MEETING Flaxmill Bay Erosion

DATE 31 October 2018

PRESENT Graeme Lomas, Chairperson Mercury Bay South Residents &
Ratepayers Association
Residents and Ratepayers from Flaxmill Bay
Tony Fox, Councillor Mercury Bay Ward
Murray McLean, Councillor Mercury Bay Ward
Rekha Giri-Percival, Deputy Chair Mercury Bay Community Board
Bill McLean, Mercury Bay Community Board
Dal Minogue, Councillor Waikato Regional Council
Jan van der Vliet, Coastal Engineer TCDC
Allan Tiplady, District Manager TCDC
Heather Bruce, Community Manager TCDC
MEETING NOTES APOLOGIES Paul Kelly, Chairperson Mercury Bay Community Board
Deli Connell, Mercury Bay Community Board?
PURPOSE PROVIDE UPDATE TO COMMUNITY ON COASTAL EROSION
PLANNING

ISSUE COMMENT/ACTION
WELCOME Graeme Lomas opened the meeting and thanked everyone for attending. Mr Lomas
thanked Dave Fowell and acknowledged the support of the elected members and Council
staff.

Rekha-Giri Percival reiterated the welcome to everyone and acknowledged their support
in attending the meeting to discuss the concerns on the issue of erosion at Flaxmill Bay.
PRESENTATION Jan van der Vliet, Coastal Engineer also welcomed everyone and thanked them for
making the time to attend. Mr van der Vliet acknowledged that the issue of coastal
erosion can be an emotive one, but re-iterated that everyone had the same interests in
common.

Mr van der Vliet spoke to his presentation on Flaxmill Bay Erosion Mitigation Plans.

The presentation gave the background on the erosion at Flaxmill Bay which has been an
issue for the last three years and included photos showing the changes between
December 2017 and July 2018.

The presentation also outlined previous work undertaken on the Resource Consenting
process. Application for a Resource Consent for a rock wall (hard option) was applied for
in 2016. Waikato Regional Council (WRC) requested further information on landscaping
assessment for this consent and to date this plan is still with WRC.

This plan was for a very hard engineering option and Mr van der Vliet noted that hard
structures do not work well if there is no transition from the hard engineering to a soft
defence option.

Since 2016 the site has changed significantly.

Mr van der Vliet, with external support, has been looking at the 2016 plan and how best to
move it forward.

Page 1 of 3

Meeting Notes Prepared By: Heather Bruce – Community Manager TCDC

Cyndy Lomas, Mercury Bay South Resident & Ratepayers Association
 ISSUE COMMENT/ACTION
There is a need to provide a solution for erosion control, preservation of trees and building
up sand for a high tide beach, whilst if possible creating a curving coastline with enhanced
and improve amenity values, i.e. a viewing platform, planting and seating to recreate the
reserve.

The presentation included an artist’s impression of what the completed options might look
like, showing the preferred option of a rock wall transitioning through three phases to a soft
option, including a timber back stop wall and incorporating a terraced approach with
planting.

The installation of a sandbag groyne using textile sandbags such as used at Brophy’s
Beach is being considered as part of the development of Council’s Shoreline Management
Plan (SMP), i.e. a holistic approach. It was noted that the small sandbag groyne recently
placed on Flaxmill Bay beach is holding sand, however there is no information on whether
this is creating negative or positive effects further along the coast and needs to be
monitored over a much longer period

All options are up for consideration, under the SMP, but cannot be isolated to one area, as
the installation of any coastal erosion mitigation measures need to consider all positive
and negative affects around the adjoining coastlines.This plan needs to work with all
stakeholders including NZTA, DoC, Iwi, WRC and communities.

A consent application is being prepared for the installation of a groyne for a 5 year period.
Even though this is temporary, it still requires WRC consent.

The indicative time frame for the proposed consent application for the groyne is as follows:
o Beginning to end of November: technical assessment of groyne(s) – external and
internal professionals in close liaison with WRC & initial draft of the Resource
Consent Application.
o Beginning of December: consultation internally and externally on technical
assessment in close liaison with WRC..
o Middle of December to end of January 2019: finalisation of the application; WRC
commences processing with a view to finalising the draft in 2 -3 weeks after
receipt.

Through early consultation WRC advised that a technical report is required to support the
trial of a groyne in the area, e.g. scientific interpretation combined with local knowledge on
the foreseeable positives and negatives on the local coastal processes. As the consent will
be for a trial groyne, monitoring will be likely be one of the conditions of the consent.

The “hard engineering option”, i.e. rock revetment, transition and back stop wall will also
have a number of conditions attached to it.

QUESTIONS/ANSWERS Monitoring:
Monitoring posts will ideally be positioned down to the low tide line and will be dug in to 3
to 4 metres deep. It was noted that these should not be in the way of tractor launching.

Historic Information:
Gabion baskets were used in the 1970s as a precursor to road widening and rocks and
soil were bulldozed onto the beach.

Initial Erosion Causes:

Natural processes change through accretion and depletion cycles. Council has gone back
through historic photos to the 1940s in an effort to understand the history of this area. In
the past many people have done their best to deal with issues as they happened to the
best of their knowledge and ability.

Page 2 of 3

Meeting Notes Prepared By: Heather Bruce – Community Manager TCDC

Cyndy Lomas, Mercury Bay South Resident & Ratepayers Association
 ISSUE COMMENT/ACTION
Coastal erosion is happening and it takes a small change in climate conditions for the
erosion matters to become worse or less for that matter.

Sand Type:
The question was asked as to whether any investigation has been done into sand type – is
it rhyolite from eroding cliffs or is it sediment or shell? Sampling was undertaken many
years ago but will need to be redone as part of the consent investigation.

Sand Push-ups:
Council has a sand push up consent that can be used if required. This of course depends
on the accretion (build-up of the foreshore beach up to the low tide line) of the beach, i.e.
locally available source / material.

Dredging:
The use of dredging material has been considered for replenishment. It can be done but is
very expensive and needs to be continually done if nothing is in place to encourage the
beach / foreshore to stay in place

Do nothing option:
Doing nothing is an option, as are many others under the development of the Shoreline
Management Plans

Trail Groyne vs Hard/Soft Option:

The question was raised that a groyne is required to have a 5 year trial period as opposed
to no trial for the hard/soft option. Mr Fowell considers that a hard/soft option will take out
the rest of the beach and further noted that once a wall is in place it can’t be taken out
whereas a groyne can be.

Mr van der Vliet advised that Council cannot guarantee that it will work. He noted that once
resource consent has been granted and construction has been completed, after a period
of monitoring, that the ‘intervention philosophy’ could well change, i.e. changing the
configuration of the hard and soft engineering option. He reiterated that there will be many
conditions on the consent for the hard/soft option and the need for a transition from hard to
soft which does require a longer area of coastline to achieve.

The transition approach (three stages) has been used successfully in the UK and other
parts of Europe.

There will be the option to oppose any resource consent as they are publically notified;
however Mr van der Vliet is hopeful that a community consensus can be achieved.

Previous studies:
Many studies have already been done, so Council staff will not need to start from scratch
when developing the Shoreline Management Plans. Technical reports will be required but
Mr van der Vliet would like to establish beach monitoring posts prior to consent. This will
need to be checked with WRC as technically the posts would require a consent if
positioned below the high tide line.

Will this be a case of WRC rubber stamping the consent:

Detailed meetings, prior to lodging and frequently since, are being undertaken with WRC,
i.e. taking them on the journey so that the granting process time line can be shortened

Flaxmill Bay Priority:

Flaxmill bay is high on Council’s priority list along with a number of other issues around the
Peninsula. Additional resources are being employed to assist with the coastal role.

Page 3 of 3

Meeting Notes Prepared By: Heather Bruce – Community Manager TCDC

Cyndy Lomas, Mercury Bay South Resident & Ratepayers Association
 Flaxmill Bay
Update on Erosion Mitigation Plans
Community Consultation Meeting
31st October 2018
Jan van der Vliet
Extend of Recent Erosion 1 of 3
Extend of Recent Erosion 2 of 3
Extend of Recent Erosion 3 of 3
RC Application Preliminary Design 2016
RC Application Preliminary Design 2016
Landscape Assessment: visualization,
concepts and S92 Requirement
 Residents Meeting 19th October 2018
Key points from:
a) Flaxmill Community – Homeowners Homestead Lane
b) MB South – Residents & Ratepayers Association

I. Inclusion of “tested groynes” as part of the overall

proposed erosion mitigation works
II. Preservation of infrastructure, significant trees
(Pohutukawas), foreshore / high tide beach re-
establishment to encourage dune re-establishment
III. Amenity upgrades: planting, beach stairs / access and
benches
IV. Beach monitoring posts to be established (profile)
V. Anecdotal and scientific knowledge to be used to work
through towards a solution
Introduction
• Coastal sediment movements occur within distinct boundaries, or cells, and are rarely in line
with administrative boundaries. Piecemeal coast protection schemes may not always be
compatible with coastline needs elsewhere within the same area (sediment cell). Recognising
this fact, our Council has decided to produce an integrated Coastal Management Strategy for
shoreline defence which includes a number of site specific Shoreline Management Plans
(SMPs). These site specific SMP’s mean that all the conflicting needs and constraints at each
stretch of coastline are identified and options for coastal defence considered in development of
the plan. I.e. “Horses for courses”
What is the Shoreline Management Plan?
• A Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) provides an overview and assessment of the risks
associated with coastal evolution and presents a framework and intervention options to
address these risks to and the environment in a sustainable manner. SMP’s are an integral part
of the Thames Coromandel District Council (TCDC) wider Coastal Management Strategy (CMS)
which outlines policies and guiding principles of coastal management.
• The SMP is a non-statutory document that takes account of other existing planning initiatives
and legislative requirements and is needed to inform wider strategic asset management and
planning activities.
• The SMP aligns closely with coastline policies well into the 22nd century and takes a long-term
view of Coastal Management while providing technically sustainable, environmentally
acceptable and economically viable solutions. However, it is important to recognise that SMP’s
need to be flexible to meet both short and long term objectives and should be adapted to cater
for any changes to the Coastal Management Strategy or policies.
 Resource Consent Applications
1. The current application - to erect a revetment wall that will
protect the road and be a permanent structure - is on hold
awaiting the natural character assessment. WSP-Opus are
finalising this report and that this will be forwarded very
soon. This application is a controlled activity, seeks a longer
time period.

2. The proposed application – to install groyne(s) for a

limited period – is being prepared. Initial conversations with
WRC coastal scientist were not supportive of this approach as
he noted a groyne is essentially capturing sand on one side at
the expense of sand on the other side and that it’d need to be in
place for at least 5 years to measure any sort of
effects. Therefore, it will be key that a robust technical
assessment is provided. This application would be a
discretionary activity and would seek a shorter time period.
 Indicative Timeframe
Current Application (Revetment Wall)

End of October beginning of November: WRC reviews

WSP- Opus information and provides comments

Week commencing 5 November: TCDC update WRC on

outcomes from meeting with residents and the
consensus way forward

Week commencing 12 November: WRC commences

processing with a view to finalising the draft in 2-3 weeks
i.e. end of November.
 Indicative Timeframe
Proposed Application (Groyne(s))

Beginning to the end of November: technical assessment

of a groyne(s) - external and internal professionals in
close liaison with WRC & initial draft of the Resource
Consent Application

Beginning of December: consultation internally and

externally on technical assessment in close liaison with
WRC

Middle of December to end of January 2019: finalisation

of the application; WRC commences processing with a
view to finalising the draft in 2- 3 weeks after receipt