings.

92.     This management option is not expected to entail further maintenance costs over the 35 year consent period within the area modified. However, shoreline monitoring and costs to maintain the existing seawall to the east are likely.

Mana whenua values

93.     Te Kawerau a Maki have expressed support of a managed realignment or soft engineering approach at Huia Bay considering the potential environmental, cultural and cost benefits. However, the sensitive balance between the restoration of natural processes and the protection of property and cultural heritage at the site was recognised.

Local community and stakeholder values

94.     Full managed realignment was not supported by the local community and stakeholders, 69% of submitters to the online survey not supporting the option at all.

95.     The loss of green space and some large heritage trees are of concern to the community. This option compromises some of the values that were clearly expressed in the feedback received during consultation. Namely the preservation of trees, usable open green space, history and character of the area and retention of facilities, in particular the playing field, the boat ramp and the location of the assets in their current positions.

96.     However, the option offers several clear benefits with relation to the other community values identified, including restoration of natural coastal processes, enhancement of the beach and associated access, and adaptation to future climate change.

Option 3: New seawall

Regulatory Framework

97.     As previously outlined, the statutory framework enforces the sustainable management of the coast and the avoidance of hard engineering structures where appropriate.

98.     Huia Domain acts as a 50 - 60 metre green space buffer between the coast and Huia Road and landward properties. As a result, ‘holding the line’ may not be an appropriate management response, recognising the cost-benefit ratio of such a scheme and the opportunities for a more sustainable approach with greater provision for future adaptation to climate change. 

Coastal Processes

99.     The provision of a new, extended seawall will have a negative impact on coastal processes as impoundment, active erosion and passive erosion will continue to be exacerbated by the extension of the seawall.

100.   Subsequently, beach levels may continue to lower with the reduced sediment availability, exacerbated by the seawalls reflective nature. This may be exacerbated even further is the undesirable orientation of the seawall to incoming wave energy remains unchanged.

101.   The crest level of the proposed design is equal to the current level of the seawall and frequent inundation during storms is expected.

102.   Further challenges will be presented by the impacts of climate change (discounting the ability to modify and increase the height of this structure). Sea-level rise will still have the potential to inundate low-lying areas of Huia Domain due to increased water levels extending up the Huia Stream.

103.   In addition, increased seasonal rainfall will likely increase groundwater levels on the domain and compromise the area of useable green space, despite the provision of the seawall and associated drainage at the site.

Funding availability and cost

104.   Rough order costings for the terraced seawall have been provided by T&T Ltd (2015). An approximate, total cost of $1,000,000 is proposed. Costs are based on recent pricing of the Stanley Bay seawall with an additional 5% contingency included in rates to allow for additional haulage costs. In addition, the pricing is based on a series of key assumptions relating to the construction and design:

·        Rock is stockpiled from the removal of the existing seawall and used to rebuild the new structure (as bulk fill or facing stone). However, the need to import additional rock considering the increased crest height of the new wall is noted.

·        90% of material is suitable for retaining on site to raise levels, with 10% which may require landfill disposal (including existing concrete grout that has been placed to infill voids in the emergency works stage).

·        Provision of a new, mass cast, in-situ concrete toe extending from 0.4m to 1.0m AVD.

·        Grouted rock seawall with a crest level of 2.1m AVD. For costing purposes this is assumed 50% new import rock wall and 50% rebuild.

·        A concrete footpath 150 mm thick founded on 0.3 m of compacted granular fill.

·        A 0.6 m upstand wall constructed from grouted stone with a foundation of 0.4m (i.e. 1.0 m in height).

·        Design and consent fees are not included in the above costs and are estimated to be between $50,000 and $100,000 due to more complex design and consenting process. However, it is noted that if a hearing is required, costs could be significantly higher.

105.   It is likely that new seawall may satisfy the criteria for the allocated renewal budget of $753,736 where the there is an existing seawall. However, an extension of the seawall will require additional funding from alternative sources.

106.   This option will incur similar issues with ongoing maintenance costs of the structure as previously discussed for option 1. These costs will be further inflated by the additional extension of the seawall from approximately 145 metres to 270 metres.

Mana whenua values

107.   The construction of a new, extended seawall does not gain support from Te Kawerau a Maki due to the hard engineering design that they do not deem to be environmentally sustainable.

Local community and stakeholder values

108.   The public consultation results show 72% of submitters strongly supporting the construction of a new seawall.

109.   This solution is favoured by the community as it provides a sense of security that high value infrastructure, green space, park infrastructure and heritage tress will be preserved and that the area and functionality of Huia Domain will remain unchanged in the long term.

110.   Efficiency in public expenditure, restoration of natural coastal processes and adaptation to the future impacts of climate change were also identified as key community values. However, the provision of a new, improved seawall does not seem to satisfy these values.

Summary and Conclusions


111.   Determining the most suitable long term management option to mitigate against erosion at Huia Domain is not straightforward as all three options appear have their merits when taking into consideration the five main assessment criteria.

112.   The three management options presented for consideration are still high level and are currently being considered in isolation. An integrated approach where an overall design incorporates as many benefits of the appraisal criteria as possible, would be beneficial when seeking to obtain collective support.

113.   For example,  exploring the possibilities of retaining as much of the green space and domain in its current form by keeping some extent(s) of the seawall, while still taking into account the coastal processes, budget constraints and projected sea-level rise by applying soft engineered solutions in areas where park infrastructure will not be compromised.

114.   Working closely with representatives from the local community (including the Huia Domain Protection Group and the Huia-Cornwallis Ratepayers and Residents Association), mana whenua and the Waitākere Ranges Local Board to determine a suitable integrated solution seems the most appropriate next step.

115.   It is recommended that a working group form to further discuss and explore an integrated management response, which is sympathetic to the challenges outlined in this report.


Local Board views and implications

116.   The Waitākere Ranges Local Board currently hold the budget to renew the Huia Domain seawall. Any further budget required will need to be lobbied from the governing body or derived from other projects currently funded by the local board.

117.   Decisions made by the Local Board at Huia will influence public expectation of council’s wider approach to managing coastlines throughout the Auckland region.

118.   The Local Board need to consider the implication of any decision on the environmental and financial sustainability of managing the coastline in Huia and the carry-on effect this may have for decisions made at the regional level.

119.   The Local Board also needs to balance the sustainability of a managed realignment or integrated approach with the current desires of the local community to preserve Huia Domain (in its current state) for future generations.

120.   Further engagement with the local community and stakeholder representative groups is promoted. Support is sought from the Local Board in respect to deriving options for integrated management options that balance current issues with future management requirements.     








Huia Domain Map



Huia Domain Protection Group Submission



Shape Auckland Survey Feedback





Kaitlyn  White - Park Advisor


Mark Bowater - Manager Local and Sports Parks

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


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

09 July 2015



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

09 July 2015



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

09 July 2015




Huia Domain Erosion Mitigation: April 2015 Summary



Total Responses




To what extent do you support Option 1- Repair and extend the seawall?


Number of responses to this question

244 (92%)







Do not support at all




Do not support




Neither support nor do not support








Strongly support








I support this option only if the council will not build a new sea wall as requested by the community. Rip Rap along the beach is not a good option and I would not be happy with this.


I think this option is a great middle man. You don't take out the park that everyone is winging about and you don't spend a crap load on a new wall with a footpath etc. Just save the park to keep the winging locals happy but don't use my well-earned tax money on a fancy pants wall. Feed kids in schools with that money instead.

2nd best option

This will help keep the Domain, but is a short term solution.

Ongoing costs seem like a disadvantage to this option

If the third option is not to be put into motion then this is most certainly the next best option, in no way what so ever should the Huia Domain and Trees be disturbed at all, who ever came up with such an absurd idea really does need to seek psychological help as do the people agreeing to go along with it.

The preferred option is option 3 but the 2nd best choice would be option 1. The wall must be repaired or we will lose all of the domain. The sea will keep eroding back and there will be nothing left for us to use.

This is not my preferred option, but I do support it as a back-up if my preferred option is not available.

I do not Support this at all.

Whilst I do support this option I believe a new seawall is the best option

This would be better than nothing

Does not look like it has been maintained currently, so I see ongoing maintenance would be an ongoing issue.

Could become more expensive than option three.

This would be the second best option. We must have the sea wall.

Ongoing maintenance costs are likely to add further burden to the ratepayers of the wider Auckland region.

Clearly the current system must have been designed by morons. The power pole on the beach has a foundation that has not been compromised by the sea. Yet the wall is failing. Would hope that person is no longer employed at Auckland Council

Money saved on Mt Eden summit road maintenance could help preserve this Community Reserve for ALL of Auckland. If we cannot drive on the road there should be some savings made. Every little bit helps. Huia is a popular destination and needs to be saved.

Much better idea than realignment

The best and most cost effective option.

Could possibly work

Better than option 2 but prefer option 3

Too costly long run and doesn't factor global warming in. Decreases public access.

don't agree with decreasing amenities

I believe that in the long term this option will be as expensive as a total replacement due to ongoing maintenance costs and early total replacement, but if I was to decide between this option and the managed retreat. THIS OPTION WOULD HAVE MY VOTE.

Do it right, do it once

Save our beautiful park for our grandchildren and their future grandchildren. So many great memories of this area and want them to continue.

This is a very short term solution and does not have the support of the community

Council represent academics bulldozing contemporary practice, Huia beach will always be vulnerable to future weather events

Rip-rap would decrease the enjoyment people with young children experience in the park. It would not properly protect the domain assets yet would decrease the area of beach available.

I do not regard expenditure on structures such as this to be of value if they are going to be quickly redundant due to sea level rise and prone to ongoing general weathering, particularly if they are not associated with critical urban infrastructure. In this neighbourhood I cannot see the justification for protecting the domain and a few properties that benefit from the Seawall.

A waste of money - the sea level is rising.

if the budget cannot be obtained for option 3 which given tight council budgets then I would support this option next

This is my second preferred option, less preferred than option 3, more preferred than option 2.

Prefer this option more than Option 2

don’t want to lose the wall or reserve the reserve must stay and the trees

I oppose it because of the limitations discussed above.

Ongoing cost

Don't do a patch up job, do an excellent job that will still be intact for years and generations to come

This is only a short-term solution to the problem and will defer to our next generation the need for a complete solution.

The current sea-wall has 'some' cosmetic appeal (as it tidied up the previous version), however there have been problems with parts of it breaking ever since it was constructed and the area where it stops (by the toilets) has never looked worse. It would be financially irresponsible to carry on repairing every time there is damage. The weather issues that are causing the damage cannot be controlled, so to keep the status quo does not make sense. Furthermore, the water damage is not only caused by sea water surging up and over the wall, but from beneath the wall also and then rising up through the domain. The wall does not allow for smooth flow of sand movement, whether in or out. The reserve is great and I use it every day, but unless this issue is resolved properly, the condition of the reserve will worsen.

The domain should not have been built there at all, the sand / beach should function and regenerate naturally, the solution needs to maintain the natural beach feel that is consistent with the area

Sick of temporary fixes when so much is at stake

Not happy with the concept of decreasing access to the beach.

This opportunity should be to retain and improve on what Huia has to offer for a long time rather than as a stopgap.

It seems to me that this is a very short-sighted option that will result in an area of existing beach needing to be filled in with rock riprap and therefore make it unusable and quite ugly! The problem won't go away and will require costly on-going maintenance.

Limitations far outweigh the advantages. Literally money down the drain

It’s a sticking plaster that will only be a temporary fix and doesn't address the issue.

I think this option isn't viable as the ongoing costs will be large and the work will likely be undone by the future forces of nature, we will be back to square one again. This option doesn't give any foreshore or beach back. This is why we live out here, for the beach. It would be great to have a more natural foreshore as with other great beaches in the area.

This option sounds ugly and might reduce beach access.

The only reason this may be the favourite is the pricing as of now! But the ongoing maintenance of the existing wall isn’t included so in the long run this may be a more expensive option. Especially in regards to the sea level increase. This wall may need replacing down the track, anyway!

We cannot let the council destroy this beautiful reserve. A new seawall must be built so that the toilet block, trees and reserve are maintained for future generations!

I am strongly opposed to having a large area of rock rip-rap on the beach. The plan shown on the documentation for Option 1 (huiapresentation_part2 - page 4) shows rip-rap extending at least 30m out into the beach for a length of at least 150m. That is 4,500 square metres of rocks - totally unacceptable. It would totally ruin the beach, make it totally unusable, and would be very ugly.

Going by money this is the cheaper option that still has a great outcome. Being that the reserve stays INTACT!

I don't think it is economic to choose an option that will require ongoing maintenance. The existing wall has no foundations - it's throwing good money after bad. You will need a resource consent for this option so why not build a new wall all the way along, using the consent process. That way, if repair fails, you won't have to revisit the consent issue. Do it once and do it properly.

Only if option 3 is rejected

If there is no additional budget available - then this option has some merit - but ultimately is not really fit for purpose given the existing overtopping events - and as outlined by the council a further 30cm sea rise - this is important as to compare the options this needs to be considered in ALL THREE options. As this option is well below the funds identified - if a promenade and then secondary wall was added - this would assist in managing overtopping incidents and have scope for preventing the damage and undermining that currently happens. It does however seem rather pointless to make arguments about the next 30 and fifty years in one breath and then spend 560,000 on a solution that cannot cope with the planned rises!

This is a short-term solution and therefore better in my opinion that Option 2, the managed retreat. However, it does not reflect proactive responsible environmental management, nor does it ensure the security of the asset that is the Huia domain.

The domain is the heart of the Huia where all the children play and where we come together as a community. To Lose this asset would be devastating.

An option which accommodates the retaining of the domain, its heritage trees and the parks/reserves and amenities is the only option to go with.

Yes. I would love the domain to remain. For me the domain is an area where I walk my dogs and play with the kids in the park (kicking a ball around) and the playground and have numerous picnics over the summer period with friends from outside of the area (who have come to go walking one of the many bush walks). It's a special place. It feels like I am in a different town, a small town with the feel of the country - yet still part of Auckland, which to me is a perfect combination. It would be so devastating to lose it - it's a fabulous community area.

It is important to me that the Domain is kept intact and if this is the option that is affordable then I support it.

See comments under 6B. With changes, preferred over option 3.

You have been "trying" to fix the domain wall for what seems quite some time now and I feel like still nothing is being done. we need to come together as a community and do what is in the best interests for everyone not just yourselves

However, we understand a lot of the community supports this option and understand parts of their rationale re. their history of the Domain

Number of responses to this question

65 (24%)


Total number of responses for this survey



















To what extent do you support Option 2 - Managed beach realignment?


Number of responses to this question

245 (92%)




Do not support at all



Do not support



Neither support nor do not support






Strongly support






I think this is a disgusting idea put forward and I cannot believe it is even being considered by our local board. What gives them the right to murder or heritage native trees and take away our park when they have promised and had the funds to fix our sea wall over 3 years ago. This option will not work and in the long run a sea wall will need to be erected to save the nearby road - this was stated in the last meeting we had with the local board and council- build us a wall now and save the park for its entirety NOW.

This is going to anger the locals. My Facebook page is filled enough with their wining.

Most of the domain would be lost, including heritage trees. These trees are VERY popular with local children, and the loss of such trees would be a huge blow to the whole community as they add something very special to the area. The domain is also well used by both locals and visitors; In fact I would love to see someone from the council vista on a dry sunny weekend and question people using the domain if they would like to see this area disappear? I also question the cost estimate for this option as it appears to very on the low side... $860 to remove sea wall, trees, playground, and toilet block??? I would like to see how they arrived at this figure also if true where can I find labour and resources to do this much work for this cheap? I suspect it is more likely that this figure is artificially low so this becomes the option of choice for bean counters in offices that have never visited the area and have no idea on the impact on locals. Let alone what current public opinion is. This is one of the last lost oases of Auckland. Please do not go against the locals wishes; after all they live here and there are some intense feelings regarding this issue. Any council person who votes for this option will find they swiftly lose both respect and votes from the locals of Huia and surrounding areas.

I don't agree with taking the field away. This wonderful family playing field is used to play cricket, have picnics and play rugby and football on. No one has the right to take that com my children or any children from the domain or surrounding areas.

This option will destroy Huia. People will no longer come to Huia, thus money will no longer come into the community. This will also destroy the history of the community, as well as destroy futures. I t will directly affect the neighbouring farmland and upset the ecosystem. Houses will be put in direct danger of flooding and the local graveyard will be threatened- which holds locals which have passed away. A mass amount of native trees will die in the process. Who are you to do all of this to a community with mass dense history?

I think it would be nice to have a natural beach area + the rocks in the bay. This option has a good balance between upfront and ongoing costs. The people opposing this plan clearly haven't read the reports - not as much grass is being removed as they think.

Natural processes need to be allowed to occur, that is what the West Coast is about, being untamed and uncontrolled by human hand.

This is a useless option.

I do not support an option that removes the wonderful facilities for playing at Huia.

I would hate to see the park/reserve down sized and trees cut down. I played in this reserve as a child and take my daughter there; I would her to be able to take her daughter there one day. I also believe removal of the wall may cause risk of flooding

This is a terrible idea and cost more than a repair. It will also end up costing more in the long run after the road is washed away.

Do NOT take away the trees.

This is a disgusting travesty which would ruin Huia. You should be ashamed.

It would be disappointing to lose the use of the domain

Would be a shame for the local community to lose their grassy domain and amenities, not to mention all of the trees that would be lost. Is there anything to say how far the water would then come? Would it damage the road and potentially houses?

if option 3 is not a viable and agreeable option this option is the only choice to be considered further consideration needs to be taken as to the placement of the playground and facilities location maybe further development of the area around the Huia hall with playground and toilet facilities

This would ruin the entire bay of Huia. To do this would mean no one could enjoy the bay anymore as the water would continue to erode the land until it reached the road. One of the worst solutions I've ever heard of.

This shouldn't even be an option!

Strongly support this option as the more natural approach would be much more economical in the long run. It would also provide a beach area which is an asset to any community.

A local board member summed this up in my case "it is your fault that you brought a house below sea level" in response to is my house going to be at all safe with this idea. Clearly Auckland Council are not concerned. The true cost should also add the purchase of my home so it is actually the most expensive by far.

My son is 5 and we have used the park and domain at Huia a lot over the last five years it’s a great area... we often take a picnic down in the summer after work and sit near the park and domain and enjoy the view The trees at Huia are stunning why remove trees just for the sake of it being one of the cheaper options the whole planning of this just makes me feel like the west is Auckland city's poor relation I can imagine the uproar if this type of project was planned for the Tamaki drive area

No support whatsoever will be a horrific invasion of a lovely area.

This has to be one of the most stupid ideas out there, and look at the cost? The erosion will still continue and the council is bang out of order for going ahead removing existing rocks protecting the reserve before consulting the community. Dismantle Len Browns secret room and use the rubble to protect this reserve

I believe this would possibly look nice but it would destroy a large part of Huia's charm

Although Huia is a small place with a small population, many people from across Auckland, tourists etc., enjoy this place to visit. It would be very sad to see this area destroyed and especially the beautiful big trees taken down. My children love the playground and we visit often for a play. The loss of the playground would be a huge loss for the community and visitors

I do not support coastal erosion

No ongoing costs, accounts for global warming. Public access may be reduced but can be improved with relocation and development. Seems to be the best long term strategy.

Crazy idea - where can people go to sit/play etc.? Go down to the reserve and experience it on any given weekend (and many weekdays). It is busy and full of activity - the grass area is full and fun! Don't take away a natural area of free and safe entertainment for families (local and visiting!)

Those trees are precious! DO NOT KILL THEM, PLEASE!!!!

Hoping no native trees will go

Indications are we would be left with very little level play area (the grass fields are used by our children every day to play rugby, soccer etc. etc.) we have no other large play areas in our community open to us. The council would have to offer us an equal playing field area to what we have lost to be able to make this a consideration.

This is a community of people living in the here and now and they deserve protection and preservation of their way of life. The likely disturbance to the passage through to Little Huia and Whatipu means they could become cut off and more money will have to be spent re-routing the road. Protect the domain, protect the road.

With all the day to day use of this reserve from locals this is not ideal. Losing so much space, amazing tress that our children climb, major disruption by relocating infrastructure... not good! Not to mention when we have events on like Concert in the Park etc. it gets packed. Also summer time users come down & spend an entire day at that reserve, small space will mean cramped conditions. In the event of a local emergency it is the ideal congregation ground for all who live out here... you want to jeopardise that??

I would like to see the very large pohutukawa tree near the toilet block stay, the one with the branch that is now on the ground. And the reinstatement of a better playground (for both younger children and teens), as well as the skateboard ramp and a toilet block. If those things were to happen this option is definitely my preference.

This does not have the support of the community and is a drastic change that reduces the community's leisure area and facilities.

The park and grass land is a popular recreation area. The loss to the community in what Option 2 suggests would make the whole area little more than a roadside verge. Please don't do it - fix the seawall one way or another with Option 1 or Option 3.

I cannot really believe intelligent, informed adults would seriously propose this option when the Huia domain, its trees, toilets and recreational space is acknowledged in the district plan as an area of high ecological value which requires maintenance and protection. Diagrams showing the projected erosion pattern from the do nothing option (2), show the sea line precariously close to the sole HUIA ROAD, the sole access to little Huia and Whatipu beach.....is the cost of dealing with having to raise the road appearing in these cost calculations....has this been fully discussed with the transport division within council and what is planned for the protection of the Huia Road.

This seems like an unnecessary expense. I would build new facilities (play etc., which my family use), in a location with more long-term value, and simply do minimal removal of the Seawall material to make safe. The beach and surrounds will acquire its own "natural" form after this. If the $860k reflects what I am describing then I think someone is inflating costs somewhere...

The only sensible option. The shoreline will retreat even further over time. The sea level is rising = get used to it.

I think the current park, reserve and trees are beautiful and are utilised and well loved by locals and visitors to the area. It would be a real shame to see them go.

This is my least preferred option of all three... it seems like it would change (and diminish) Huia to a very great extent.

Do not want to lose park, playground and trees

Typical bloody council doing what they want to do without community consultation - this would have been pushed through if our local residents didn't get out and oppose it!!!!

I do not support the removal of the trees or facilities

keep the reserve future proof in a growing super city Auckland don’t remove facilities

Green ideas are fine in principle but need to be subject to the same rigorous scrutiny as any other idea, not just grabbed onto with blind faith that because it's natural and has worked in other areas it must be right. The Council presented a diagram of a ‘managed retreat’ option (no sea wall) that uses a different vertical and horizontal scale. The vertical cross-section with a bund running in an arc close behind the existing tree line acknowledges loss of all foreshore trees and relocation of the toilet block but if a horizontal cross-section had been presented it would show the bund where markers have actually been placed on the Domain. It means loss of 80% of the existing flat, playing area and all the trees that provide shelter from the prevailing winds. A beach area means you can't plant new trees because of salination issues, so you forever after have an exposed area with no shelter, which much fewer people are likely to spend lengthy time at. This would impact on the Huia Store, which relies on summer trade and on people spending all day at the reserve, which they presently do. And what if future predictions of sea level rise prove wrong. You expose the road to potential flooding. The risk of this option is too great, and the cost will inevitably balloon out from what's given here.

This is a bad idea in the long run it MIGHT not work out for the best. Option 3 is best for all including the council's pockets in the long run.

Loss of trees and parkland

refer to comment in option 1

There are no other large open flat grass areas in the whole community, for children and families to pursue recreational activities. This domain is the heart of the community, for picnics, sports, and exercise. These old trees are our heritage and must be protected, as must the existing scope of the domain and the beach. You have no idea how many people use these facilities, and not just locals but visitors from many other areas.

This appears to be a better long-term option from both an environmental and financial perspective. Loss of the large Norfolk Pine and other very old trees is not something to be taken lightly, however it is for the benefit of the area as a whole to and trees will be replanted. Perhaps the very large trees that are to be removed could be carved into artefacts for the reserve, so that the trees in a sense get to remain in the domain, albeit in the shape of a waka or the Orpheus etc.

This option will be longer term, sustainable and will allow the coastline to naturally adapt with change. I have lived in other high erosion areas (Kapiti) and saw first-hand the mistakes. The coast needs to deposit sand and sand to move naturally with time. The removal of the toilet etc. is essential and whoever put it there to start with, and septic tank made an expensive stupid decision

Garbage and ridiculous

Do not believe costings are accurate and are misleading. This is NOT what the majority of people support. This would not be allowed to happen on the East Coast and is only being pushed because of Auckland Council not wanting to spend money out West, even though it is within a Heritage Park area. The money spent on creating the new Onehunga foreshore, is appalling. I strongly believe more people from the greater Auckland area use the Huia Domain than will ever use Onehunga.

Loss of reserve area not acceptable. Loss of mature trees not acceptable.

Would this option be presented to the wealthy East coast waterside areas as represented in the heading above? I doubt it....

This is a long term, sustainable and forward thinking solution that will allow a natural balance to be reached in the face of climate change and the increasing frequency of 'extreme' weather (storm) events. Having a dry high tide beach area would be great and would allow increased public use. Some of the trees that would need to be removed are not native trees anyway.

This option deals with the reality of the effects of climate change and rising sea levels.

This is the only realistic and appropriate action. It addresses the long term issues, recognises that we cannot fight nature for ever (and continue to lose), and is the environmentally and wildlife friendly option....which would be a nice change in this so-called 'clean green' country. Bring it on.....do something right.....

I think this option would be great, it would provide the best of both worlds. We would still have the reserve and we would gain a beautiful natural coastal edge and a dry high tide area. On speaking with others once they understand this concept, they too think it is great. I think the initial higher cost is well worth the investment as this would be more than offset by the reduction in ongoing maintenance requirements. I think this is also the best option as the natural environment will be able to respond better to high swells and storm events than all other options.

we as people that live in Auckland do not what to loss the sea wall or reserve

We support this option but feel that it is important to maintain a usable area on the beach ward side of Huia Road. The complete loss of this area to erosion would be unacceptable. There needs to be a commitment to provide adequate infill to achieve a slope down away from the road. This should mitigate the effect of overtopping. Should relocation of the playground and other amenities be required, this should be used as an opportunity to improve their scope and quality.

If this included a fix for the properties that are prone to flooding then it would be an ok option (although losing more of what little heritage NZ has). But what about the people who will be effected including those who have loved ones in the cemetery?

We will lose the domain and play area with this option. The council is not working for this community. This is a disgrace that this option is even being considered! Listen to the Huia community!

The Head2Head Walk which has been running since 2012 has its Finish Line in the Domain and with this option, this will no longer be viable as the event grows. Therefore the Head2Head Charity is strongly opposed to this option.

Overall I think that a natural coastal edge would be attractive and beautiful. I'm not troubled by the thought of a reduced Domain. We would get more beach (etc.) in return! Though I'd be sad to lose trees, most of them are old and tatty: new trees could be planted to replace them. I note from your documents that Iwi support this option. Financially this option makes sense too. It would be great to have a new toilet block in a new position - the current one is an eyesore.

This sickens me, The idea that this is even on the table as an option is very disappointing. This reserve has so much meaning not just to the locals but passers-by, and old locals who have amazing memories growing up playing there (Me being one of them) One day I hope to marry in that reserve and buy a house in Huia and I want my Daughter and future children to be able to play there and enjoy that reserve as me and so many others did growing up, Huia has one play ground, and reserve for a safe playing environment for the local kids. BUT this option takes that away and deprives them of that!! They deserve all of that reserve, And the locals deserve a safe sea wall that helps prevent flooding. This option doesn't cater to any of that!

This option carries numerous risks to a valued regional asset, and significant losses. These risks and losses include: 1. Removal of all mature trees from the Domain, which robs the area of all shade in summer and wind protection in winter 2. You can't plant new trees in a sand dune, as the sand continually shifts and roots can't establish a foothold. 3. Sea level rise may be faster than forecast and the road will come under threat unless there is a hard structure. 4. Fewer people coming to Huia to use the Domain for group/whanau recreation is likely to impact on the economic viability of the Huia store. 5. Taking away the wind break on the foreshore poses a risk to the Kahikatea stand behind the road. 6. Managed retreat forces rebuild of a new toilet block, which is not necessary. 7. Managed retreat swallows up 80 per cent of the flat playing field, which is a highly valued and well-used facility - unlike a sand dune within a harbour. The Waitakere Ranges is a heritage area - why mess with an important aspect of this heritage? We already have a failed wastewater system at the hall because of insistence that a green idea would be the best solution. I don't want to see Huia with two expensive failed projects because of the gap between ideology and reality.

We need domain & playground.

This is possibly one of the most ridiculous proposals ever submitted - we would spend 300,000 more than option one- with high ongoing costs(not defined) to lose all the facilities / the domain and many priceless trees with long history’s that generations of West Aucklanders have enjoyed. The process itself is still experimental - and the indicative new beach line is within 20 metres of the road - so leaves no domain! In addition - this indicative line does not take into account the 30 cm sea level rise that has been presented by the council experts - if this is added into the equation we would see the road at risk - and be faced with having to build a sea wall and raise the road to protect it - so spending even more money as the shape of the road as opposed to the beach is far longer - and the end result would leave the community with no resource / domain! Trees lost would include the massive Norfolk Pine and pohutukawa which are admired by all the visitors to Huia. there would also be significant health and safety risks to the community that would effectively mean significantly reduced access to domain and beach whilst the Managed retreat takes place - so spending 300,000 more on an experiment that will definitely lose all the facilities - has further ongoing additional costs that are undefined - a possible sea mount that would massively impact the current eco system and be visible off shore for the majority of the time This is an option that nobody at the public meeting - or that I have spoken to in Huia supports - even do nothing would be preferable to removing the wall and speeding up the erosion process -

This is a last resort option and is being interpreted by the community as a further indication of the relative inattention that some Waitakere areas experience in the city (I think the council needs to be aware of the neglect of issues like roading repair, as well as things outside of their control such as broadband provision: the "abandonment" of the domain is interpreted as a further indication of neglect. The Huia domain is a community asset used by the entire city (see the families who come in for day picnics and sports events). The loss of the only flat land used by the community above the high water line, for what is (on a grand scale) a relatively small sum) is tragic.

The current domain and park are used by Huia Playgroup and the large flat area provide a valuable resource for children of all ages. It is used for current playgroup families to meet up with past playgroup families whose children are too old to visit, it is one of the few flat areas suitable for children to run and play ballgames and we would greatly miss it. The closeness to the beach is also invaluable as the children love to explore there while playing at the park.

This isn’t an option as this is not want the community want this is a heritage area and the reserve needs to stay for future generations and I think if you choose this option what will happen in the next 100 years the road will flood and this will stop access to the dam and little Huia and Whatipu

It would be a complete waste of a valuable asset for the community.

The eventual loss of the entire reserve and all that goes with it would be a hugely damaging outcome.

It would be just a real waste to lose such a great recreational area. What happened to encouraging people to be outdoors?

Lose most of the reserve and reduce it to a shade less desert.

DO not want to lose the Domain.

I have not distinguished between the two versions of this option

As long as relocation of the reserve assets including toilet block, car park and playground were still within the park limits - i.e. not relocating the playground to another part of Huia.

It would be terrible to lose such a wonderful asset. The Huia domain is well utilised by the local and wider community.

If you make these changes it is not only going to cost a **** fortune but think about the children where are they going to play? Huia is a very close community and very family orientated you defiantly should not be making these changes. it is also bad for the environment on a wider scale as you would have to cut out all of the tress that grow on the reserve NOT GOOD

Nature knows best. The last two high tides were crashing against the wall. We also support Te Kawerau a Maki, as kaitiaki of Waitakere Ranges, with their recommendations.

Number of responses to this question

83 (31%)




To what extent do you support Option 3 - Extended new seawall?


Number of responses to this question

260 (98%)




Do not support at all



Do not support



Neither support nor do not support






Strongly support





I believe this is the best option for our Huia park and the above states ongoing maintenance costs... this is rubbish .Once the wall is erected Huia reserve will be saved and all the native heritage trees will be safe and the park will remain in its entirety along with nearby roads, houses, memorial gardens and farm land. The maintenance for this would be well over 30 years away which I imagine is when the council will have budgeted for an upgrade like they do with everything else (like our toilets and changing rooms which are in perfect condition and in no need of upgrading to horrible metal ones!!). Maintenance for the 'managed retreat' will be a lot higher than this option and in the long run will cost the community millions in lost properties and eventually a new wall to protect the road, in my eyes you may as well build the new wall now and protect peoples favourite please in HUIA. This is the only option and I hope council make the RIGHT decision

Waste of money. Huia isn't that popular. Feed kids in schools with that money instead. It'll look unnatural anyway.

The only viable option in the minds and hearts of local residents!

Huia park is our weekend destination come rain or shine. Our two young children run play and jump in this field. Unless it's on a sports field where else can my children run freely, play rocket and have a picnic? I don't think the council has a choice but if it isn't saved a lot of votes will be lost in the future. Our space, our lives, our choice.

This will prolong the life of Huia, if done right it will be the cheapest option. Maintenance will happen no matter what option is chosen, this is no real excuse for costs. This will allow people to keep enjoying the park as well as keeping the locals reassured on their safety. This is the best option in the long run, no sacrifice. This is what we put our taxpayer’s money toward; this is how we want to use it.

This seems the obvious solution

This is way too expensive and full with stupid ideas. People want to "save the trees!" but don't want to allow natural erosion to take place.

I have to say I struggle to see how this could cost 1.3 million more than just repairing the wall.

This area is important to us locals, it's nice and flat to kick a ball round and picnic, walk dog... There is nothing else local.

This is by far the only real logical option. Huia deserves its Domain to be protected by a properly engineered wall, something to be proud of and enjoyed by the THOUSANDS of visitors to the Domain every year. Where the cost of $1,840,000 comes from who would know, this is very extreme and I know from personal experience that this amount has been put up to shock people into rejecting this option. In the bigger picture of things $1,840,000 is a splash in the pan to Auckland Council who waste so much money on consultations and meetings such as this, all the money wasted so far would have been better spent on building the new sea wall. From memory the cost tabled for this was $680,000 plus consents so someone has added quite a few zeros to this price now. Richard from Tonkin and Taylor stated it would be in the LOW millions such as $1,100,000. Please correct your inflated price...

This is the best option looking to the future. It will cost more up front, but will be a better solution than option 1. The seawall must be maintained. Huia and surrounding area residents pay taxes, and we deserve to have this area maintained. This would not have happened under the Waitakere Council and it's a total shame that the Auckland super city is allowing this to happen in their own backyard.

Auckland needs this wonderful asset at Huia; therefore this is my preferred option. If it is worth doing, it is worth doing well.

This is the only option I truly support. The reserve is very important to me and my family. Children and future children

We need to save our heritage trees and the park!!

This is by far the best option, the trees and reserve need to be protected and preserved.

Rip rap isn't good. If this is what the local community wants then it's what should be done. They pay the rates after all so it's only fair.

If would be such a shame to lose this domain and its beautiful nature. It's rare to find trees like these. Why get rid of something you are trying to protect. It doesn't make sense.

It would be good to retain the use of the domain in as close to its current state as possible & protect it from further damage by the sea

I think this a the best option for the community.

this option is the most favoured however if this option is not a viable or agreed option then option 2 is the alternative to be considered please see comments re option 2

This would be the best option because it would support and preserve the land even better than the original wall is. The trees must also stay as they are incredibly old. I think it is absolutely worth the money.

Hear our voices; the greater community is united for this option!

High maintenance costs which is likely to reach higher levels in the future. Serves no real benefit to the community other than saving a tiny stretch of land for an exorbitant price tag.

It’s a no brainer! Let’s keep this amazing family place alive for the next generation!

Only true option. Oh and I think EVERY ONE has said that at three meetings

This option provides the best scenario for protecting the domain and road into the future. It is also what the Huia community has voiced as their preferred option

Worth the money, protect the existing lovely area for the future.

Although I am not a resident of New Zealand, I travel down to visit often. I have in the past enjoyed the area around & in HUIA very often. It would be a very great pity & even bigger loss to the community & nature should any scheme result in the loss of the very old trees. In the past 30 years there has been so much damage done to the environment & slowly but surely if this carries on there will be very little left of the original vegetation that once used to cover New Zealand. New Zealand still has some unique & beautiful areas of nature but they are disappearing very quickly. Please consider very earnestly what should happen if the trees & surrounding environment should be removed. Also the impact on the local community would be immense. I would like to think that lessons would have been learnt from the past, where no regard has been shown for the local environment with all its´ rare plants, trees & the animals that live there in. Please please decide upon Option 3. Maybe it would be possible to get some fund raising arranged to help with the extra costs. I sincerely believe that all would benefit from Option 3. I would be happy to contribute to any fund raising that will result in Option 3 be decided upon. Best regards from Germany, Peter Jarvis. kannkopf@teleos-web.de

1.8 million For what will end up reducing beach access.

This has to be the best option for Huia

Works for the best for the locals and retaining current access. However, it is by far the most expensive initially and long term and does not account for rising tides and degradation. It seems like further work will have to be done within 10/20 years.

Keep all of the grass area and fix the dam wall!

Our family lives close to Huia and we often use the park and beach - and have done so for many years. We were horrified to see the vandalism created by the council's removal of part of the seawall thus damaging trees. What a dreadful example for children! One rule for the council and another for us it seems! Not good enough. The only option is to replace and extend the sea wall.

We have no high tide beach now, so we are losing nothing. We use the park for our picnics etc. during high tide. THIS IS THE OPTION HUIA IS BEHIND. SAVE OUR PARK


The Huia Domain is widely used by locals and visitors alike. It is better to spend the extra money now to preserve the Domain for future generations

This would be the best long term solution as it fixes the erosion problem and it does not reduce the area so highly valued by the community. The city needs to remember that places like Huia are not only used by Huia residences so the excuse that their rates income would not meet this cost is not valid. Huia one of the jewels of Auckland city and should be treated as such.

I have no preference between option 1 and option 3, so long as the seawall remains to retain the park area, I will be pleased.

For the ongoing protection the heritage trees, existing playground and other community assets, allowing them to be retained for the ongoing benefit of the community this is the only this is the best option.

This is the only responsible option. It means we spend money on protecting the domain rather than the road only, which we will clearly have to do in the future. If the Auckland council as a whole has no interest in releasing the funds for this option perhaps people in the west could pay a small rate addition to fund this solution over a ten year period. As there Is absolutely NO PUBLIC TRANSPORT west of Laingholm we could perhaps receive a credit for this lack.

My comments are as per option 1: I see no value in pursuing further investment in a structure that is intended to hold back the sea. In addition, the expense seems completely disproportionate to the value returned to this small community. Sea level rise is a rather harsh reality, but expending large sums in a vain cause in the interests of very few ratepayers seems a very poor choice.

If you follow this argument all low-lying areas would qualify to have wall built around it. Like the Netherlands. Move to higher ground & accept that we are all to blame for sea-level rise. Sorry that the cost is the loss of low-lying areas, but nobody has any guarantees with natural processes.

I support saving the reserve and trees so this is my preferred option. I do have concerns about the substantial cost though. Where will the money come from?

This is my most highly preferred option. While I no-longer have direct connections with Huia on a daily or weekly basis, I still visit several times a year, and have family and friends with direct connections and strong historical links to the area. Retention of the existing domain is important to me and them... There are few other community facilities in the area, current and future residents deserve some amenity for their rates above local roading and rubbish collection, just like more urban rate-payers get...

The seawall needs to be replaced; the community and visitors to the community use the domain area for all sorts of gatherings. In fact the Auckland city council info has it listed as a place to go for family picnics. Without the seawall, in time the domain followed by the road will go. We were told at the community meeting, once the road is starting to flood, they will raise the road. Seems like they are putting off for someone else in the future to take care of that possibility at a lot more cost than the 1.8 for the seawall

future proof people areas don’t remove them

I support the right of locals to get the option that works for them - to see their rates money spent in their own community on things that are important to them.

One of the advantages of this option is it can be achieved in stages, and allows us to get started much quicker. This has safety and erosion benefits. The large, protected trees are at risk from overtopping and salination of roots. Here's how it can be realistically achieved. Step 1: With temporary protection of trees in front of the toilet block promised, urgent minor works are needed to channel overspill away from the older Protected trees, to prevent salination of their roots. Step 2: Use the $680k renewal budget to build a new "modern equivalent" sea wall to today's Code of Construction and using existing resource consent. Step 3: Transfer the toilet block renewal budget towards completing the wall past the toilet block and adding a footpath and small wall behind the new wall (new resource consent). Introduce a local targeted rate over 10 years to pay for unbudgeted cost and for further natural reef designs in the bay to address sea level rise. And by the way, a new wall doesn't decrease access to dry beach area. It maintains what we currently have. It offers less dry beach than a 'managed retreat' but MORE Domain, and that's what the community continually tells you that we value!

This is a great idea; I will volunteer to help with work to get this done :)

Stops erosion - one off cost

This council has a responsibility to listen to what the Huia community and the many thousands of visitors who have taken their families to Huia for many years want. To proceed with anything else except option 3 will be an arrogant and highly unpopular decision.

Refer to comment on option 1. This place is a treasure which has been used by families for generations and should still be kept as the treasure it is.

Ratepayers in west Auckland (in this case Huia and Foster's Bay) feel like they are subsidising the rest of Auckland when they are told that although they pay thousands per household each year in rates, they are not worthy of the protection of one of their few amenities. There are no kerbs or footpaths, very few streetlights, and no sewage system in the area! In the scheme of things $1,840,000 is just a tiny drop in the council bucket for a long-term solution to protect the heart of this community who have worked tirelessly to try and fight this injustice.

Huia is enjoyed not only by the immediate community but many others who know and love the area - therefore it is appropriate to set a firm example of maintaining the cultural treasure of Huia as a meeting place for all visitors. It is no less important than Mission Bay for example. Huia and the surrounding areas are icons of the West way of life and option 3 is the wish of the community.

This option would appear to be more suited to an area where there are no flat areas beyond the sea-wall to be affected by water going over or under the wall (as this will inevitably occur) and for this reason does not seem to apply to Huia. Similar issues with damage will still occur. I think this option is more about what people want for themselves, rather than what is best for the area, the conditions, and for the future.

Save our park by building a properly constructed seawall that protects the Huia Domain and all contained within.

This is the only option that I fully support. If the Local Board take any notice of the people that voted them into their positions, they will have seen at the recent meeting that people are very strongly in favour of retaining the domain as it stands and is used by thousands of people every year, summer and winter alike. The Board must represent 'its people', not push their or the Councils 'likes'. This is a democratic society, they were voted in to speak on our behalf - not to pursue personal goals.

Keeps the area intact for the enjoyment of my children and grandchildren.

This option preserves and improves the Huia seafront in a way acknowledges the special setting of Huia which is not only loved by locals but is a focal point for many visitors. Huia is a special place which may not have the financial clout of East coast waterfronts as pictured in the heading of the survey but is a place of outstanding beauty and historical links with the country's past. Huia merits recognition for its unique qualities and a modicum of good publicity within the Auckland region. The cost of $1.8 million seems very reasonable.

Displacing the problem to other areas. Not a long-term solution. Extremely costly.

The cost of retaining a piece of grassed reserve does not justify this investment that benefits only a relatively small sector of the wider Auckland population, with no guarantee of long term success. As an Auckland ratepayer I can think of more urgent projects $1 million could be spent on.

Utterly ludicrous.

I think this option is the worst of the lot as it will greatly detract from our wonderful natural environment. We are in a heritage area and I think this should be a big consideration, I don't think any large man made structure should be put in as a barrier between the beach and reserve. The initial and on-going costs are extremely high. I was very taken back by the loud mouthed and blindly opinionated few locals at the meeting in April, who would not give any time to any other option but to keep or replace the sea wall. We are on the beach and reserve at least three times a week and we have never seen these people or their family there. It would be great to see these people who all of a sudden are so passionate about their reverse actually do something and go down to the reserve and ask the public who squeeze their cars onto the reserve and park on the drip line of our precious trees, but we have never seen them do this either. As they put it, mission bay gets a sea wall with no high tide beach area, so I think they should move their as this may not be the right heritage environment for them. This is why we live out here. Thank you for the option to have my say.

we want our sea wall

This won't address the scouring effect of wave action. A pleasant sandy beach is important to us. The increased maintenance costs seem untenable. The wall as it currently stands is already a barrier to the use of the beach by families and children, while the playground offers minimal stimulation and the playing field is rarely used except for on holiday weekends by picnic groups who could otherwise use the dry part of the beach or the remaining reserve once naturalisation has occurred. Should this option be implemented, it would be of concern to us that the wall be aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with the natural environment, unlike several other amateurish attempts at seawalls in the area.

Although expensive this covers all areas concerned. As well as non-existent maintenance bills.

This is the logical and only acceptable solution for the Huia and surrounding suburbs. Council have been voted in by their community - now they need to listen to this community. Our domain and playground and trees must be kelp for our future generations!

For the long term benefit of the community, this is the best option.

This is the ONLY option to save the historic Huia Domain, the trees, toilet/changing sheds, playground, bbq, skate ramp, basketball court.

I want to see a properly built seawall at Huia. I love the Huia Park Reserve and want to be able to take my children there like my parents did with me. I love the trees!

I want a new seawall to be built to save the Huia Park

This option 3 has been put forward by a community collective that is totally uninformed. It has been proposed by a person who is not qualified or experienced in this area (he is a retired town planner and architect). Support for it has been driven by a "mob rule" mentality with campaigns (e.g. on social media) that have been misleading, that have withheld facts from the community, that have actively disseminated misinformation and scaremongering, and that have lied about the costs. For example, the proponents of Option 3 claimed that they had their own cost estimate of c. $700,000: but this (a) omitted consent and engineering fees and (b) was based on only a 200m wall when something more like 400m is needed. So the real cost of Option 3 would likely be even more than the $1,840,000 that Council estimates give for Option 3. These proponents are actively calling (in the latest edition of the Laingholm Roundabout, with an "Open Letter" to the Local Board) for a 'targeted rate for ten years' to pay for it. I say No to that! We do not want rate increases here. Claims that an 'overwhelming majority' of the community want Option 3 should be taken with a pinch of salt, since their support for it is based on incomplete and wrong information (most people driving the campaign and supporting it attended neither of the Council's presentations on the matter; when they held their own meeting, Council experts and officers were told to stay away - so how can people claim to be fully informed? Now they are door-knocking, with a survey form, but are actively promoting Option 3 to residents who don't know the detail or the consequences. I personally don't like the idea of the existing wall remaining in situ and the proposed new wall being built alongside it on the seaward side - this would further reduce the beach. Claims that "we play on the domain, not the beach" are not true. Please give us Option 2!

This is the option that Huia and the locals deserve! The advantages of this option out weight the disadvantages by miles. Everything in Auckland has on-going maintenance costs! And I don't see why the Huia community should fall short of that! Maybe if this was mission bay then the council would be taking this more seriously! It shouldn't matter where it is, This reserve and especially those trees there Should be the main priority and this option is the best for them. If money is a problem then Go with option 1, Not the option to DISTROY this beautiful community reserve!!

This is the only option that can happen to keep the great facility of Huia Domain. And are we REALLY in a low rate rise environment?

If the reserve is overtaken eventually the road will face the same issues. I met some people (former residents) who were telling me how much the beach has receded in last 40 years. The trees there are amazing taonga that my children love. The reserve must remain!

How to achieve a well-engineered sea wall and save Domain trees Step 1: Use the $680k renewal budget to build a new "modern equivalent" sea wall to today's Code of Construction and using existing resource consent. Step 2: Transfer the toilet block renewal budget towards completing the wall past the toilet block and adding a footpath and small wall behind the new wall (new resource consent). Step 3. Introduce a local targeted rate over 10 years to pay for unbudgeted cost and for further natural reef designs in the bay to address sea level rise.

This is an important area for the local community, not just Huia residents but the wider west Auckland community who use this area. It is socially and ecologically important and should be treated so. It may feel to some that this is just an out of the way beach with a playground and some trees but this is not the case, it is frequented by many people on a regular basis. Huia is an expanding community made up of many young families who have genuine concerns for the preservation of their local beach, trees and playground park area. It does seem that if this was occurring on the eastern beaches somewhere this wouldn't even be a discussion topic, it would simply be done and done right. Do not short change Huia with shot sited, out of site out of mind type mentality. Fix the area properly so generations to come can appreciate the area for the amazing place that it is!

Yes it has increased costs - but with the 760,000 budgeted the savings from relocating the toilets in two years’ time - 200,000 more it’s not a huge amount - especially on the back of 10% rate increases and the talk around building a 12th council chamber in the city to save councillors walking 4 minutes! I have yet to hear how this option reduces access to the beach - it will have steps like the current wall - and access at the shop end as we currently have - and to be honest people don't sit on the beach - they use the domain and then go into the sea for a swim at high tide the solution is a more permanent solution that would last 80- 00 years - and the argument around sea level rises - conveniently missed in options 1 and 2 - is easily dealt to by lifting the wall 30 cm - angling the walkway ever so slightly and raising the back wall to manage overtopping events - As the proposal is still developmental - the council will of course contact its experts to finalise this option - and s they indicated at the public meeting - building a wall that protects the domain , allows for the sea level rise and retains the infrastructure is not a problem from a technically and design point of view. If we are serious about investing for our future - and long term planning sustainability and protecting our children and grandchildren’s rights - this is the only viable option - and likely to end up being far cheaper than the previous options which will both have substantial long term costs-

This is a responsible proposal that combines the longer term security of the current environment (trees, recreation area, toilet facilities) with the social use and meaning for the residents and visitors to Huia. The council could achieve a heck of a lot of good will and community support through the preservation of this community facility and could use it as a community education exercise to talk about flood prevention, likely changes in sea level, the silt transitions along the beachfront, etc. It could provide a link with Civil Defence (woefully under-operationalised for Huia) and bring the community together. Thank you to the council officials and marine engineers who fronted to the community meetings, you demonstrated consultative and informative communications styles. I would like to see the council decision making process include a longer term cost-benefit analysis (inclusive of the delicacies of community engagement and goodwill) rather than a short term, 'within the budget cycle' stop gap measure that the community feels will not be effective.

This is money well spent and the sea wall should have been repaired when it started to erode. This is just not for now but for future generations of Huia children and families. The Huia Reserve is a gem in this part of the Waitakere’s. Please do not let us lose it.

The reserve and the large trees there are our children's weekend home. We live in Cornwallis and although we have a lovely beach, the Huia reserve, the playground, the climbing trees all provide a wonderful outlet for our kids. Plus, it's really nice to see people come from all over Auckland in the summer to play cricket there and have family parties. There is also a council summer festival there where bands play. We live far out of town so it's essential for us to have these amenities in our community and it justifies why we choose to bring up our children in this area. It would be extremely disappointing to lose them. It's worth spending the money to strengthen our community. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

The current domain and park are used by Huia Playgroup and the large flat area provide a valuable resource for children of all ages. It is used for current playgroup families to meet up with past playgroup families whose children are too old to visit, it is one of the few flat areas suitable for children to run and play ballgames and we would greatly miss it. The closeness to the beach is also invaluable as the children love to explore there while playing at the park.

Almost everything needs ongoing maintenance and every year you get budgeted to do so. The reserve must remain there as so many positive beautiful things about this place that brings people from all over Auckland to relax enjoy the scenery from the kids to have a safe big place to run around in climb trees and play ball or skate. Please Auckland council do the right thing for the people

This is the heart of Huia where all the children play and where we come together as a wider community. To lose this asset would be devastating.

Retaining the existing domain and all of the assets it brings with it is the only option to go forward as a cohesive community. Improving the amenities and use of the shoreline is the best option for the community of Huia.

Yes. I would love the domain to remain. For me the domain is an area where I walk my dogs and play with the kids in the park (kicking a ball around) and the playground and have numerous picnics over the summer period with friends from outside of the area (who have come to go walking one of the many bush walks). It's a special place. It feels like I am in a different town, a small town with the feel of the country - yet still part of Auckland, which to me is a perfect combination. It would be so devastating to lose it - it's a fabulous community area. Just as a matter of my own observation - I have chatted to many people in the domain that are there as a result of walking or running the Hilary track - where would these people go now with no park or facilities?

This is the best solution long-term. The managed realignment would in time become redundant and a sea wall will need to be erected to stop the road from being washed away. Repairing the existing seawall will likely have major ongoing maintenance costs as it is a historic structure which lacks the level of engineering available today. Please build a new well engineered sea wall so we can enjoy our beautiful reserve for a very very long time

If this option is affordable then this would be the preferred option.

See 6 B

do it

Number of responses to this question

90 (34%)


Rank the Options by preference. Note that selecting button 1 identifies your most supported option, selecting button 2 identifies your second choice and selecting button 3 identifies your third or least preferred choice.


Number of responses to this question

264 (99%)





Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3







I - Option 1: Repair and extend the seawall







ii - Option 2: Managed beach alignment







iii - Option 3: Extended new seawall













Rank the Options by preference. Note that selecting button 1 identifies your most supported option, selecting button 2 identifies your second choice and selecting button 3 identifies your third or least preferred choice.



- Option 1: Repair and extend the seawall





- Option 2: Managed beach alignment


- Option 3: Extended new seawall







Do you have any further comments?



Don't spend too much money but keep that park. The locals will get over not having their fancy shmancy pathway and brick wall.

I would like to see an extended new seawall in place at one of my favourite beaches in Auckland.

Bob Harvey was recently told of this issue and is very upset to think the Waitakere Board would even contemplate destroying the domain, Penny Hulse and Len Brown stated they were unaware of this issue and are vowing to look into this. This all happened at a function last weekend and was discussed in depth with these three important people at an award ceremony.. Let’s watch this space.

I do not support the managed beach alignment at all. Ii is not my least preferred choice as I don't consider it an option. The loss of the Huia domain and trees would be a tragedy.


Rip rap is very good for hurting people and animals. I don't like it at all. We need as many old trees as possible to remain unharmed helping to purify our air. It's proven that old trees are better at that than new ones.


the community is wholly agreed on the non-procedure of option 1 further clarity as to the effect of the repatriation of the domain area needs to happen namely just how much grass area will remain and how much usable beach area at high tide will be available there appears confusion amongst some members of the public also what steps will be taken for the protection of peoples property and roading outside the domain boundaries

Good luck :)

Please do the right thing and save the domain. Many people grew up on this land and to see it be completely destroyed would break many people's hearts. The 'managed retreat' will ruin the entire landscape.

As an Auckland ratepayer I feel it is highly unfair that we should be footing this massive bill for a seawall which serves as no great benefit for a community of around 500 people. I fully support the return to a natural bay and would think that being a community that is surrounded by native bush land they would also support the natural option.

Only one option that is 3 Note I wanted to. Put 3 for both options 1 and 2 this is rigged! And a complaint will be made

i believe it would be best to let things become more natural, the sea and land figure out where they naturally start and end and then allow for play, parking and peeing when the 'stable' areas are known... negatives to this are of course the time it will take and the people who are used to it the way it 'was' wanting things not to change... and the trees that will be 'sacrificed'... but so it goes.

Please do not remove the wall and the park! The trees are important, the park is important.

It would be great being able to take small children to Huia without having to worry about them falling off the rather unnatural wall. They simply want to get to the beach, but there is limited access for ones so small, not easy to jump when you are only a metre tall.

Option 3 had to be the best option for the Waitakere Ranges

Option 3 is the only option to safeguard all that is held dear. Our natural assets are to be protected and treasured - for now and for our future generations... Please do what it takes... Option 3.

Please save this wonderful much loved & used park!

Fix the wall, keep the park! Where else are families meant to go/play/relax locally?

I don't support option 2 but your survey made me rank it.

Option 2 is not an option at all and I do not want it recorded as my "third best" option. It is not "less acceptable" it simply is not an option.

The community have made it clear that they want option 3 and I think if the council do this project smart they can reduce the proposed cost significantly.

Whilst all options seem feasible, the unique look and feel of Huia is all about this area, the trees, the grass area and the ocean, a loss of any Trees, would be a loss for Future generations and Huia. The council should view any work regardless of Budget as an investment to this area, investing to upkeep what has been established, for locals and visitors, Huia is such a great place to visit. Please have a compassionate view for the present and the future.

Please act quickly before the amazing trees are destroyed!

Protect the domain and the trees and the toilets, not just the Huia Road. The road will have to be like the Herald Island causeway unless we stop the water at the domain - this really would be a sad use of money.

I don’t live in Huia but i would like to and hope to in the future. My hubby and I have visited Huia several times over the summer and we love the park facilities including the reserve trees and bbq area. I am sure that this is not an easy decision and cost is a big factor however it would be great to be able to preserve the reserve and trees if possible. best wishes for a solution that works for all

While I no-longer have direct connections with Huia on a daily or weekly basis, I still visit several times a year, and have family and friends with direct connections and strong historical links to the area, and retention of the existing domain is important to me and them... There are few other community facilities in the area, current and future residents deserve more than just local roads and rubbish collection for their rates, just like us more urban Aucklanders get...

do everything to put the wall back where it was replace and back fill to the level where council removed the rocks 5 feet out on now beach !

Yes. Trusts (arts/environment etc.) with favoured "partnering" contracts with the board now have substantial cash holdings (Millions+++). That would more than pay for the Wall and the other promised infrastructure projects in Waitakere. . As capex has been taken out of Council coffers and put into trusts the cash is being stockpiled and now is not available for much needed infrastructure. In addition ratepayers pay interest on debt while Favoured Trusts stockpile endowments. I am unhappy that the seawall wasn't flagged as an issue in Special Consultation or the 10 year plan. I am unhappy that the infrastructure projects that were named, Glen Eden and Oratia were not done either. There are financial issues and transparency issues in Waitakere. I support fixing the wall and sorting out our underlying systemic council structure and governance issues that has resulted in a lack of care for community spaces. I support fixing the wall before the Laingholm walkway project who already have seen significant funding for other projects. We haven't seen budget or project breakdown for the Laingholm walkway. It wasn't in the special consultation. The seawall is more critical.

This survey could be skewed because it is anonymous and can be taken any number of times - at least that's my perception so far. You should not rely on results for any accurate indication of support.

Please consider option 3 as the right way to go about this :)


I truly believe that this situation would never be allowed to occur somewhere like St Helier’s or Mission Bay, where the council spends millions of dollars on a regular basis to maintain sea walls and ship in sand to top up the beach. Why not let nature take its course there? No? Well then why is it ok to do this in Huia? These people all pay their rates and are deserving of council support, not council distain.


If possible I would rank Option 1 and 3 equally, rather than one over the other.

Must build properly contracted seawall to take the Huia Domain way into the future and which can be added to if required in few decades

I do not believe the question above 6A is fair in any respect. We do not want a second best or third choice - Option 3 is the ONLY one I support - not 1 or 2.

The above method of ranking does not reflect the weighting of respondent's preferences! How about this light- hearted comparison...... Select 1 for no death penalty, 2. for death by firing squad, 3 for lethal injection',

Option 2, Managed beach alignment is by far my preferred option and I dislike options 1 and 3 equally. I hope the genuinely best (most obvious!) way forward is chosen. New Zealand has built an international reputation based on its natural environment. Being progressive means working with the environment and nature...not trying to defeat it! That's what we've been doing for centuries and is what got us into this mess in the first place. The important thing should be finding a long-term, sustainable solution, where the situation will improve over time (as balance is restored), not where we are creating more problems and expenses for the future.

This is a chance to make a stand and do the right thing for the environment and, though they will be loath to believe it, the residents. Don't blow it.

We are residents and frequent users of the Huia Domain, using the beach, playground and playing field. We wish to highlight that the community is not unanimously in support of option 3, despite the strong voice of the proponents of option 3 portraying the community as united.

The only acceptable option is number 3!

The ONLY option is 3

Option 3 is the option that will save the Huia Park Reserve

Huia Park needs a new well-built seawall to save the trees and the community areas

I feel strongly that the people pushing for Option 3 are misguided. I fear that their strident campaign will lead to one of two equally undesirable outcomes: either we will get Option 1 (because it is the cheapest but preserves the domain) and will be stuck with 4,500 square metres of rocks on the beach; or we will be saddled with a massive targeted rates increase to pay for Option 3, as well as a large, ugly and intrusive (possibly concrete) sea wall. Neither of these outcomes seems attractive to me. It makes much more sense to go for Option 2, resulting in a beautiful and natural coastal edge that would be entirely in keeping with this outstanding natural area. I think there'd still be _plenty_ of domain left for people to play on, and there's always Hinge Bay and Foster Bay nearby as well. Please give us Option 2! Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I do not see the point to this question other than to try and give yourselves an alternative to the outcome the majority of locals will vote for. We are very aware of the costs of some other projects around the city and are prepared to fight for our share of council's funding.

I have only filled in 2 and 3 because I had to - if you get to the point of counting them you are to disregard my 2 and 3 votes

Te Kawerau a Maki is not giving its blessing to soft engineering options if they involve loss of the Domain. Statements made publicly seem to imply the iwi is giving unconditional support to a managed retreat. This is a misrepresentation. I also think, from the wording above, that the Board is being too quick to dismiss option 3 as being too expensive, without looking at more innovative ways to fund this option in stages.

The local board needs to hear the community voice - when a small community like Huia can have nearly 200 people turn out - representing many other family member's at home with their children and grandchildren it gives you an indication of the strong feelings people have -- this is about protecting a valuable and precious resource for the community - our children and grandchildren and the thousands of visitors that come to the beautiful spot of HUIA and use the domain - attracting many visitors to the beauty of the Waitakere ranges - This community and our neighbours in Parau, little Huia, Laingholm and Titirangi will never forgive members if they don't do what is right for our children

I would prefer not to have to select Option 2 at all - it is not an option that I support in any way.

do it sooner rather than later

Huia park is a major meeting place for many families not just in the Huia area but as far as Woodlands Park and Laingholm. The playgroup meet every Friday and use the park after group finishes, I know most families visit the park and beach at least 2-3 times per week on top of this.

Please Auckland council do the right thing for the people you know how we feel and we want the reserve to remain. Thank you regards

We are part of a wider community submission via the Huia Domain Protection Group and would like to request to present our submission in person, as a group, with allotted time appropriate for each person within the group to be able to explain their particular area of knowledge. A lot of time, effort and energy has been put into this to be able to highlight all of the information and facts that need to be considered before reaching a decision.

The loss of the Domain would devastate the community of Huia and only have negative repercussions. The retaining of such an asset is important to not only Huia but all of Auckland and its beach goers. The shoreline staying where it has always been is the only way forward.

Support of Option 2 as preferred option is by a large margin. The ratings given to the other two are largely dictated by the cost differences between them. Yes I like the retention of the full Domain but I consider both options 1 and 3 are only medium term solutions that will need to be revisited sooner rather than later in the light of further impacts of climate change. So rather than leaving an enjoyable legacy to future generations I think we are just passing the buck as it will be them who will have to deal with the inevitable at some time in the relatively near future. For me the area of the Domain and foreshore is an integrated whole and so I am not in favour of further strengthening their separation and considerably reducing our ability to enjoy the beach and ready access and view of it. I consider both the options 1 and 3 as imposed engineered interventions, an approach that obviously has NOT worked to date. I acknowledge that option 3 does not rock rip-rap on the beach but it is more imposing and I also understand that Option 1 could be modified to use some mechanism other than rip-rap to achieve the same end. My preference is for the most natural approach possible that will I believe be more in keeping with the beauty of the place we live in and that will in the end result in an area that may be different to what we have now but an area that treats the environment as a whole and not imposed on by ugly artificial structures whose ability to deal with further deterioration will only be possible by increasing their size and imposition on the beach and Domain. I want to see us leave an amenity that is a place of beauty and enjoyment not a fortress against nature. It is time we faced up to the realities of climate change and the mess we have made of trying to control nature. I would like to suggest that Council investigate a contribution from Water care to costs on the grounds of the impact of the dam. In this reference should be made to the Commissioners Findings at the time of the renewal of resource consents for the operation of the storage lakes and dams, a finding and suggestion re compensation to our community that the ARC chose to reject when the consents were issued. This would be a more attractive option to funding deficits than the imposition of a targeted rate that some members of the community seem to think would be appropriate. We have always been told that the Huia Domain is a city park not a neighbourhood one and so why should our community bear an additional cost for a city wide asset, particularly when the operations of a regional organisation have contributed to the situation we find ourselves in. I would like to have the opportunity to speak to my submission.

This submission is from two residents from Huia.

Number of responses to this question

59 (22%)





[1] Member boards listed in geographical order from north to south