Hot Issues Archive

 

Here are links to various hot issues around Piha and the West Coast

 

Canyoning

Sandra Coney

Should commercial activities such as canyoning be allowed in the Waitakere Ranges, and if so, at which locations, and to what level? Throughout 2002 these questions have been the subject of meetings with the Auckland Regional Council, community lobbying and much discussion.

Canyoning is not a new topic. Concerns had been raised by Waitakere Ranges Protection Society and the Waitakere Branch of Forest and Bird Society since the first licenses were granted in 1998. A number of groups complained in submissions to the ARC Draft Parks Network Management Strategy during 2001 and it was a hot topic at the 2002 AGM of the Piha Ratepayers and Residents Association after bach owner Brian Rainger described what he had seen as he watched a canyoning party makes its way down the Kitekite Falls and Stream. The meeting passed a resolution of dissatisfaction with the effects of the activities, stressing the need for greater monitoring. In February and March both the Piha R&R and WRPS took the issue up with the ARC.

Key concerns were:

  • Inadequate monitoring of environmental damage to in-stream, riparian and waterfall environments. Licensees are expected to carry out their own regular photo-point monitoring but this could not be separated from the effects of floods damage and damage by other parks users. WRPS argued that they were not trained to do this and that monitoring should be more independent.
  • Lack of public consultation and lack of independent assessment of environmental effects before renewal of licenses
  • The need for policies on adventure tourism and a visitor management strategy for the Waitakere Ranges. There are fears that tourism will proliferate in the Ranges, and that such commercial use will compromise wilderness values.
  • The impact of canyoning activities on other parks' visitors enjoyment of the parks. As the R&R put it: 'visitors and residents who want to view one of Piha's most popular nature spots are confronted by noisy excited tourists sliding down the falls rather that the peace and tranquillity that they have sought.'

In late April the ARC met with concerned groups and local residents from Piha and Karekare, as well as adventure tourism operators, at a meeting chaired by Parks Committee chair Bill Burrill. Finally, locals felt that they were getting some facts and figures about adventure tourism and a forum to discuss concerns.

The meeting was told that there were two operators with licenses to carry out canyoning. The first licenses were for one year, but they were renewed for two years because, according to ARC recreation coordinator Lee Whiley, there were no concerns.

  • Awol Adventures has a license for the Kitekite Stream and Falls. There is no limit on the number of visits or total people involved. Groups can be up to 20 people and there are sometimes two trips a day. A total of 600 people made trips last year &endash; the main season is December to February when 4 to 5 trips are made in a week. A trip takes two hours.
  • Canyonz has a license for Cowan Stream, a tributary of the Pararaha Stream. There is a limit of 20 people in a group. About 400 people a year do the trip. Canyonz also operates in the Coromandel.

Ten percent of gross takings from both operations go back to ARC for maintaining the Waitakeres. The operators have installed mats on rocks to protect ropes, and anchor points to hold ropes. These are a series of bolts drilled into rocks with chain in between. No permission was gained for installing these. Photo-point monitoring is usually carried out at the beginning and end of the season to measure any damage (and sometimes during the season), and the operators sometimes take photos after floods to establish the cause of damage. Vaughan Keesing of Boffa Miskell Environmental Consultants had been retained by the canyoning operators to make environmental impacts reports.

The ARC agreed it lacked broad framework for looking at the issue and that it was moving towards a more formal process for handling applications for commercial concessions which would be more explicit about how the public had an input.

At a meeting at the Arataki Centre in July, the ARC reported back to the communities. Numbers were smaller at this meeting and there were only seven people from West Coast and environmental groups, and five people with commercial interests in the West Coast.

Neil Olsen, Senior Recreation Adviser at the ARC, explained that the new Parks Management Plan would contain more controls on commercial licenses in parks, with criteria for when an application was notified, including where there is a public interest. ARC Senior Freshwater Ecologist John Maxted had audited the self-monitoring reports of the two operators and inspected the sites himself.

Only a few examples of wear and tear were found, principally where canyoners enter and leave streams or are forced to use stream banks. Little impact was found to aquatic flora such as algae, liverwort and moss. Vaughan Keesing argued that flood damage was far more significant than the effects of canyoners, and while he maintained that no damage had been caused to the true left side of the Kitekite Falls where abseiling occurs &endash; locals are adamant that it has - in future nine detailed photos will be taken of the falls instead of a single photo. Canyoners will also be required to remain in the centre of watercourses and stay in streams wherever possible to avoid riparian damage.

Even less easy to measure are the visual and noise effects on other park visitors. People at the Arataki meeting were alarmed to discover that both operators were now proposing to bring up to 1,800 people annually onto each site, a 300-400% increase. They argued they needed these numbers for their operations to be economically viable.

All in all, it was a less than satisfactory meeting, with a feeling that the situation had worsened as a result of raising concerns. There was some consternation when a recommendation appeared on the ARC Parks Committee August agenda to approve renewal of the two licenses with increased numbers (900 people at Kitekite Falls and 600 at Cowan Stream), and a ceiling of two trips of 25 people a day. Trips could be made any day of the year.

Both WRPS and Piha R&R sprang into action, sending detailed submissions to the ARC. They questioned the value of the monitoring, especially the inability to distinguish flood damage from canyoning damage, and warned that the cumulative effects on the environment had not been identified or considered.

The result was that the ARC delayed considering the matter until the September meeting. It is considering whether to publicly notify the applications, in line with the new parks policy, because of the high level of public interest. In the meantime, the canyoning operators are operating under temporary licenses. And the ARC will be developing a broader policy for commercial tourism activities in the Waitakere Ranges. There will be plenty of opportunities for people to make their views heard during this process and to address issues that have so far been neglected.

Tourism Strategy under challenge

Members of the West Coast Plan Liaison Committee managed to slow down adoption of the council's proposed West Coast tourism strategy at a meeting of the Waitakere City Community Facilities and Recreation Committee on 12 September. And they were successful in persuading the committee that consultations needed to be held with groups from local communities.
The deputation delivered an alternative West Coast Visitor Management Strategy which emphasised protection of the environment as opposed to tourism development. Environmental goals replaced economic goals.

The strategy had the following goal and objectives:

Goal
Waitakere City and West Coast communities manage the activities of visitors to the West Coast, to minimise the adverse impacts of visitors.
Objectives
  • Visitors are encouraged to behave with respect for the environment, for local communities and for their own personal safety
  • A range of tools are applied to minimise the impact of visitors on the environment and on local communities
  • Ensure that the primary purpose of providing and upgrading infrastructure is to assist in mitigating the adverse impacts of visitors and to fulfil an educative role as opposed to increasing capacity.
  • Discourage the active promotion of the West Coast as a tourist destination and in doing so recognise tat a major visitor value of the West Coast is the sense of adventure excitement that people get from 'discovering' it for themselves
  • Waitakere City Council supports small-scale local businesses that have or will have low environmental and social impact.
  • Indicators are developed a monitoring programme established which provides better information about visitors to the West Coast and their effects and impacts in terms of indicators.
  • This strategy is implemented in partnership with some key stakeholders - including Auckland regional Council Parks, Te Kawerau a Maki, tourism operators, West Coast communities, Forest & Bird, Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, Surf Life Saving Clubs, and Tourism Auckland.

 

36 Piha Road

Development at 36 Piha Road stymied

A proposed development at 36 Piha Road has been knocked back by Waitakere City Council. Citing the environmental effects and the that it was seriously contrary to the District Plans, the Commissioners for WCC refused consent to Coastal Environments Ltd to build 18 residential units, with roading and parking areas, on the steep Piha Road site.
However, an application to the Auckland Regional Council for resource consent to discharge stormwater and discharge treated wastewater to ground disposal was successful.
The Piha Residents and Ratepayers which strenuously fought the development is now considering whether to appeal against the ARC decision, even though the WCC refusal stops the development going ahead. Coastal Environments Ltd has 15 working days to lodge an appeal against the WCC decision. Appeals are heard by the Environment Court.
The WCC decision is a victory for Piha and other West Coast groups, and the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, which want to stop intense development and the spread of housing into the Waitakere Ranges margins.
The WCC said that the development would significantly adversely effect the environment, particularly landscape impacts, vegetation removal, amenity values, traffic safety, stormwater impacts and cumulative effects. It made particular mention of the evidence of Stephen Brown, a landscape architect called by the Piha R&R, that some of the units would be visually prominent and that the buildings would visually extend the bounds of current residential settlement beyond its current limits. The visual impact of carparks and dwellings would compromise the character of Piha, they said.
The Commissioners also objected to the level of vegetation removal that would be necessary and accepted the point made by some of those opposing the development that it would be difficult to stop individual owners incrementally clearing bush to enhance views or admit sunlight. They also said they gave little weight to the applicant's revegetation proposal as it could not compensate for bush removal and they noted the evidence of locals to the effect that revegetation was very difficult.
Traffic safety was another area of concern. Vehicles coming onto the site from two directions and turning off it had the potential to create a traffic and pedestrian hazard. The visual impact of major road widening and retaining walls was also noted.
The Commissioners described the proposal as 'a direct challenge to the integrity' of the District Plan which seeks to avoid inappropriate development on the outstanding natural landscapes and ecological values of the coast and ranges. The intensity of the development was a particular concern. Successive district plans over many years have sought to protect the West Coast against intense development.
The WCC was concerned at the prospect of significant problems arising from increased stormwater discharge, having been treated to graphic evidence of the existing problems from long-term resident Jack Kingston. This was in contrast to the ARC Commissioners who accepted the applicant's stormwater discharge plans and gave them the green light. With regard to wastewater, the applicant was required to relocate the treatment plant away from the neighbour on the lower side and monitor the plant every day that the site is occupied.

back to top

January 31, 2001 - Media Statement

Site of 36 Piha Road development
The 36 Piha Road site is the high point in the background of this photo taken from Piha Domain.
The lodges were to built in the bush area to the left of the bare bluff. Photo: Sandra Coney

PIHA DEVELOPMENT OFF LIMITS

Waitakere City Council has declined permission for 18 "chalets" to be built at Piha. The application, by Coastal Environments Ltd, was for development of 36 Piha Rd. The 5.26-hectare block of land overlooks Piha Beach. Permission was declined on the basis of adverse environmental effects, particularly in relation to vegetation removal, traffic safety and general visual impact.
A panel of commissioners, comprising Waitakere City councillors Carolynne Stone and Allen Davies, and Brian Smith and Patricia Thorpe from the Auckland Regional Council, heard the application, at a joint hearing, in December. Coastal Environments was seeking building resource consent from Waitakere City and consent to discharge wastewater and storm water from the Auckland Regional Council. The Auckland Regional Council is yet to release its decision on the discharge consents.
Cr Davies says the evidence to support development just didn't stack up. "This was a very serious threat to the character of Piha- and the West Coast in general," he says. "And on the basis of visual amenity general environmental impacts it had to be refused." Cr Stone adds that the development fell outside the Council's proposed and transitional district plans. "That plan was developed over a number of years, with hundreds of hours of community input," Cr Stone says. "This decision upholds the principles of the district plan and keeps faith with the community that helped develop it."
There were 79 objections to the proposal, mainly from local residents. The Waitakere Ranges Protection Society also opposed the development.

Ends - For further information: Cr Davies (833 7734) or Cr Stone (818 8057).

Call for donations for fighting fund against resort development

The Piha Residents & Ratepayers Association has launched a campaign to oppose the proposed development at 36 Piha Road. The Piha R&R got the go-ahead from a March meeting of members where there was virtually unanimous support for total opposition to the plan to construct a resort of around 20 lodges on a title zoned for one house.

The site is a prominent one consisting of a high rocky bluff, visible from all over the area. The R&R argues that allowing the development will set an unwelcome precedent for the area, as well as presenting problems with traffic on and off the site and stormwater run-off difficulties.

The association has been working with a professional planner and must now raise around $15,000 to fight the proposal at hearings. It is calling for donations from members.

These can be sent to PO Box 55, Piha or left at the library or post office.

Meeting opposes development

Over 60 residents and bach owners at Piha voted to oppose a development at 36 Piha Road which would see around 20 chalets built on a site zoned for one house. The property is highly prominent, with a steep rocky bluff forming the backdrop to the beach. It abuts The Waitakere Ranges and some bush on the site is contiguous with the parklands.

The meeting, held Sunday March 5, was called by the Piha Residents and Ratepayers Association which will now employ a planning consultant to take its case to the Waitakere City Council Planning Committee. People at the meeting were concerned about the precedent set by allowing the development and at the visual impact of buildings and roading on the site. Water run-off, sewerage disposal and traffic difficulties were also areas of concern.

People at the meeting stumped up with the first donations to build a fighting fund to oppose the development. The Association will be writing to members inviting them to provide funds to mount an effective opposition.

Ratepayers opposed to subdivisions

Almost unanimous opposition was voiced against subdivision proposals in the Waitakere Ranges foothills and at Piha at the sixtieth AGM of the Piha Residents' and Ratepayers' Association held on 9 January.

A remit was passed opposing any relaxation of subdivision rules in the Waitakere Ranges or West Coast, a change which has been mooted by pro-development councillors on the Waitakere City Council.

There was much concern about a current proposal by private developers to erect around 20 lodges on a prominent site at 36 Piha Road. The site is currently zoned for a single dwelling.

The steep site is part of the green backdrop to Piha beach and includes a striking rocky outcrop. It has an eastern boundary onto the Auckland Regional Council Parkland and contains remnants of the Piha Mill tramway.

The proposal includes parking for over 30 and extensive widening of Piha Road at the access to allow for a large number of movements on and off the site daily.

Ratepayers fear that such a development would set a precedent for other development, lead to pressure for more facilities such as bars and cafes, create stormwater problems and be visually unsightly.

Hearing of the over 100 objections to the project is not yet scheduled.

The meeting elected Yvonne Dufaur as the new president.