scoping assessment - thames-coromandel district h ktb... · 2012-04-18 · ktb planning – scoping...

Scoping Assessment

An Assessment of Alternative Locations for Wharfing Infrastructure

To Support the Coromandel Aquaculture Industry

Prepared for the Thames-Coromandel District Council

November 2011

KTB Planning – Scoping Assessment 27 November 2011 2

Scoping Assessment

An Assessment of Alternative Locations for Wharfing Infrastructure

To Support the Coromandel Aquaculture Industry

Prepared for: Thames-Coromandel District Council

Prepared by: Karl Baldwin

KTB Planning Consultant‟s Ltd

27 November 2011(draft completed and peer reviewed April 2011)

KTB Planning Consultants Ltd

P O Box 641

Cambridge

New Zealand

www.ktbplanning.co.nz

Disclaimer: This Scoping Assessment has been prepared from information provided predominantly by the client. The information provided is true and accurate to the best of our

knowledge. The opinions expressed in this assessment are those of KTB Planning Consultants Ltd (KTB Planning) based on the information provided. No responsibility is taken by KTB

Planning for any liability or actions arising from any incomplete or inaccurate information provided to KTB Planning. Any recommendations that have been made in this document are for the

consideration of the Thames-Coromandel District Council in their determination of an appropriate location for wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel Aquaculture Industry.

Copyright: The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of KTB Planning Consultant‟s Ltd


Executive Summary

The Thames-Coromandel District Council has determined that it will lead the development of a business case and resource consent application for the

provision of additional wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel aquaculture industry and if possible improve facilities for recreational boating and

ferry operations within the Thames-Coromandel District.

This report identifies and assesses a range of potential locations which may be suitable for the development of new or additional wharfing infrastructure to

support the Coromandel aquaculture industry. Seventeen location options have been considered within this report which range from the Whitianga

Harbour on the eastern coast of the Coromandel Peninsula to the Ports of Auckland.

The report provides a high level assessment of the various advantages and limitations associated with each alternative location, identifies flaws in terms of

consenting or construction, and recommends further investigation into those locations that are „preferred‟. This assessment is based on a number of

factors including the intentions of the Thames-Coromandel District Council to retain the Coromandel aquaculture industry wharfing facilities within the

District, the industry‟s requirements for a safe and efficient wharfing facility based on current needs and future growth, and the various environmental,

economic, social and cultural matters that will be pertinent to any future resource consent application process under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Of the seventeen locations considered, the report concludes that there are two „preferred‟ locations being Windy Point (Puhi Rare) and the Sugarloaf

Wharf, both within close proximity to each other, on the southern coastline of the Coromandel Harbour.

The report also recognises the perceived benefits of two further locations, being the Coromandel Wharf and Kopu, where further investigation may be

warranted before they are ruled out completely. Based on the information currently available, however, these two locations clearly presented significant

obstacles and were not considered to be „preferred‟ locations by the author.


Table of Contents page

Executive Summary 3

1.0 Background 6

1.1 Thames Coromandel District Council 6

1.2 Purpose of Report 6

1.3 Statutory Matters 6

1.4 Identification of Alternatives 7

1.5 Preliminary Screening 7

1.6 Secondary Screening 9

2.0 Aquaculture Industry Background 10

2.1 The Coromandel Aquaculture Industry 10

2.2 Existing Wharfing Infrastructure 13

2.2.1 The Sugarloaf Wharf 13

2.2.2 The Coromandel Wharf 15

2.3 Secondary Screening of Locations

3.0 Identification of Potential Locations 16

3.1 Potential Wharf Locations 16

3.2 Potential Locations – Map 17

4.0 Preliminary Screening Assessment of Locations 18

4.1 Whitianga Wharf and Harbour 18

4.2 Whangapoua Harbour 21

4.3 Coastline north of Coromandel township (Colville Bay,

Port Charles, Kennedy Bay) 23

4.4 Coromandel Wharf 26

4.5 Preece Point 29

4.6 Windy Point 31

4.7 Sugarloaf Wharf 35

4.8 Hanniford‟s Wharf 37

4.9 Te Kouma Harbour 39

4.10 Manaia Harbour

41

4.11 Kirita Bay

43

4.12 Thames Coast (Wilsons Bay – Tararu)

45

4.13 Thames – Shortland Wharf

47

4.14 Kopu

50

4.15 Piako Rivermouth

55

4.16 Wharekawa (Stevenson‟s Quarry)

57

4.17 Ports of Auckland

59

5.0 Conclusions 61

6.0 Recommendations 63

7.0 Bibliography 63


Abbreviations used in this report

AMA Aquaculture Management Area

ASCV Area of Significant Conservation Value (WRCP)

CMA Coastal Marine Area

DOC Department of Conservation

FoT Firth of Thames

HCDG Hauraki Coromandel Development Group

INA Industry Needs Analysis

NZHPT New Zealand Historic Places Trust

NZTA New Zealand Transport Agency

RMA Resource Management Act 1991

TCDC Thames-Coromandel District Council

WRCP Waikato Regional Coastal Plan

WRC Waikato Regional Council

List of Figures

Figure Description 1 Aquaculture Area Map 2 Sugarloaf Wharf Location Map

3 A – D Sugarloaf Wharf photos 4 Sugarloaf Photo 5 Coromandel Wharf Location Map

6 Coromandel Wharf Photo 7 Map of Potential Locations 8 Whitianga Harbour Location Map

9 Whitianga Wharf Photo 10 Whangapoua Location Map 11 Whangapoua Photo

12 Whangapoua Photo 13 Kennedy Bay Location Map

14 Colville Bay Location Map 15 Port Charles Location Map 16 Coromandel Wharf Location Map

17 Coromandel Wharf Photo 18 Preece Point Location Map 19 Preece point Photo 20 Windy Point Location Map

21 Windy Point Photo

22 Sugarloaf Location Map 23 Sugarloaf Photo

24 Hanniford‟s Wharf Location Map 25 Hanniford‟s Wharf Photo 26 Te Kouma Harbour Location Map

27 Te Kouma Harbour Photo 28 Manaia Harbour Location Map 29 Manaia Harbour Photo

30 Kirita Bay Location Map 31 Kirita Bay Photo 32 Kereta Boat ramp photo

33 Waikawau Boat ramp photo

34 Ruamahunga Bay Boat ramp photo 35 Shortland Wharf Location Map 36 Shortland Wharf Photo

37 Kopu Location Map 38 Kopu Photo 39 Piako Rivermouth Location Map

40 Piako Rivermouth Photo 41 Wharekawa Location Map 42 Wharekawa Photo

43 Ports of Auckland Location Map 44 Ports of Auckland Photo - Google Maps

All photos taken by Karl Baldwin unless stated otherwise


1.0 Introduction and Background

1.1 Thames-Coromandel District Council

The Thames–Coromandel District Council (TCDC) has acknowledged that there are significant concerns relating to the provision of suitable wharfing

infrastructure to cater for the Coromandel aquaculture industry, both as it is today and into the future. Significant growth of the industry is envisaged

which will result in increased and likely unsustainable demands on existing wharfing infrastructure.

If possible TCDC would also like to improve the existing recreational boating and Auckland ferry facilities within Coromandel Harbour.

To this end, TCDC has determined via a Council resolution that it will “lead the development of a business case and resource consent application for the provision

of additional wharfing infrastructure to support the aquaculture industry, improve facilities for recreational boating and (if possible) to upgrade facilities for ferry

operations”1.

1.2 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is:

To identify all realistic locations for the development of wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel aquaculture industry.

To identify advantages and limitations associated with each potential location.

To carry out a preliminary screening assessment of each potential location to identify „fatal flaws‟, if any, and to recommend further investigation on

„preferred‟ sites if required at this stage.

1.3 Statutory Matters

This report has been prepared to support future resource consent applications for wharfing infrastructure that will be required under the Resource

Management Act 1991 (RMA).

This report is essentially a consideration of costs, benefits and alternatives which will help inform the requirements of section 32 RMA (when preparing

change to a District Plan e.g. a zone change) and/or the requirements of Schedule Four of the RMA. Schedule Four of the RMA sets out the matters that

should be included in an assessment of environment effects to accompany a resource consent application. One of the Schedule 4 matters includes a

1 Council Resolution April 2011


description of any possible alternative locations or methods for undertaking the activity where it is likely that an activity will result in any significant adverse

effect on the environment.

1.4 Identification of Potential Alternative Locations for Wharfing Infrastructure

The range of locations considered in this report are derived from the reference material used in the preparation of this report, consultation with key

stakeholders and the author‟s current knowledge of the Hauraki Gulf and Firth of Thames (FoT) coastline.

Preliminary consultation to identify potential locations and particular issues has been carried out with the following parties either by the author, TCDC staff

and/or representatives from the Hauraki-Coromandel Development Group:

Marine Farming Industry

Thames-Coromandel District Council

Waikato Regional Council

Department of Conservation

Te Kouma Landowners

1.5 Preliminary Screening of Alternative Locations

This report then carries out a preliminary screening of each location to determine whether „fatal flaws‟ exist with that location or whether further

investigation is warranted to determine the suitability of that particular site. To identify the „fatal flaws‟ or the suitability of the location for further

investigation, this preliminary screening assessment is essentially a broad level analysis of the advantages and limitations of each location. The advantages

and limitations associated with each location are categorised in the following groups: (a) Aquaculture industry‟s needs; (b) Environment; and (c)

Economic/Social.

If no „fatal flaws‟ are identified for a particular location option, then recommendations are provided to carry out further investigations based on the

particular issues relating to that option. Such further work will ultimately determine the suitability of the location for the development of wharfing

infrastructure.

1.5.1 Industry Needs

An Industry Needs Analysis (INA), prepared by the Hauraki Coromandel Development Group (HCDG) in consultation with industry representatives, has

been used as foundation information during the preparation of this report. The INA identified the industry‟s wharf infrastructure requirements in terms of

design criteria, based on what is presently occurring in the industry and its expected growth into the future.


Based on the outcomes of the above analysis, this Screening Assessment report assumes that new or additional wharfing facilities would satisfy the following

requirements:

All tide access for marine industry vessels.

Number of berths: this depends on the growth of the industry – the existing Sugarloaf Wharf has three effective berths available at all tides. If the

industry were to double, as is predicted to occur by 2025, 6 berths would be required. If the industry were to treble (including finfish) a total of 8

berths would be required. Therefore, a vital factor in the consideration of the location is the ability for the facility to expand in the future (future

proofing).

Truck loading/unloading, waiting and manoeuvring: The industry requires each berth to be served by a truck parked adjacent to the berth.

Loading (via forklift) is required on both sides of the truck. The truck will also need space to manoeuvre on the wharf either by an unrestricted

turning circle or a „drive through‟ wharf design concept. Trucks will also require waiting/parking areas when berths or truck loading areas are

occupied.

Storage on wharf: Storage space for three forklifts is required (existing forklift stored in a shipping container on Sugarloaf Wharf). Temporary

storage area for pellets, ice, ropes, buoys etc. will also be required. Vehicle parking – existing Sugarloaf Wharf has 13 designated carparks however

the industry estimates that 26 will be required which are of sufficient size for truck and/or trailer parking.

Maintenance grid: Considered necessary for the servicing and maintenance of marine vessels.

1.5.2 Environment

A range of environmental matters were considered within this report are considered to be generally consistent with the RMA‟s definition of „Environment‟

and those matters that should be considered in an Assessment of Effects on the Environment (AEE). Matters considered include landscape, natural

character, amenity values (residential and visitor values), conservation values, traffic, recreation and coastal processes. No site specific AEE was undertaken

for any of the identified sites and therefore the matters considered, and comments made, are at this stage of the process fairly generic.

The following cultural matters were also considered under the heading of environment in the preparation of this report:

Archaeological sites – a review of the NZHPT Archaeological Register highlighted areas where there may be particular constraint in this regard.

Heritage – The Thames and Coromandel Heritage Register highlighted areas where there may be particular constraint in this regard.

Due to the high number of Iwi and Hapu groups within the Hauraki area, it was considered that Iwi consultation should be carried out when a „preferred‟

location(s) has been identified.


1.5.3 Economic and Social

The consideration of economic and social advantages and limitations was primarily taken from the perspective of TCDC in terms of the financial cost

relating to consenting and construction of the facility and the economic and social impact of retaining the industry‟s wharfing facility within the District. No

Economic Impact Analysis was carried out as part of this assessment and therefore the comments made, in terms of economic and social issues, are fairly

broad.


2.0 Aquaculture Industry Background

2.1 The Coromandel Aquaculture Industry

Aquaculture began in the waters of the Coromandel Peninsula in the late 1960‟s with the establishment of a number of inter-tidal oyster farms. In the early

1980‟s mussel farming began in the Coromandel Harbour which grew rapidly over the next few decades. In total there is now approximately 1500 hectares

of marine farming space currently identified within the Waikato Regional Coastal Plan (WRCP) for marine farming activities2. This total area includes the

Wilsons Bay Marine Farming Zone, the intertidal oyster farms and a number of individual mussel farms scattered throughout the area. In 1999 the Waikato

Regional Council (WRC) established the Wilson Bay Marine Farming Zone in the Firth of Thames. This zone, an Aquaculture Management Area (AMA),

allocated approximately 1200 hectares of farmable space to shellfish production in areas known as „Area‟s A‟ and „B‟. It is also noted that this area identified

in the WRCP does not include current resource consent applications that are located outside of the marine farming zones. The locations of the marine

farming „zones‟ and the proposed marine farming consent applications can be seen in Figure 1 below3.

In terms of current productivity, approximately 80% of Wilsons Bay Area A (the eastern area) is being used for mussel farming operations which equates to

approximately 370ha. However, approximately 470ha of Area A is currently consented. Wilsons Bay Area B (western area) is currently undeveloped,

however, at the time of writing this report a resource consent application for approximately 416ha of mussel farms is being considered by the Waikato

Regional Council. As this application is a „controlled activity‟ in the WRCP, the consent is likely to be forthcoming.4

Current Coromandel mussel production is estimated at 25,000tonnes per annum and this is projected to increase up to 60,000 tonnes by 20255. This

expected growth is anticipated to come primarily from the growth of mussel farming within the Wilsons Bay Marine Farming Zone.

Other growth opportunities are also being promoted by the New Zealand (NZ) Government through the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No3)

which is being considered by a Government Select Committee. This Bill intends to amend the Waikato Regional Plan in a number of areas to streamline

and simplify the existing regulatory regime for marine-based aquaculture. The Bill would, among other things, allow for extensions of up to 1 – 2ha to

existing pre-RMA farms outside the Wilsons Bay Zone and allow fish farming within the Wilsons Bay Zone (currently only shellfish are allowed to be

farmed in this area under the current WRCP).

2 Wharfing Infrastructure Discussion Document – prepared by HCDG dated November 2010 – page 19

3 Ministry of Fisheries www.fish.govt.nz

4 Pers Comm – Waikato Regional Council – 18 April 2011

5 Wharfing Infrastructure Discussion Document – prepared by HCDG dated November 2010 - Page 20


In December 2010 the Government also established an Aquaculture Ministerial Advisory Panel to seek public input on a proposal to create a new

Coromandel Marine Farming Zone. The proposal is a 300-hectare aquaculture zone located to the west of the Coromandel Harbour – refer to figure 1.

The proposal, if advanced, would amend the WRCP by allowing applications to be made for new aquaculture activities within the proposed zone.

Resource Consent applications for approximately 5000ha of marine farming activities (spat collecting) within the western Firth of Thames (FoT) – see figure

1 – are also currently with the Waikato and Auckland Regional Councils for consideration6. The applications are currently suspended, and have been for a

number of years, due to the provisions of the existing legislation which requires AMA‟s to be established and identified in regional coastal plans and for all

marine farming activities to be carried out within the AMA. Under the existing legislation these consent applications effectively require a change to the

respective coastal plan, to establish and identify an AMA, before they can be granted. This legislation is also proposed to be amended by the No.3 Bill

which will allow these existing applications to be processed without the need to establish and identify AMA‟s within the regional coastal plans. It is

understood that the industry‟s long term intentions are for these areas to also be capable of being used for mussel farming.

6 Pers Comm – Waikato Regional Council – 18 April 2011


Figure 1 – Aquaculture Areas within the Firth of Thames


2.2 Existing Wharfing Infrastructure

2.2.1 The Sugarloaf Wharf – Coromandel Harbour

Figure 2 Figure 3A – The Sugarloaf Wharf

The Existing Environment

The Sugarloaf Wharf is the main wharf used by the aquaculture industry within the Coromandel District and FoT. The Wharf currently services some 20

mussel barges for loading and unloading of product7. The Wharf is located within Waipapa Bay at the base of the rocky outcrop, locally known as „the

Sugarloaf‟, on the southern side of the Coromandel Harbour. The Wharf is approximately 4595m2 of reclaimed land and is used by the marine farming

industry, commercial fishers and recreational boat users. The wharf provides for; recreational and commercial trailer boat launching/retrieval via two boat

ramps; the servicing of marine farming vessels and the loading /unloading of product from 3 berths (depending of vessel size); truck loading areas; car and

boat trailer parking space; industry vehicle parking space; a public toilet and ticket kiosk and a shipping container for storage of a forklift. A maintenance

grid used for servicing of marine vessels is also located adjacent to the Sugarloaf Wharf.

Recent Consent History

The current land use consent K02/30/1044, granted in October 1992, provided for the Sugarloaf landing facility to service the aquaculture industry and to

provide for recreational boating activities. The consent holder and current owner of the facility is TCDC. Of particular note with regard to this land use

7 Wharfing Infrastructure Discussion Document – prepared by HCDG dated November 2010 Page 23


consent is that Condition 3 effectively prevented re-fuelling activities to be carried out from the Wharf. Recently a resource consent application (TCDC

ref: RMA/2009/23) was made by the Coromandel Marine Farmers Association, to allow re-fueling activities for marine farming vessels, via road tankers and

trailers (not permanent fixed fuel facilities). This application highlighted the current issues associated with the use of the Sugarloaf Wharf and the growth of

the marine farming industry. The application attracted a number of submissions in opposition to the proposed re-fueling activities. The opposing

submitters raised concerns primarily around noise and hours of operation of the Sugarloaf Wharf and the associated adverse effects on the residential

amenity values (a number of houses are located within 500m of the existing Sugarloaf Wharf). Other concerns raised included; congestion issues and the

potential for traffic conflicts between the industry vehicles and recreational users of the facility; lack of sufficient car parking space; vehicle safety of Te

Kouma Road users and the potential for fuel spillage and the adverse environmental effects associated with hydrocarbons entering the marine environment.

Consent was granted for the re-fueling activity subject to conditions. This decision was then appealed to the Environment Court by local residents.

Mediation was held between the parties and a consent order (agreement) was subsequently signed. The re-fueling activity was granted consent subject to

conditions including restrictions on hours of operation (7am – 8pm) and days that the re-fueling can be carried out (Monday – Friday with no refueling on

Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays).

Constraints

It is clear that the existing Sugarloaf Wharf is under substantial pressure from a number of corners. Firstly, the Coromandel marine farming industry is

growing at a rate that may soon render the existing wharf unsuitable to cope with the demands of the industry (“while the Sugarloaf may potentially be able to

cope with up to 35,000 tonnes of product, the wharf will certainly not be able to cope with the full production of 60,000+ tonnes predicted to hit the market over the

next 10-15years”8). Secondly, the recreational demand on the facility during weekends, public holidays and over holiday periods creates significant car and

trailer parking demand on the facility, which overflows onto the surrounding roading environment, Te Kouma Road. Finally, there is opposition to the

marine industry activities on the Sugarloaf facility from neighbouring residential landowners which effectively restrains the industry‟s desire for continued

growth and use of the facility.

Figures 3B - Sugarloaf Maintenance Grid Figure 3C - Sugarloaf vehicle entrance Figure 3D – Sugarloaf Wharf

8 Wharfing Infrastructure Discussion Document – prepared by HCDG dated November 2010 - Page 25


2.2.2 The Coromandel Wharf – Coromandel Harbour

Figure 5 Figure 6 – Coromandel Wharf – Photo courtesy of Ben Dunbar-Smith

The Existing Environment

The Coromandel Wharf is a secondary wharf used to service the marine farming industry. The Wharf also serves a number of commercial fishing

operations and provides permanent mooring to around 6 – 12 fishing vessels. The Wharf is approximately 300 - 350m long, being made up of

approximately 150m of reclamation and 150m being a piled jetty. Vehicle access is provided to the end of the Wharf, however, vehicle turning and

manoeuvrability is extremely limited due to the narrow width of the Wharf. A recently upgraded fuel pump facility for marine vessels is provided at the

end of the Wharf.

Historical land use activities in the 1800‟s and early 1900‟s, such as native tree logging, gold mining, fires and the establishment of pastoral farming activities,

has resulted in large volumes of sediment being deposited into the Coromandel harbour. This has resulted in a significant reduction in the water depth

adjacent to the Wharf which at some stage provided all tide berthing. The Wharf is now only accessible to most marine farming vessels during the higher

stages of the tide. As can be seen in figure 6 above, the sea bed is dry during the lower stages of the tide.

Constraints

From a marine farming perspective, the main constraint with the Coromandel Wharf is the lack of all tide access. In addition, the Wharf is not of sufficient

width to cater for safe and efficient loading and unloading of product. Articulated trucks used for the transportation of product do not currently use the

Coromandel Wharf due to its narrow width and construction standard.


3.0 Potential Locations

3.1 Potential Wharf Locations A range of potential wharf locations have been identified and considered in this report. The locations are derived from reference material used in the

preparation of this report, locations suggested during consultation with key stakeholders and the author‟s current knowledge of the Hauraki Gulf and Firth

of Thames coastline.

The potential locations are as follows:

1. Whitianga Wharf and Harbour

2. Whangapoua Harbour

3. Coastline north of Coromandel township (Colville Bay, Port Charles, Kennedy Bay) – a number of locations considered under one section.

4. Coromandel Wharf (Coromandel Harbour)

5. Preece Point(Coromandel Harbour)

6. Windy Point (Puhi Rare) (Coromandel Harbour)

7. Sugarloaf Wharf (Coromandel Harbour)

8. Hanniford‟s Wharf (Coromandel Harbour)

9. Te Kouma Harbour

10. Manaia Harbour

11. Kirita Bay

12. Thames Coast (Wilsons Bay – Tararu) – a number of locations considered under one section.

13. Shortland Wharf (Thames)

14. Kopu

15. Piako Rivermouth

16. Wharekawa (Stevenson‟s Quarry)

17. Ports of Auckland


3.2 Map of Potential Wharf Locations - Figure 7

17. Ports of

Auckland

3. Colville Bay

3. Port Charles

3. Kennedy Bay

2. Whangapoua

Harbour

1. Whitianga Harbour

4. Coromandel Wharf

5. Preece Point

6. Windy Point (Puhi Rare) 7. Sugarloaf 8. Hanniford’s

Wilsons Bay Marine Farm Zone

12. Thames Coast

14. Kopu – Waihou River

13. Thames Wharf 16. Wharekawa – Stevenson’s Quarry

9. Te Kouma Harbour;

10. Manaia Harbour;

11. Kirita Bay

15. Piako Rivermouth


4.0 Preliminary Screening Assessment of Alternative Locations

The purpose of this section is to identify issues associated with each location based on current knowledge and available information. This section identifies

the advantages and limitations of each location, identifies fatal flaws, if any, summarises the main issues and provides a recommendation as to whether

further detailed assessment is warranted to determine the appropriateness of that option or whether that option should not be considered further.

4.1 Whitianga Wharf and Harbour Opportunities for the creation of new and /or replacement wharfing facility.

Figure 8 Figure 9 – Whitianga Wharf

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:

Processing facility available in Whitianga although only part of total

industry production.

All tide access available through Harbour entrance and to existing

Wharf.

Opportunity to design and construct purpose built facility.

Environment:

Whitianga Harbour is already a highly modified environment.

Industry Needs:

Travel time for marine farming vessels from Wilsons Bay is

estimated at 7- 8hours based on calm sea conditions9.

Given the need for efficiency in transporting perishable goods this

travel time and weather dependency could severely affect the

feasibility of the FoT marine farms.

Lack of satisfactory wharfing infrastructure to support industry.

Current wharf not often used for marine farming activities

(exception being commercial fishing).

9 Pers comm – Ben Dunbar-Smith 2011

http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://www.frontbeach.co.nz/images/intro/whiti-wharf-450px.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.frontbeach.co.nz/whitianga-local-services.htm&h=275&w=450&sz=27&tbnid=0HQOjCZqfISFFM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=148&prev=/search?q=whitianga+wharf+photo&tbm=isch&tbo=u&zoom=1&q=whitianga+wharf+photo&docid=aUW3udDIpSOqFM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-F_RTvbAKuSUiAf00OnUDg&ved=0CCIQ9QEwAQ&dur=4126

http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://www.frontbeach.co.nz/images/intro/whiti-wharf-450px.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.frontbeach.co.nz/whitianga-local-services.htm&h=275&w=450&sz=27&tbnid=0HQOjCZqfISFFM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=148&prev=/search?q=whitianga+wharf+photo&tbm=isch&tbo=u&zoom=1&q=whitianga+wharf+photo&docid=aUW3udDIpSOqFM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-F_RTvbAKuSUiAf00OnUDg&ved=0CCIQ9QEwAQ&dur=4126


Dredging activities already carried out by Whitianga Marina for the

marina approach channel.

Some industrial zoned land available in Whitianga for marine service

activities.

Opportunity to reduce industry dependency on the use of Sugarloaf.

Economic and Social:

Likely that workforce available in Whitianga.

Retains industry and associated economic benefits within the

Thames-Coromandel District

Road distance to export markets (Auckland airport) and most

processing factories (Tauranga (2.5hours) and Auckland (3 hours)).

Significant change to the dynamics of the existing industry operations

– in terms of depot location and reliance on increased sea travel

distances.

Environment:

Available space severely constrained adjoining Whitianga Wharf

due to location of public boat ramp, boat and trailer car park,

children‟s playground, Marina and Marina carpark.

It is likely that an entire new area within the harbour would be

required to be developed for a wharf with potentially significant

dredging requirements.

Lack of available undeveloped land for adjoining land based

infrastructure.

High potential for conflict with recreational and tourism users of the

harbour.

High amenity landscape values10.

High conservation values – ASCV2011.

Parts of Harbour identified with high natural character values12


Financial cost of new wharfing infrastructure and dredging.

Discussion: Whitianga Wharf and Harbour is not considered to be a viable option primarily due to the distance of Whitianga from the marine farms

located within Wilsons Bay and the greater Firth of Thames. The travel time and reliance on calm sea conditions for travel would also create significant

disruptions to the industry especially to the small vessel operators. Whitianga harbour also has significant value to the District in terms of its recreational

and tourism values. The potential for conflict between the industry and these existing users is considered to be high and quite possibly unsustainable within

the relatively small harbour. Relocating the wharfing infrastructure to this location on the eastern side of the Coromandel Peninsula would involve a

10

Coromandel Peninsula Landscape Assessment July 2008 11

Waikato Regional Coastal Plan 12

Coromandel Peninsula – Ecological Assessment of Natural Character, Focus Resource Management Group, January 2010


significant transformation to the Coromandel aquaculture industry from as it is today. It is a logical conclusion that the industry would take many years to

adapt for depots to be relocated (if required) and for vessels to be upgraded to cater for the increased travel distance. If Whitianga was to be a preferred

location for the industry further detailed investigations would be required to identify specific locations and design opportunities.

Summary: Overall it is considered that Whitianga Wharf and Harbour has „fatal flaws‟ for the development of wharfing infrastructure to support the

Coromandel aquaculture industry. Those flaws are primarily the distance of this location from the marine farming area in the FoT and the high potential for

conflict with recreational users and tourism operators in the Harbour. The Harbour is also relatively small with limited available space for the operation of

industry. Taking into account those flaws it is considered that no detailed investigations are warranted to further investigate this location option.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Whitianga Wharf and Harbour is not considered further as a potential location for the development of

wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel aquaculture industry.


4.2 Whangapoua Harbour Opportunities for the creation of a new and/or replacement wharfing facility.

Figure 10 Figures 11 & 12 – Whangapoua Wharf

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:

Reasonably close to processing facility available at OPC factory in

Whitianga although only a small part of total industry production.


Environment:



Likely that workforce available in Whitianga and/or Coromandel.


Thames-Coromandel District.

Industry Needs:

Travel time for marine farming vessels from Wilsons Bay is

estimated at 6-7hours based on calm sea conditions.




Lack of satisfactory wharfing infrastructure to support industry.

Current wharf generally not used for marine farming activities

(exception being small commercial fishing and oyster farming

operations).


processing factories (Tauranga (3 – 3.5hours) and Auckland (3.5 – 4

hours)).


– in terms of depot location and increased sea travel distances.


Environment:

It is likely that an entirely new area within the Harbour would be

required to be developed for wharfage.

High potential for conflict with recreational users of the harbour.

Significant dredging requirements to create and maintain all-tide

access.

High landscape values13.

High conservation values – ASCV1614.

High natural character values15.


Financial costs of consenting, construction and maintenance

dredging.

Potential impact on tourism values of area.

Discussion: Whangapoua Harbour is not considered to be a viable option primarily due to the existing natural character, landscape and conservation

values of the Harbour. The travel time and reliance on calm sea conditions from the marine farms located within Wilsons Bay and the greater Firth of

Thames would also create significant disruptions to the industry especially to the smaller industry vessels. Whangapoua Harbour also has significant value

to the District in terms of its tourism and recreational values especially to residents and visitors to the coastal settlements of Whangapoua and Matarangi.

Relocating the wharfing Infrastructure to this location on the eastern side of the Coromandel Peninsula would involve a significant transformation to the

Coromandel aquaculture industry from how it is today. It would be logical to assume that the industry would take many years to adapt, for depots to be

relocated (if required) and for vessels to be upgraded to cater for the increased travel distance.

Summary: Overall it is considered that Whangapoua Harbour has „fatal flaws‟ for the development of wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel

aquaculture industry. Those flaws are primarily the distance of this location from the marine farming area in the FoT and the existing natural character,

landscape and conservation values of the Harbour. The Harbour is also relatively small with limited available space for the operation of industry. Significant

construction and maintenance dredging would also be a likely necessity. Taking into account these flaws it is considered that no detailed investigations are

necessary to further investigate this location option.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Whangapoua Harbour is not considered further as a potential location for the development of wharfing

infrastructure to support the Coromandel aquaculture industry.

13

Coromandel Peninsular Landscape Assessment July 2008 14




4.3 Coastline North of Coromandel Township (Kennedy Bay, Colville Bay, Port Charles etc.) Opportunities for the creation of new a wharfing facility.

Figure 13, 14, 15

Advantages Limitations

Industry Needs:


Environment:

Future Coromandel Bypass Road (District Plan Structure Plan16)

could avoid heavy vehicle movements through town centre,

however, no guarantee of when this may occur.




Thames-Coromandel District.

Industry Needs:

Travel time from Wilsons Bay anywhere from 2 – 6 hours

dependant on location and sea conditions.




Lack of wharfing infrastructure to support industry. Only Kennedy

Bay currently has some minor use of wharf facilities for existing

marine farm servicing. Would need substantial upgrade to support

entire industry.


processing factories (Tauranga (4 – 5.5hours) and Auckland (4.5 – 5

hours)).

Additional road travel.


– in terms of depot location, increased reliance on road transport

and increased sea travel distances.

16

TCDC District Plan – April 2010 section 343.3 page 88


Environment:

All industry vehicle movements through Coromandel town centre

and heritage area.

Roading infrastructure to north of Coromandel town is not

considered to be designed or constructed for high volumes of

articulated truck movements.

An entirely new area would be required to be developed for

wharfage.

Lack of available undeveloped land for associated land based

infrastructure.

High natural character values of this largely undeveloped coastline17.

Reliance on the Thames Coast Road (SH25).

Areas identified as an amenity and outstanding landscapes by

TCDC18.

High conservation values – Colville Bay ASCV13; Port Charles

ASCV1419.


Limited workforce availability

Discussion: The coastline north of Coromandel township includes a number of locations such as Kennedy Bay, Port Charles and Colville Bay (15km, 27km

and 27km distance from Coromandel town respectively) that were considered to be able to provide a sheltered location potentially suitable for the

development of a wharf. However, the primary limiting factor associated with these areas north of Coromandel town is the lack of roading infrastructure

to support an aquaculture wharf facility. The roading north of Coromandel (Colville Road, Kennedy Bay Road, and Tuateawa Road) is not considered to be

suitable due to the roads containing significant distances of unsealed gravel surfaces, narrow road carriageways, steep road angles and essentially difficult

carriageway alignment. Having said that it is likely that the relocation of the existing industry to the north of Coromandel Town would conflict with the

Council‟s existing policies and objectives20 to maintain the safety and efficiency of the existing roading network.

17

Coromandel Peninsula – Ecological Assessment of Natural Character, Focus Resource Management Group, January 2010 18



TCDC District Plan – section 216 Transportation


The travel time and reliance on calm sea conditions for travel, especially to Port Charles and Kennedy Bay, would also create significant disruptions to the

industry especially to the smaller vessel operators in the industry.

The existing roading intersection of Tiki Road, Wharf Road and Kapanga Road, within the Coromandel town centre is currently the only vehicle access to

the northern coastline. This intersection, being at the „heart‟ of the town centre, is severely constrained by traffic volumes during holiday periods. A

significant increase in vehicle movements, including articulated delivery trucks, would create significant impacts on this intersection that possibly could not

be avoided. The potential to upgrade this intersection is limited by the presence of existing heritage buildings which form a vital part of Coromandel town‟s

historic heritage and character.

Large parts of the northern Coromandel have been identified as having high or outstanding landscape values and high natural character values. The

establishment of commercial/industrial wharfage has the potential to conflict with these existing values.

Summary: Overall it is considered that the coastline north of Coromandel town has fatal flaws for the development of wharfing infrastructure to support

the Coromandel aquaculture industry. Those flaws are, in the first instance, due to the existing roading infrastructure of the area which is not considered

to be capable of safely and efficiently accommodating the increase in vehicle movements associated with the industry. It is also considered that the high or

outstanding landscape values and high natural character values of the area could be detrimental to the successful establishment of wharfing infrastructure.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the coastline north of Coromandel town (not including Coromandel Wharf) is not considered further as a

potential location for the development of wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel aquaculture industry.


4.4 Coromandel Wharf Opportunities for: 1. addition to existing wharf and creation/dredging of access channel; 2. extension of existing wharf into deeper water.

Figure 16 Figure 17 – Coromandel Wharf

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:

Close to existing marine farming depots.

Fuel and water available at wharf already.

Sheltered Coromandel Harbour provides safe access and calm sea

conditions.


Minor change to the dynamics of the existing industry operations –

in terms of depot location and reliance on road transport.

Environment:

Not identified as having high natural character, conservation or

landscape values.

Close proximity to land zoned and developed for marine activities21.

Potential to bring Auckland ferry into Coromandel Wharf.


Industry Needs:

Existing wharf not up to current needs

Lack of all tide access.

Environment:

All industry vehicle movements through Coromandel town centre

and heritage area.

Potential for significant volumes of dredging for construction and

maintenance of access channel.

A wharf extending into deep water would be a significant structure

within the existing coastal environment which could be in conflict

with the existing character of area.

High visibility to residents of Ruffin Peninsular/Wyuna Bay road.


21

District Plan Planning Map 31/04



Retain industry within the Thames-Coromandel District

Potential workforce available in Coromandel.

Potential to bring Auckland Ferries into Coromandel town –

potential for valuable addition to tourism industry.


Potential adverse effects on town centre commercial activities due

to increased industry traffic.

Financial costs of new facility.

Discussion: Coromandel Wharf has been developed and used for marine activities for over 100 years, however, due to the sedimentation within the

harbour, the wharf is now only accessible for most commercial boats for 2 – 3hours either side of the high tide. In fact, and as can be seen above in figures

16 and 17, most of the seabed adjoining the wharf is dry for a substantial part of the tide cycle. Essentially there are two concepts for the re-development

of the Coromandel Wharf. The first is the dredging of a navigable channel for approximately 600m 22 from the existing wharf to deep water and to extend

the width of the existing wharf. The second concept would be the construction of a wharf extension, approximately 600m, out into deeper water.

The dredging option has the potential to have significant adverse environmental effects, caused by the suspension and re-deposition of sediments. Although

this is not considered to be fatal, thorough investigation on sediment types and depths would be required to accurately determine the feasibility of this

option.

The wharf extension option, being 600m in length and of solid engineering design, would also present significant issues in terms of its bulk and scale. The

extension would be required to be a sufficient width and engineering standard to accommodate industry vehicle movements to and from the marine vessel

berths located at the end of the wharf in deeper water. Vehicle turning and loading areas, storage space and services would also be required at the end of

the Wharf resulting in a relatively large platform in addition to the access wharf / „link bridge‟ itself. A structure such as this has the potential to seriously

conflict with the existing character of the inner harbour. It is also considered that it would be unlikely that this type of structure would gain acceptance in

the local Coromandel community.

The Coromandel Wharf, as with other coastal locations north of Coromandel (see previous option discussion), also remains dependant on the existing

roading intersection of Tiki Road, Wharf Road and Kapanga Road, within the Coromandel town centre. This intersection, being at the „heart‟ of the town

centre, is severely constrained by high traffic volumes during holiday periods. A significant increase in vehicle movements, including articulated delivery

trucks, would create significant impacts on this intersection that possibly could not be avoided. The potential to upgrade this intersection is also severely

limited by the presence of existing heritage buildings which form a vital part of Coromandel town‟s historic heritage and character.

Having said that, however, there are benefits associated with bringing the Auckland ferry into a location close to the Coromandel town centre could be of

significance for local businesses and the tourism industry.

22

Wharfing Infrastructure Discussion Document – prepared by HCDG dated November 2010 page 81


Summary: Overall it is considered that there are fatal flaws associated with the upgrading of wharfing infrastructure at Coromandel Wharf. Those flaws

are considered to be the significant distance and depth required for construction and maintenance dredging and /or the construction of substantial wharfing

extensions (possibly 600m in length) that would be out of character with the existing environment. The reliance on the Tiki Road, Wharf Road and

Kapanga Road intersection is also considered to be a fatal flaw.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Coromandel Wharf is not considered further as a potential location for the development of wharfing

infrastructure to support the Coromandel Aquaculture Industry.

However, in acknowledgement of the potential benefits to Council and the wider community associated with this option, further investigation could be

undertaken to further evaluate the viability of this option and to ensure that the flaws identified above cannot be overcome.


4.5 Preece Point (Coromandel Harbour) Opportunities for the creation of new wharfing facility.

Figure 18, Figure 19 – Coromandel Harbour and Preece Point

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:


conditions.


Existing small marine farming operation located on northern coast of

Preece Point.



Environment:


Avoids heavy vehicle movements through Coromandel town.

Preece Point Road accesses directly onto SH25 with what appears

to be reasonable sight visibility distances.

Industry Needs:

No wharf facility at present.

Lack of suitable vehicle access to coastal edge.

Environment:

High visibility (viewing audience of northern coast of Preece Point

from Coromandel town and Ruffin Peninsula and south coast of

Preece Point from SH25 to the south).

Limited availability for reasonably flat contoured land for associated

land based infrastructure.

High conservation values (within ASCV12)23


High amenity landscape values25.

Intersection of Preece Point Road will require upgrading for access

23



Coromandel Peninsula Landscape Assessment July 2008





onto SH25.

Potential for dredging depending on location.

Preece Point Road will require upgrading with large scale

earthworks - associated environmental and visual effects.

Access Road required across private land to access coastline.



Financial costs of construction – wharf and roading access.

Private land – road access and ownership issues.

Discussion: Preece Point has been identified by TCDC as having high natural character and landscape values. The landform, which occupies a central

location within Coromandel harbour, is a focal point when viewed from Wharf Road and the Ruffins Peninsula within Coromandel town. The landform is

relatively unmodified with a gravel no-exit road generally running along the spine of „the Point‟. It is largely covered in regenerating vegetation with native

species and some exotics such as pines etc. Some open pastureland can also be seen, however, human made structures are very limited with approximately

four dwellings/sheds being located on the coastal (western) end of the landform.

The development of infrastructure would not only include the wharf itself but it would also involve significant earthworks to construct a safe and efficient

roading access to the coastline.

Given the central location of Preece Point within the Coromandel Harbour, and its resulting prominence within a large visual catchment, it is considered

that developing relatively large commercial marine infrastructure would have potentially significant impact on the existing natural character and landscape

values of the area.

Summary: Overall it is considered that the potential adverse effects on the existing natural character and landscape values of Preece Point, that are likely

to result from the development of wharfing infrastructure and roading access, represent fatal flaws with this location option.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Preece Point is not considered further as a potential location for the development of wharfing infrastructure

to support the Coromandel aquaculture industry.


4.6 Windy Point / Puhi Rare, Te Kouma Opportunities for the creation of a new wharfing facility.

Figure 20, Figure 21 – Windy Point and boat mooring area

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:


conditions.


No change to the dynamics of the existing industry operations – in

terms of depot location and reliance on road transport.

Environment:

Existing access from Te Kouma Road onto SH25.


Industry would be separated from Te Kouma residential area.

Small number of residential properties within the immediate area

compared to existing operation at Sugarloaf.

Potential for investigation of suitability of land based infrastructure

Industry Needs:

Financial cost of a new facility.

Environment:

Potential for significant volumes of dredging and sea bed reclamation

depending on design – associated adverse environmental effects.

High conservation values - ASCV1227 .

Potential adverse effects on Oyster Farms.


Te Kouma Road – SH25 intersection potentially requires upgrading

to future proof industry in this location.

Potential conflict with existing mooring zone.

Potential impact on three residential properties.

Potential visual effects fromSH25 (north of Te Kouma Road

intersection).

27

Waikato Regional Coastal Plan


on nearby farmland.

Limited visibility from surrounding environment and SH25.

Environment currently modified by roading, mooring zone and

oyster farms.

Not within high values landscape area as identified by TCDC26.

Potential for expansion along coastline – future proofing ability.

Potential to improve car parking arrangements and dinghy storage

for marine vessel operators.




Potentially difficult access onto Te Kouma Road.

High natural character values as identified by TCDC28


Cost of new wharfing infrastructure and dredging.

Discussion: It is considered that one of the main concerns with the development of Windy Point is the conservation values of the area as the site is

located within ASCV12 in the WRCP. Whilst the ASCV does not preclude development, in can nevertheless make the environmental tests higher than

other areas. Having said that it is noted that the ASCV12 has been modified to some degree with the existence and operation of the oyster farms to the

north, which involve regular vehicle movements over the exposed seabed during low tide; the mooring zone, which is also identified in the WRCP; the

construction of Te Kouma Road, including retaining walls; and the regular operation of marine farm vessels and recreational vessels using the mooring zone.

The close proximity of the exiting oyster farming areas is also of particular concern given the sensitivity of filter feeding shellfish to changes in water quality.

Changes in water quality could occur during both construction of a wharfing facility (suspension of sediment etc.) and as part of regular operation of a

facility from stormwater runoff and on less frequent occasions, accidental fuel spills.

Research into the potential impacts on conservation values of the area and the potential for impact on neighbouring oyster farms are considered to be

necessary for any further investigation of this option.

Although Windy Point has not been identified as having high landscape values29 it has been identified as having natural character values. The development of

wharfing infrastructure in this location would be seen as being additional development in the coastal environment. During consultation DOC have

expressed their preference to see existing modified sites used for further development, rather than undeveloped sites, within the coastal environment.

The intersection of Te Kouma Road and SH25 is also a potential issue in terms of traffic safety, especially when considering the anticipated future growth in

26





the industry. Engineering solutions could be developed to address this issue.

Windy Point remains reliant on Te Kouma Road and SH25 which are roads with difficult alignment and grades. It is noted that Te Kouma residents state

that SH25 is not suitable to cater for the increased volumes of traffic associated with the industry.

The existing mooring zone also potentially complicates this location however advice from the Waikato Regional Council is that individual moorings can be

relocated a small distance relatively easily and without a variation to the existing resource consents. Relocating moorings may be able to provide a safe

access channel to a wharf site and avoid or reduce this sites dependency on dredging.

It is also considered that the Windy Point location has clear benefits in terms of avoiding conflicts with the residential area of Te Kouma. These conflicts

were highlighted in the resource consent application in 2009 made to allow refuelling from road tankers from the existing Sugarloaf Wharf 30 which is

discussed in section 2.2.1 above.

A wharf at Windy Point also has the potential, depending on design, to improve vehicle congestion issues that currently occur on the Sugarloaf Wharf by

separating the industry and recreational users. Sugarloaf Wharf could be developed into primarily a recreational facility, with most car parks being made

available to car and boat trailer parking, thus improving the existing situation of vehicle‟s being parked on Te Kouma Road. If this occurred, then Sugarloaf

could also be used as an Auckland ferry terminal, rather than Hanniford‟s Wharf, with associated parking and manoeuvring space on the Wharf being made

available for tourists (cars, bus etc.).

A new purpose built wharf also has the potential to future-proof the facility for growth in the industry and possibly improve the existing car parking

arrangements for the mooring zone.

As can be seen above there are a number of potential benefits and concerns with Windy Point as a viable option. None of these concerns are considered

to be „fatal flaws‟ in terms of the consenting process, however, they could result in this option being one of the more expensive options to progress.

Summary: With the information that is currently available, and having carried out consultation with a number of key-stakeholders, no fatal flaws have

been identified with Windy Point. However, further investigation is considered necessary in order to determine the appropriateness and practicality of

Windy Point for wharfing infrastructure.

30

TCDC Resource Consent RMA/2009/23


Recommendation: It is recommended that further investigation is carried out to determine whether Windy Point is a viable option for the development

of wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel Aquaculture Industry. Further investigation should include:

1. Bathymetry surveys to accurately detail sea bed contour and calculate the requirements for dredging.

2. Sediment toxicity testing at various locations and depths (advice from coastal scientist/engineer should be provided here to ensure robust analysis

and conclusions).

3. Geotechnical investigation to accurately detail the suitability of the area for dredging and sea bed reclamations.

4. Investigation of ecological values associated with ASCV12 and the potential ecological impacts of dredging and construction of a wharfing facility.

5. Investigate sediment regime in the area to identify whether maintenance dredging of an access channel would be a significant factor.

6. Traffic Impact Assessment of industry‟s use of Te Kouma Road and intersection of Te Kouma Road and SH25.


4.7 Sugarloaf Wharf – Waipapa Bay, Te Kouma Opportunities for the extension of existing Sugarloaf wharf facility

Figure 22 Figure 23 – Sugarloaf Wharf

Advantages

Limitations

Aquaculture Industry Needs:


conditions.


Existing Resource Consent for re-fuelling of marina farming vessels.

All tide access available.



Environment:

Limited visibility from wider environment and SH25.

Environment currently modified by roading and existing wharf.

Not within an outstanding or an amenity landscape as identified by

TCDC31.

Not within an ASCV.

Existing baseline of environmental effects from existing wharf.

Industry Needs:

Potential on-going „conflict‟ with residential area – reverse sensitivity

issues.

Congestion with recreational users.

Environment:

No availability for undeveloped land for associated land based

infrastructure in the immediate vicinity but farmland near Windy

Point could potentially be used for industry bases.


Potential congestion with Industry and recreational marine users.

Reduction in amenity values of Te Kouma residential area – reverse

sensitivity.

Te Kouma Road – SH25 intersection potentially requires upgrading

to future proof industry in this location.

Need to shift existing maintenance grid.

31



Passive surveillance of wharf by residential area.





Financial cost for new/additional wharfing infrastructure

Discussion: The main issue with the re-development of Sugarloaf is the opposition to the industry‟s use of the Sugarloaf Wharf by neighbouring residential

property owners. The existing facility is also a well patronised recreational facility which inevitably leads to congestion issues particularly during weekends

and holiday periods. The potential for congestion and impacts on amenity values will only increase over time with the predicted growth in the industry. A

new purpose built wharf or additions to the existing wharf could however have significant benefits in terms of future proofing the facility for potential

growth in the industry and possibly alleviate some of the existing vehicle congestion issues. During consultation DOC have expressed their preference to

see existing modified sites within the coastal environment used for further development, rather than undeveloped sites.

Sugarloaf remains reliant on Te Kouma Road and SH25 which are roads with difficult alignment and grades. It is noted that Te Kouma residents state that

SH25 is not suitable to cater for the increased volumes of traffic associated with the industry.

It appears that extending the reclamation of Sugarloaf may be one of the more cost effective options to develop, given the close proximity of reasonably

deep water to provide all tide access. However, further expansion will clearly attract strong opposition from local residents, particularly those living in the

residential enclave of Puriri Road, Te Kouma. This opposition is likely to result in significant costs throughout the Environment Court appeal process.

Summary: With the current information that is available, and having carried out consultation with a number of key-stakeholders, no fatal flaws have been

identified with Sugarloaf. However, further investigation is considered necessary in order to determine the appropriateness of Sugarloaf for wharfing

infrastructure.

Recommendation: It is recommended that further investigation is carried out to determine whether Sugarloaf is a viable option for the development of

wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel Aquaculture Industry. Further investigation should include:

1 Bathymetry surveys to accurately detail sea bed contour and calculate the requirements for dredging.

2 Sediment toxicity testing at various locations and depths (advice from coastal scientist/engineer should be provided here to provide robust analysis

and conclusions).

3 Geotechnical investigation to accurately detail the suitability of the area for dredging and/or sea bed reclamations.

4 Investigation of ecological values associated with the neighbouring ASCV12.

5 Traffic Impact Assessment of industry‟s use of Te Kouma Road and intersection of Te Kouma Road and SH25.


4.8 Hanniford’s Wharf (Te Kouma Road) Opportunities for the creation of a new wharfing facility.

Figures 24 Figure 25 – Hanniford's Wharf

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:


conditions.

Opportunity to design and construct purpose built facility

Close to existing marine farms.



Environment:

Limited visibility from wider environment and SH25.

Environment currently modified by roading, housing and mooring

zone.

Not within an outstanding or amenity landscape32.


Industry Needs:

Potential conflict with recreational mooring zone.

Potential „conflict‟ with residential area.

Environment:

No availability for undeveloped land for associated land based

infrastructure.


Te Kouma Road from Sugarloaf would require substantial upgrade

and possibly large scale earthworks.

Probably conflict with residential area of Te Kouma – reverse

sensitivity issues.


Financial cost for new/additional wharfing infrastructure.

32






Discussion: There are a number of significant flaws with the development of Hanniford‟s Wharf. The first, and ultimately fatal flaw, is the low construction

standard of Te Kouma Road which would require major upgrading, which in itself could have significant visual effects within the coastal environment. From

the Sugarloaf, the Te Kouma Road formation standard declines significantly being generally of narrow width, partly unsealed and with a complex alignment

following the coastline.

The potential for conflict with the mooring zone is also of concern, however, as discussed above in the discussion for Windy Point this is not considered to

be a major flaw. It is noted that the Auckland ferry currently accesses Hanniford's Wharf through the mooring zone.

Hanniford‟s Wharf is also regularly used by recreational boat owners and potential conflict could arise if the Wharf was replaced by a larger, busier industry

wharf.

The close proximity of Te Kouma residential area (Kowhai Drive) is also an obvious constraint with this location which will have similar constraints to the

existing Sugarloaf, in terms of reverse sensitive issues and impact on residential amenity values.

Summary: Overall it is considered that the lack of a satisfactory roading access is a fatal flaw with this option. The potential conflict with residential

amenity values and recreational values of the Hanniford‟s Wharf area are also considered to be important, although not fatal, issues with this location. It is

also considered that the two nearby sites, being Sugarloaf and Windy Point, are more appropriate and can reasonably justify further investigation over and

above the Hanniford's Wharf site. Hanniford‟s Wharf is therefore not recommended for further investigation.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Hanniford‟s Wharf is not considered further as a potential location for the development of wharfing



4.9 Te Kouma Harbour Opportunities for the creation of a new wharfing facility.

Figures 26 Figure 27 – Te Kouma Harbour

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:

Sheltered harbour provides safe access and calm sea conditions.



Deep all tide access likely to be available.



Environment:

Limited visibility from surrounding environment and SH25.

Limited, if any dredging.


Industry Needs:

Significant financial costs for wharf and roading access.

Environment:




Lack of suitable access onto SH25. Road upgrades/creation required

will require large scale earthworks with potentially significant visual

effects.

Potential impact on recreational users (boating) within harbour.

33






Potential workforce available in Coromandel and Thames.


Significant cost for new wharfing infrastructure and roading access.

Discussion: There are considered to be a number of significant flaws with the development of wharfing infrastructure in Te Kouma Harbour. Te Kouma

Harbour is considered to be one of the most unmodified harbours within the Coromandel Peninsula. This is supported by the recognition and classification

of the Harbour as having high landscape and natural character values.

The construction of necessary roading infrastructure to the coastal edge would require significant earthworks and associated engineering across both open

pastureland and regenerating native vegetation, depending on the location of the wharf. This would need to be across private land and therefore the

provision of a new public road is a significant factor to consider with this location.

The principle issues with the construction and use of a wharf within Te Kouma Harbour and the construction of roading access is the potential for

significant adverse effects on the natural character, landscape and visual amenity values of the harbour.

Summary: The potential adverse effects on the high natural character and landscape values associated with Te Kouma Harbour and the requirement to

construct a substantial new roading infrastructure from SH25 into this environment are considered to be fatal flaws with this location.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Te Kouma Harbour is not considered further as a potential location for the development of wharfing



4.10 Manaia Harbour Opportunities for the creation of new wharfing facility.

Figures 28 Figure 29 – Manaia Harbour

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:

Sheltered Harbour provides safe access and calm sea conditions.

Potential for purpose built facility with future proofing.


Environment:

Potential availability for flat land within Manaia to be developed for

land based infrastructure to support the industry.





Industry Needs:

No wharf facility at present.

Lack of suitable vehicle access to the coastal edge.

Some change to the dynamics of the existing industry operations –


Environment:

Significant volumes of dredging would be required to create and

maintain an all tide access to the eastern end of the harbour.

A wharf extending into deep water would be a significant structure

within the existing coastal environment which would detract from

natural character values.

Much of the harbour has been identified as having high natural

character values35.

35



Area identified as an amenity landscape by TCDC36.


Lack of suitable access onto SH25. Road upgrades required will

result in large scale earthworks with potentially significant visual and

other effects.


Significant financial costs for wharf and roading access.

Potential for significant costs for construction and maintenance

dredging.

Discussion: Similar to the issues associated with Te Kouma Harbour, there are also considered to be a number of significant flaws with the development

of wharfing infrastructure in Manaia Harbour. Manaia Harbour is considered to be one of the most unmodified harbours within the Coromandel Peninsula

which is supported by the recognition and classification of the Harbour as being an amenity landscape and much of the harbour also being identified as

having high natural character values. The visual amenity values of Manaia Harbour are also significant with outstanding views of the Harbour and FoT being

available from a number of locations along SH25

The construction of necessary roading infrastructure to the coastal edge would require significant earthworks and associated engineering across both open

pastureland and regenerating native vegetation, depending on the location of the wharf. This would need to be across private land and therefore the

provision of a new public road is a significant factor to consider with this location.

It is also likely that Manaia Harbour would require significant dredging to create a usable wharf facility. The environmental and financial costs associated

with, what could be significant maintenance dredging, have the potential to be fatal flaws for this location.

Overall it is considered that the construction and use of a wharf within Manaia Harbour has the potential to create significant adverse effects on the natural

character, landscape and visual amenity values of the harbour.

Summary: The potential adverse effects on the high natural character and landscape values associated with Manaia Harbour and the requirement to

construct a substantial new road from SH25 into the area are considered to be fatal flaws with this location.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Manaia Harbour is not considered further as a potential location for the development of wharfing


36



4.11 Kirita Bay (Smuggler’s Cove) Opportunities for the creation of a new wharfing facility.

Figures 30 Figure 31 – Kirita Bay

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:

Reasonably sheltered Bay that can provide safe access and calm sea

conditions - however Kirita Bay is reasonably exposed during a

westerly (one of the predominant wind directions).

Opportunities to construct a purpose built facility.


Existing boat ramp and small reclamation/wharf – however privately

owned.

Environment:

Reasonably deep water to provide all tide access.

Significant dredging probably not required.


Industry Needs:

Existing wharf facilities are not sufficient for industry needs at

present.

Vehicle access not sufficient for industry needs at present.

Some change to the dynamics of the existing industry operations –

in terms of depot location.

Environment:

A wharf could be a significant structure within the existing coastal

environment which would detract from natural character values.

Possibility that seawalls need to be constructed for berth shelter.



Lack of suitable access onto SH25. Road upgrades required will

37






require large scale earthworks resulting in significant visual effects.

Access and supporting infrastructure would be on private land.

High visibility to users of SH25.


Cost for new wharfing infrastructure.

Private Land.

Discussion: Similar to the issues associated with Te Kouma and Manaia Harbour, there are also considered to be a number of significant flaws with the

development of wharfing infrastructure in Kirita Bay. Although Kirita Bay has been modified to some extent by a small enclave of residential development, a

boat ramp and a small reclamation, Kirita Bay is considered to have high landscape values. This is supported by the recognition and classification of the

Harbour as being an amenity landscape within the District. Impressive views of Kirita Bay and the Firth of Thames are available from SH25 and from this

distance it appears to be a largely unmodified coastal environment.

The land contour surrounding Kirita Bay is also relatively steep and the construction of roading infrastructure to the coastal edge would require significant

earthworks and associated engineering across open pastureland. This would need to be across private land and therefore the provision of a new public

road is a significant factor to consider with this location. The vehicle crossing for an access road onto SH25 also poses a significant issue due to the

alignment of SH25 within this area.

Overall it is considered that the construction and use of a wharf, and associated roading, within Kirita Bay has the potential to create significant adverse

effects on the natural character, landscape and visual amenity values of the area.

Summary: The potential adverse effects on the high landscape values associated with Kirita Bay and the requirement to construct a substantial new road

from SH25 into the area are considered to be fatal flaws with this location.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Kirita Bay is not considered further as a potential location for the development of wharfing infrastructure to

support the Coromandel Aquaculture Industry.


4.12 Thames Coast (Wilsons Bay to Tararu) Opportunities for the creation of a new wharfing facility.

Figure 32: Kereta Boat Ramp Figure 33: Waikawau Boat Ramp Figure 34: Ruamahunga Bay Boat Ramp

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:

Purpose built facility with future proofing.

Environment:





Industry Needs:

Major change to the dynamics of the existing industry operations –


Environment:

A completely new facility including construction of seawalls.

Potential for significant construction and maintenance dredging

requirements.

Potentially significant visual effects associated with new wharfing

infrastructure due to the proximity of SH25 to the coastline.

Much of the Thames Coast identified as having high landscape

values38

Much of the Thames Coast identified as having High natural

character values39

Limited availability for undeveloped land for associated land based

38




infrastructure.


Potential for conflict with residential areas of Thames Coast and

associated amenity values – reverse sensitivity issues.

Potential for conflict with recreational users of existing boat ramps.


Cost for new wharfing infrastructure.

Discussion: There are a number of potential locations along the Thames Coast that have been identified as potentially being suitable for wharfing

infrastructure. Such locations include Wilsons Bay, Waikawau Bay, Kereta and Ruamahunga Bay.

The major flaw with all of these locations, however, is an obvious lack of natural shelter that is available compared to the various harbours and bays

previously discussed. This lack of shelter would necessitate the construction of substantial sea walls to ensure that the industry could operate efficiently.

These seawalls and the associated wharfing infrastructure would be a significant change to the existing amenity and landscape values of the Thames Coast as

much of the coastline is visible from SH25. Much of the Thames Coast has also been identified by TCDC as having high landscape and natural character

values.

Depending on the location, a wharfing facility also has the potential to adversely impact upon the existing recreational values of the area. The existing boat

ramps of Waikawau and Kereta are well patronised recreational facilities and therefore, depending on the wharf location, there is significant potential for

conflict between the marine users.

Overall it is considered that substantial infrastructural development on this coastline, which would be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of a

successful wharf facility, would have significant adverse effects on the existing recreational, landscape, natural character and amenity values of the Thames

Coast.

Summary: The requirement to construct significant infrastructure (e.g. seawalls) on most, if not all locations along the Thames Coast, is likely to create

significant visual effects and effects on the amenity and natural character values of the area. These potential effects are considered to be fatal flaws with

Thames Coast as a location for wharfing infrastructure.

Recommendation: It is recommended that any of the locations along the Thames Coast, from Wilsons Bay in the North to Tararu in the South, are not

considered further as a potential location for the development of wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel Aquaculture Industry.


4.13 Shortland Wharf (Thames Wharf) Opportunities for the creation of a new or replacement wharfing facility.

Figures 35 Figure 36 – Thames Wharf

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:

Reasonably sheltered area for wharf.

Purpose built facility with future proofing.

Environment:

Not within an outstanding or amenity landscape as identified by

TCDC.

Land around Shortland Wharf zoned for Marine Activities in the

TCDC District Plan40.

Reasonably close to industrial zoned land of Kopu for supporting

industry.

No reliance on the Thames Coast Road for transporting product.


Industry Needs:


in terms of depot location and reliance on increased sea travel

distances.

2 hours steaming time from Wilsons Bay marine farms.

Not supported by industry as a suitable option due to the distance

from the majority of the farms and the distance from depots in

Coromandel.

Potential for adverse sea conditions when travelling from Wilsons

Bay marine farming area – safety of operators.

Environment:

Shortland Wharf is a Category 2 listed building under the Historic

Places Act 199341. Potential for loss or degradation of historic values

40

TCDC District Plan Map 51/06




Workforce available in Thames.

Add to local economy of Thames.

associated with Wharf.

Potential for conflict with recreational boaties and Thames Marina.

Significant construction and maintenance dredging, possibly 4km to

sufficiently deep water.

Richmond Villas (retirement village) within 200-300m – potential for

conflict with residential amenity values.

Potential for marine farming activities to conflict with residential and

urban values – reverse sensitivity.

Potential adverse effects on the Kauaeranga River e.g. fish passage.

Potential for adverse effects on conservation values (within ASCV10

and adjacent to ASCV 9 and RAMSAR site42.)

Potential to encounter contaminated sediments - potential for

impact on ASCV, Ramsar and marine farms themselves43.


Significant financial costs for new wharf and dredging.

High likelihood of significant on-going costs for maintenance

dredging

Discussion: The close proximity of the site to neighbouring residential properties, including the Richmond Villas retirement complex, is considered to be a

significant issue with this option. The construction and operation of a busy commercial wharf in this location has the potential to create reverse sensitivity

issues, including adverse effects on the amenity values currently enjoyed by residents in the area.

The distance and depth of construction and maintenance dredging for a navigable channel to the Shortland Wharf, and the potential issues associated with

sediment toxicity, are also considered to be significant issues that would require further investigation to assess the likely environmental impacts of such

work.

Shortland Wharf is also a category II listed building by the NZHPT and therefore the site has historical heritage significance. The loss of these values may

be considered to be unacceptable.

41

TCDC District Plan Heritage Register item 60 42


Technical Report 2007/08– “Trace Elements in Sediments…” Environment Waikato


Some benefits of this site do exist such as the economic and social benefit to Thames township and avoiding reliance on the Thames Coast Road for

transporting product. The area is also highly modified and therefore the natural character of the coastal environment will not be such a significant factor

when compared to some other locations further north.

Summary: Overall it is considered that the historic heritage values of Shortland Wharf and the close proximity to residential area of Thames are fatal

flaws with this option. The potential for significant construction and dredging costs, both in terms of financial costs and the environmental concerns, are

also significant issues, however, further investigation is required on this issue if this option was to be considered further.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Shortland Wharf is not considered further as a potential location for the development of wharfing



4.14 Kopu Opportunities for the creation of a new wharfing facility.

Figure 37 Figure 38 – Kopu landing site for aggregate barge

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:

Sheltered area available for Wharf.

Opportunity to construct purpose built facility.

Land available for land based infrastructure including processing.

Environment:

Immediate proximity to land zoned for marine and industrial uses.

Opportunities for the development of factory processing, depots,

and infrastructure manufacturing etc.

No reliance on the Thames Coast Road for transporting product.

Landing site already used for aggregate barging activities.

Away from residential areas.

Easy access to SH25 for transporting product.

Deep, navigable water within lower reaches of Waihou River.

Industry Needs:

2.5 hours steaming time from Wilsons Bay marine farms.



Coromandel.


in terms of depot location and increased sea travel distances.

Potential for adverse sea conditions when travelling from Wilsons

Bay marine farming area – safety of operators.

Environment:

Significant construction and maintenance dredging possibly up to

6km distance to deeper water.44

Potential for significant adverse environmental effects due to

44

Proposed All Tide Wharf Facility at Kopu – Draft Scoping Study Report. Prepared by Maunsell Ltd dated May 2005


Highly modified environment with Kopu Bridge(s) and industrial

area.

Reasonably close to Auckland airport and South Auckland

processing factories.




Workforce available in Thames, Paeroa and surrounding area.

Add to local economy of Thames.

Potential for further industry growth in Kopu with processing

activities.

volume, area and quantities of dredged material.

Potential to encounter contaminated sediments45.

Potential for adverse effects on conservation values (within ASCV10

and adjacent to ASCV 9 and RAMSAR site46).

Potential adverse effects on the Waihou River e.g. fish passage.

Identified as an amenity landscape by TCDC.47


Significant financial costs for new wharf and dredging.

Potential for significant on-going costs for maintenance dredging.

Potential for significant costs associated with disposal of dredged

material (costs exacerbated if material found to be contaminated).

Discussion: The reports and information relevant to the Kopu site and the lower FoT provides a substantial level of background information to consider

the feasibility of this location as a potential option.

There are clearly significant concerns with the feasibility of Kopu for the development of wharfing infrastructure, primarily due to the requirement for

substantial volumes of construction and maintenance dredging and the potential for encountering contaminated sediment during dredging activities. The

Kopu site does however offer various benefits in terms of future proofing of the industry and for the development and growth of supporting land based

infrastructure such as factories for processing (further economic and social benefits to the District), marine infrastructure manufacturing activities and

possibly marine farming depots. In fact, from a conceptual perspective and in terms of amenity values, natural character and landscape, Kopu is actually

considered to be the most suitable location within the District for the development and growth of a thriving „port‟ facility.

Avoiding reliance on the Thames Coast Road for transportation of product is also considered to be a significant long term benefit associated with this

option. This does however come at a cost of further travel for aquaculture vessels which would be subject to adverse weather and sea conditions.

Creating a wharf at Kopu would also be a significant transformation to the existing Coromandel aquaculture industry due to the need to relocate depots

and the likelihood that vessels will need to be upgraded to cater for the increased travel distance. These are some of the reasons why the Kopu site is not

preferred by the industry.

One of the primary flaws with Kopu is the issue surrounding sediment toxicity and heavy metal contamination in the lower FoT. This is of significant

45

Technical Report 2007/08– “Trace Elements in Sediments…” Environment Waikato 46




concern to DOC and WRC48 who have indicated that the potential adverse effects associated with contaminated sediments present serious flaws with

Kopu as a viable option. Having said that, the requirements for substantial volumes and areas for dredging, to create and maintain a navigable channel up to

6km in length, could in its own right have significant adverse environmental effects especially when considering the conservation values of the area and the

internationally recognised FoT Ramsar site (the Ramsar Convention is an international conservation agreement for the protection of wetlands). It is

considered that the dredging of a navigable channel for up to 6km in length would be one of, if not the, longest marine dredging operation ever carried out

in NZ.

The sediment transport regime of the lower FoT and the Waihou River is also a vital issue for further investigation as the requirements for maintenance

dredging and the associated on-going costs and environmental effects may in themselves represent fatal flaws. The Waihou Rover and lower FoT is known

to transport a significant volume of fine suspended sediment which is likely to settle out of suspension within the deeper dredged channel. This could

seriously impact on the financial feasibility of the wharf due to the on-going costs associated with maintenance dredging. Given the „muddy‟ nature of the

lower FoT it is considered that maintenance dredging may be a continuous activity over a length of 4-6km.

Disposal of the dredged material, both during construction and maintenance, is also a significant issue which will only be exacerbated by the presence of

contaminants. Offshore or land based disposal sites would need to be considered and developed which presents substantial additional consenting and cost

issues.

It is noted, however, that landowners of Te Kouma have advised during consultation that Kopu is their preferred site for the industry wharfing operations.

Clearly the Kopu option will relocate the industry‟s current operations at Sugarloaf away from their residences and holiday homes and will effectively avoid

the associated impact on residential amenity values.

Overall it is considered that the potential adverse environmental effects associated with the development of wharfing infrastructure at Kopu will outweigh

the potential benefits. It is considered that the environmental concerns of this option represent fatal flaws and no further investigations are warranted.

However, if the Kopu option was to be considered further, additional detailed investigations would be necessary to rule out those potential flaws discussed

above. These further investigations may result in relatively high financial cost (relative to the current scoping and screening assessment), only to confirm

that these issues are in fact „fatal‟ to this option.

48

Pers Comm – Waikato Regional Council and Department of Conservation


Summary: It is considered that the Kopu option has fatal flaws for the following reasons:

1. The need to carry out construction dredging for up to 6km in length through an area identified as having significant conservation value (ASCV10)

and adjacent to the FoT Ramsar site, which is an internationally recognised wetland, is a significant flaw for the Kopu site. It is considered likely that

obtaining the necessary resource consents for this dredging activity will attract substantial opposition from individuals, community groups,

conservation groups and potentially government bodies such as the Department of Conservation and the Waikato Regional Council.

2. The potential for encountering contaminated sediments during dredging operations is considered to be high based on current available information.

The disposal of contaminated sediments will add significant costs to the project due to the requirement to establish appropriate land based disposal

facilities, and the necessary land use consents, to remedy and mitigate the potential environmental effects associated with the contaminants.

3. The potential for encountering contaminated sediments during construction dredging and the close proximity of a wetland of international

significance (FoT Ramsar) will complicate the consenting process and become a significant factor in determining the application. It is likely that

opponents of the project will focus on the potential environmental effects on the Ramsar site.

4. The requirements for maintenance dredging of a navigable channel and the associated potential for encountering contaminated sediments will add

significant financial costs to the project and again complicate the consenting process.

Having said that however, and bearing in mind the potential benefits associated with a Kopu option, if further investigation is considered warranted by

TCDC to confirm the concerns raised above, it is considered further investigation should be carried out in two stages. The first stage would be to engage

the services of a suitably qualified coastal scientist/engineer, with relevant experience in coastal dredging activities within NZ, to carry out a desktop analysis

of the information currently available. This expert should be asked to provide a summary and recommendation in terms of the appropriateness of further

investigation of the Kopu site.

If further investigations are then considered to be appropriate, the second stage of investigation would include bathymetry surveys to accurately detail sea

bed contour and accurately calculate the requirements for dredging; sediment toxicity testing at a variety of locations and depths (advice from appropriate

expert should be provided here to provide robust analysis and conclusions), investigation of the sediment regime of the Waihou River and lower FoT to

calculate likely maintenance dredging requirements and investigation of current flows to identify possible effects on the Firth of Thames Ramsar site, ASCV‟s

and/or the marine farms.

Recommendations: It is recommended that Kopu option is not considered further as a potential location for wharfing infrastructure as fatal flaws have

been identified.

However, it is acknowledged that the Kopu option does provide a number of benefits in terms of its close proximity to land suitable for marine industrial

activities, a deep channel adjacent to the proposed wharf area and ease of access onto the State Highway. For these reasons further investigation could be

carried out as follows:

1. Engage the services of a suitably qualified coastal scientist/engineer to carry out a desktop analysis of the Kopu option to identify fatal flaws and/or

to recommend necessary further investigations to define the project to carry forward through the resource consent process.


2. Based on the recommendations provided by the coastal scientist/engineer the following information is likely to be required;

Bathymetry surveys to accurately detail sea bed contour and calculate the requirements for dredging;

Sediment toxicity testing at a variety of locations and depths (advice from an appropriate expert should be provided here to ensure robust

analysis and conclusions);

Investigation of sediment regime of the Waihou River to calculate likely maintenance dredging requirements; and

Investigation of current flows (velocity/direction) to identify possible effects on Ramsar site/ASCV‟s and/or marine farms.


4.15 Piako Rivermouth Opportunities for the creation of a new wharfing facility.

Figures 39

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:

Opportunity to construct purpose built facility.

Environment:



Avoids reliance of Thames Coast Road.



Potential workforce available in Thames and surrounding area.

Industry Needs:

Potential for significant on-going costs for maintenance dredging.

2.5 hours steaming time from Wilsons Bay marine farms.



Coromandel town.


in terms of depot location and reliance on increased sea travel

distance.

Environment:

Significant construction and maintenance dredging (potential for

significant adverse environmental effects due to volume, area and

quantities of dredged material).

Potential to encounter contaminated sediments49.

Potential for adverse effects on conservation values (adjacent to

49

Technical Report 2007/08– “Trace Elements in Sediments…” Environment Waikato


ASCV10 and within ASCV 9 and RAMSAR site50).

Potential adverse effects on the Piako River e.g. fish passage.

Limited roading access available – upgrade and new roading over

private land required.


Financial costs for wharf, roading access and maintenance dredging.

Loss of industry facility from District.

Discussion: Piako Rivermouth is not considered to be a viable option as the navigable channel would need to be constructed through the centre of the

Ramsar site and ASCV9. This would attract considerable opposition to any consenting process. Adverse environment effects on the natural character and

ecology of the area are likely to be unavoidable and unacceptable. The location would also take the project outside of the Thames-Coromandel District

and therefore the envisaged economic and social benefit to the Thames-Coromandel District would be limited although the likely workforce would still

come from Thames.

Summary: The location of the Piako Rivermouth within the Firth of Thames Ramsar site and ASCV9 and the sites natural character values are considered

to be fatal flaws with this location.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Piako Rivermouth is not considered further as a potential location for the development of wharfing


50

Waikato Regional Coastal Plan


4.16 Wharekawa (Stevenson’s Quarry) Opportunities for the creation of a new wharfing facility.

Figures 41 Figure 42 Stevenson’s quarry (Photo courtesy of Ben Dunbar-Smith)

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:

Opportunity to create a purpose built facility.

Reasonably close to existing marine farms.

Already used by one marine farm operator.

1hour travel time from Wilsons Bay marine farms.

Environment:




Avoids reliance of Thames Coast Road

Already modified by existing aggregate facility.

Dredging operations already carried out in close proximity to the

south of the site, for the Kaiaua boating club51.

Industry Needs:


from the majority of depots in Coromandel.



Environment:

Requirement for potentially considerable construction and

maintenance dredging52 (potential for significant adverse

environmental effects due to volume, area and quantities of dredged

material).

Close proximity to ASCV 9 and Firth of Thames Ramsar site53.

Littoral drift in a southerly direction which creates potential issues

of dredging activities adversely affecting ASCV10 and Ramsar site54.

51

Pers Comm – Waikato Regional Council 21 February 2011



Cost for new wharfing infrastructure and dredging.

Purchase of Private Land.


Lack of a close workforce.

Privately owned.

Discussion: From a local economic perspective, taking the wharfing operations out of the Thames-Coromandel District is considered to be a major flaw

with this location. The location would also involve a significant transformation to the Coromandel Aquaculture industry as it is today which is why this

option is not support by the marine farming industry. It would be logical to imagine that the transformation would take a number of years for depots to be

relocated, vessels to be upgraded to cater to cater for adverse sea conditions (if required) whilst crossing the Firth.

Concerns have been raised from WRC and DOC regarding the potential for contamination from construction/dredging activities on the Ramsar site.

Littoral drift in the FoT moves generally in an anti-clockwise direction (southerly direction from this location) and disturbance of sediment may impact upon

areas further south which includes ASCV and Ramsar. It is noted however that there are existing dredging operation being carried out in the western FoT

by the Kaiaua Boating Club.

Summary: It is considered that the primary flaw of this location, from a TCDC perspective, is that the site is outside of the Thames-Coromandel District

which will eventually result in a significant loss of economic and social benefits associated with the industry. There also appears to be a clear lack of support

for this option from the industry which also seriously undermines this option.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Wharekawa (Stevenson‟s Quarry) is not considered further as a potential location for the development of

wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel Aquaculture Industry.

52

Wharfing Infrastructure Discussion Document. HCDG - Nov 2010 53

Wharfing Infrastructure Discussion Document. HCDG - Nov 2010 54

Pers Comm – Waikato Regional Council 21 February 2011


4.17 Auckland Wharves Use of existing wharf facility in the Ports of Auckland

Figures 43 Figure 44 – Ports of Auckland

Advantages

Limitations

Industry Needs:

Services provided on existing wharves.

Environment:

All tide access available.



Avoids reliance on Thames Coast Road



Workforce available in Auckland.

Industry Needs:

4.5 – 6.5 hours steaming time from Wilsons Bay.

Exposed crossing of Firth of Thames – safety and reliability of taking

product to market.

Separation from depots in Coromandel.

Costs of leasing wharf space at Auckland Port.

Berthage costs





Loss of employment opportunities in Thames-Coromandel district.

Cost of marine fuel and travel versus road travel.


Discussion: Relocating the wharfing infrastructure out of the Thames-Coromandel District is considered to be a major flaw with this location from a local

economic perspective. The location would also involve a significant transformation to the Coromandel aquaculture industry from as it is today. The

transformation would take a number of years for depots to be relocated (if required) and vessels to be upgraded to cater for the increased distance.

From an environmental perspective the use of existing infrastructure could be seen as being the most efficient and sustainable of options especially when

considering the costs associated with consenting and construction of a new facility which would not be required. However, the logistical complications of

numerous smaller vessels using the Ports of Auckland, essentially designed for medium – large shipping containers, could also be a serious barrier to

efficient industry operations.

The time constraints of transporting perishable goods approximately 4.5 – 6.5 hours is considered by the industry to be inefficient and unsustainable when

compared to road transport.

Summary: It is considered that the primary flaw of Auckland Port, from a TCDC perspective, is that it is outside of TCDC District and will result in a

significant loss of economic and social benefits associated with the industry. The distance of the Wilsons Bay marine farms from the Port of Auckland is

also a significant flaw which would undermine any attempts to relocate the industry to this site.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Auckland is not considered further as a potential location for the development of wharfing infrastructure to

support the Coromandel Aquaculture Industry.


5.0 Conclusions

Seventeen potential locations have been identified either by local knowledge of the FoT and Coromandel coastline or via consultation with various parties

such as landowners, local authority staff and aquaculture industry representatives. Of those seventeen options only two are considered to provide TCDC

with reasonable opportunities to develop a wharfing facility within the District‟s boundaries. These two locations (were further investigation is

recommended) are the existing Sugarloaf Wharf and neighbouring Windy Point.

Of the seventeen sites, three of the potential locations are outside of the District, being the Piako Rivermouth, Wharekawa and the Ports of Auckland. The

Piako Rivermouth presented significant flaws in terms of the conservation values of the area, due to its location within the Firth of Thames Wetland -

Ramsar site (the Ramsar Convention is an international conservation agreement for the protection of wetlands). Wharekawa and the Ports of Auckland

were not identified as having „fatal flaws‟, in terms of environmental values, however they fail to support the industry within the Thames-Coromandel

District, which is a primary consideration for TCDC.

Three options were also considered on the north and eastern coast of the Coromandel Peninsula, being Whitianga, Whangapoua and a broad ranging

consideration of the coastline north of Coromandel town. The Whitianga and Whangapoua options were considered to have „fatal flaws‟ due to the

distance of these harbours from a majority of the marine farming areas within the FoT; a reliance on calm sea conditions for marine farming vessels; and the

natural character, landscape and recreational values of these harbours. The northern coastline location(s) were also identified as having „fatal flaws‟ due to

the reliance of the area on a low standard of roading infrastructure. It is considered that the northern coastline option would require substantial roading

upgrades which would overshadow the potential costs associated with a wharf itself and ultimately render the project financially unsustainable.

The Kopu option was considered to be the most frustrating of location options as it presented significant benefits in terms of having sufficient water depth

within the Waihou River to provide for a wharf, availability of land zoned for industrial and marine activities, excellent access onto the regional roading

network and a modified environment that is currently used for some aggregate barging activities. However, this option and the Shortland Wharf (Thames)

option, present what is considered to be the most significant of flaws, being a shallow water depth over a wide area of the lower FoT. Kopu, and to a

lesser extent, Shortland Wharf, would require 4 – 6km of dredging to create a navigable, all tide access channel to a wharf site. It is considered that these

dredging operations, which will require regular maintenance dredging due to the high sediment load of the Waihou River, will present significant financial

implications to the project and will clearly create significant environmental complications to any consenting process. Not only do the dredging operations

themselves present significant complications, but the presence of contaminated sediment within the lower FoT (heavy metals from historical mining

operations and agricultural activities) as identified by the WRC, will also further complicate matters. Both WRC and DOC staff have advised that the

presence of these contaminants within the lower FoT are in themselves „fatal flaws‟ due to the potential to adversely affect the high conservation values of

the area (ASCV and Ramsar). As a result both Kopu and Shortland Wharf were considered to have a combination of factors that made then unsuitable

options for the development of wharfing infrastructure.


Various locations along the Thames Coast were easily discounted due to a lack of natural shelter and the resulting requirement for significant infrastructure

(seawalls) in addition to a Wharf. Development of this nature along the Thames Coast was considered to be inappropriate due to the identification of

much of the coast as having high landscape and natural character values. When considered in combination with the recreational and amenity values enjoyed

by residents and visitors to the Coast, these issues were considered to represent „fatal flaws‟ to the consenting and ultimately development of wharfing

infrastructure.

Kirita Bay, Manaia Harbour and Te Kouma Harbour were also considered as potential locations. Although these areas provided sheltered locations within

close proximity to the existing marine farming operations, the development of wharfing infrastructure and roading access would seriously degrade the

existing landscape, natural character and amenity values of these parts of the coastline. These issues were again considered to be „fatal flaws‟.

Various options were considered within the Coromandel Harbour which provides a number of sheltered locations for the safe and efficient operation of

the industry‟s wharfing facilities. The Coromandel Harbour is considered to be a fairly logical location for the development of wharfing infrastructure due

to the existing use and presence of the industry within the Harbour or in close proximity to it.

Coromandel Wharf was initially considered to be a realistic option, however, this also required substantial dredging of up to 600m in length or the

construction of a significant addition to the existing wharf. These works were not considered to be „fatal flaws‟ in terms of the consenting process,

however, vehicle access to Coromandel Wharf is essentially reliant on a roading intersection at the „heart‟ of the Coromandel town centre. Concentrating

all industry vehicle movements, including numerous articulated trucks, through this narrow and already congested intersection would be unsustainable in

terms of providing a safe and efficient roading network within the town. Ultimately it is considered that the complicated construction requirements for

additional wharfing infrastructure and the roading intersection in Coromandel town are „fatal flaws‟ for the Coromandel Wharf option.

Preece Point was discounted due to it high natural character and landscape values. This location also required substantial roading construction across

private land which further complicated this option. These issues were considered to be „fatal flaws‟ for new development along this relatively unmodified

part of the coastline.

Hanniford's Wharf, also currently used for the Auckland ferry, presented significant roading access issues as Te Kouma Road, beyond the existing Sugarloaf

Wharf facility, would require substantial upgrading. It is also likely that this option would conflict with the residential amenity values of Te Kouma.

Although these were not considered to be „fatal flaws‟ in terms of the consenting process, Hanniford‟s Wharf was not recommended for further

investigation as Windy Point and Sugarloaf face similar issues, with easier roading access.

It is considered that Sugarloaf and Windy Point, both providing sheltered locations within the Coromandel Harbour, provide the „best‟ of the location

options as identified within the report. Although they are by no means „perfect‟, it is recognised that the „best‟ option is usually a compromise to achieve

the greatest benefit whilst working within the environmental and economic constraints of the various options.


It is therefore recommended that further detailed investigations are carried out on Sugarloaf and Windy Point to determine a „best‟ location and design

option to carry forward into a resource consent application process.

6.0 Recommendations

1. It is recommended that further detailed investigations are carried out on the following location options to determine their suitability for the

development of wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel aquaculture industry.

Windy Point (Puhu Rare), Coromandel Harbour

Sugarloaf, Coromandel Harbour

2. It is recommended that no further investigations are carried out on other location options as they have been found to have „flaws‟, in terms of

industry needs, environmental or economic matters.

7.0 Bibliography

Wharfing Infrastructure Discussion Document - Issues and Options for wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel Aquaculture industry – prepared by

Hauraki Coromandel Development Group, November 2010

Proposed All Tide Wharf Facility at Kopu – Draft Scoping Study Report. Prepared by Maunsell Ltd dated May 2005

Trace Elements in Sediments of the Lower Eastern Coast of the FoT - Waikato Regional Council Technical Report 2007/08

Ministry of Fisheries Website www.fish.govt.nz

Thames Coromandel District Plan Operative 2010

Waikato Regional Coastal Plan Operative 2005


Coromandel Peninsular Landscape Assessment, Stephen Brown Environments Ltd, July 2008

scoping assessment - thames-coromandel district h ktb... · 2012-04-18 · ktb planning – scoping...

Documents