Mahurangi Action Plan
Summary of feedback and recommendations
Name / Issue / Recommendation by Boffa MiskellMike Neil / I would prefer more emphasis onWarkworth being awater accesseddestination
as it used to be.The development of a town basin and a channel to it are fundamental to the futuregrowth of tourism. / Within Action 19 amend to the following “Investigate options to improve navigation of the Mahurangi River including access to Warkworth by water”
Trevor Bridge / Include objective and actions to improve soil health. Objective is improve soil health and quality, the action may be public education and trial plots, the method of delivery may be lectures and workshops, parties would be Auckland Council and others, the time frame monitoring andindicators could all be worked out. / Noted. Include suggested objective, action, method of delivery (including linking with existing NSCC policy) within medium to long term actions
e.g. Objective “Soil health and quality improved”
Dennis Bygrave / § I believe the continued Growth of Mangroves beyond current areas will restrict theareas of the Harbour we can enjoy in the future.
§ Restrict the growth of the oyster farms in the Mahurangi Harbour. They are visual pollution and provide very little economic benefit to the area. / Opinions tend to be divergent on the topic of mangroves. It is considered that mangrove removal will be explored through action 19. No amendment recommended.
Oyster farms are part of the local economy and sit within a regional context.
ARC (natural heritage team) / Action 5 on pg 13 be reworded:
Plant the shoreline with a broad band of pohutukawa and other indigenous coastal vegetation to reduce foreshore erosion and increase resilience to sea level rise / Action 5 to be reworded accordingly
MERRA (Mahurangi East Residents and Ratepayers Association) / MERRA is concerned that the draft plan does not place sufficient emphasis on sediment reduction and the general health of the Mahurangi Harbour and River. Changes requested:
§ Action 4 on pg 13 be reworded:
Investigate options for foreshore protection to prevent coastal erosion in west Mahurangi.
§ Objective 6, pg 15. Move objective and associated actions to medium-long term objectives. As population increases such actions can be addressed with funding derived at the time
§ Delete indicator for actions 20 and 21, p16 Night sky protection from light pollution
§ Delete Action 21, p16
§ Move action 23, p 17 to long term actions, low priority
§ Objective 9, Action 25. Add “incentives from Council such as rate relief” within method of delivery
§ Delete Action 6, p.20 as adequately covered by Action 5, pg 20.
§ Delete Actions 8-11, p.21 as these are non-priority and should not be funded from MAP sources
§ Delete Actions 13 – 18, pg 22 and replace with “monitor effects of tourism”. Concern that tourism often detrimental to harbour health and the values of the Mahurangi.
§ Delete Actions 21 – 23, pg 23 as information is already available and does not need duplicating. Also sense that access is adequate.
§ Delete action 24, pg 23 and replace with “Change any appropriate `paper roads’ to `general reserve’ status”
§ Delete Action 25, pg 24. This is not needed in the Scotts Landing area. The area is well supplied with tracks to the foreshore and has many places where kayaks or similar craft can be launched.
§ Change wording for Action 27, p24 to “Provide incentives for effective and holistic foreshore protection on eroding foreshores”. This action needs to be moved into the Priority Action list.
§ Change wording for Action 35, pg 25 with “Identify and protect special two or three exceptional public viewshafts through a public survey and selection process of prime public views. These to be serviced with safe parking and rubbish facilities and at a safe distance from any houses.” / § Change Action 4 “Investigate options for foreshore protection to prevent coastal erosion in Mahurangi”
§ Objective 6 has received support from members of community. This requires debate on 28 June.
§ Add new indicator in action 20 “compare aerial photographs over time to monitor change”
§ Retain action 21 and indicator subject to debate on 28 June.
§ Action 23 could be moved to long term – to be debated on 28 June.
§ Noted. Incentives will be looked at as part of implementation programme so don’t need to be explicit in Action 25.
§ Recommend new objective 2, pg 20 “Sealed areas reduced”. Amend Action 6 to “Limit hard surfacing or require better stormwater detention and management through LID”
§ Deletion of actions 8-11 up for wider debate on 28 June
§ Rather than delete 13 – 18 it may be possible to consolidate into less actions. Up for debate on 28 June.
§ Similarly deletion of actions 21-23 requires debate.
§ Support deletion of action 24 and replacement with suggested text.
§ Support deletion of action 25. Group to discuss if needed elsewhere.
§ The changes requested to action 27 are similar to actions 4 & 6 on pg 13. This requires discussion.
§ Compare changes requested to action 35 with action 23 on page 17. Should either be short or long term? Which should take precedence?
Len Thompson / § Concern that objectives 4-7 have potential to dilute the value of the key objectives of sediment reduction, increased vegetation cover and improved water quality.
§ Supports objectives 8 and 9
§ Considers that access needs to be restricted to prevent further degradation of the Mahurangi. Considers that boat ramps, roading, walkways etc are expensive to construct and maintain which will drain funds from fencing, replanting and retirement. / Concern noted. However, sediment is identified as the priority issue on pg 8 and the first objective.
Support noted
Noted. However, funding is not the issue in relation to the action plan as there will be different pools of funds for different projects.
Jane Sherard (Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara Trust) / § Imagery needs to reflect Ngati Whatua including a hikoi of Mahurangi through the ages
§ References to DVD should be included
§ Have you considered a mihimihi to reader? / Support, Jane to provide
Support. Propose to add into Background Section
Support, Jane to provide
Richard Gardner, Senior Policy Advisor, Federated Farmers / Federated Farmers generally supports the Plan. / Noted
Richard Bromley / § The “Visions and Values” don’t seem to have much in the way of promotion of the Harbour/river as a living ecosystem, with ecological, natural habitat and biological diversity values.
§ In the “Background” there is much prominent mention of the input from tangata whenua into this plan, and yet there is little evidence of what input there has been. As much as the inclusion of tangata whenua is important, it devalues the work of everyone else by overstating their involvement.
§ Conversely the various “community groups” that have been representative at most workshops get little individual mention – I should think that as prominent and active community stake holders there should be specific reference to Snells/Algies residents, Mahurangi East/Scotts Landing residents, Mahurangi West residents, Warkworth residents, Cowan Bay, Hepburn Creek, Kaipara Flats, Woodcocks road rural residents, Magic Earth Theatre, Oyster Farmers, Jane Gifford Trust, Riverbank Enhancement group etc, perhaps along with some of the prominent farmers/landowners who have taken up the challenge of riparian protection. By naming names, anyone reading the document will know to whom they can turn for information or to offer assistance on a local basis.
§ The development of the Tables see very little in the way of issues around forestry and farming activities, but a lot of comment on subdivision and development. To my mind the original concerns of the community around rural pastoral and forestry land use seem to have been dramatically watered down, when they have been identified as the dominant contributors to the problem of sedimentation.
§ I am very concerned at the direct statements made regarding negative effects of subdivision, e.g. in “The Issues – Rural Activities”. There is no direct correlation between subdivision per se and water quality, and there is no research presented to demonstrate this. The correlation should be between land use and the negative effects on water quality. There are in fact direct benefits to water quality and the rural aesthetic as a result of subdivision. References to “negative effects of subdivision” should be removed from the document.
§ With respect to the Questions it might be worth considering putting them at the start of each relevant section, so that readers might be drawn in to the debate, rather than turned off by the detail.
§ Education on best practice for sediment reduction must be elevated to one of the highest priorities – it is only through educating the land users that ultimately we will achieve the desired goals. This objective and action cannot be relegated to an Appendix and must be placed foremost as Objective 1- Action 1. / Amend values to better reflect concern.
Noted. This was a comment made on an earlier draft. The draft Action Plan already made amendments to that effect.
Noted. This was a comment made on an earlier draft. The draft Action Plan already made amendments to that effect. Refer to paragraph 3 of Background (pg 7).
Recommend an appendix of group contact details.
Priority objectives 1 and 2 are for reduction in sediment generation and increase in vegetation cover respectively. These address the key concerns of the dominant contributors to sedimentation. Recommend adding to issues under “Rural Activities” The dominant land use is pastoral farming (64%), followed by native forest (20%) and production forestry (8%)...
Noted. Propose that sentence on pg 9 be changed as follows:
Subdivision and development can alter the rural aesthetic of Mahurangi thereby removing all references to “negative impact on water quality”
Questions will not be in final version.
Noted. For discussion at 28 June meeting.
Dylan Pope / § Has the pilot MAP been successful to address defined issues?
§ Since 2004 have new objectives, issues, responses been incorporated?
§ Do different issues affect different parts of the Catchment? And if so how are these defined?
§ Has a full landscape/visual character assessment been undertaken? This appears to be quite brief.
§ What impact is the super city going to have?
§ Other issues include future development/subdivision pressure. Traffic impact as a result of population growth and highway (SH1) improvement.
§ Existing actions and proposed actions should be listed separately.
§ Monitoring needs to be more accurately defined.
§ Each objective should be expanded
§ Actions should refer to an appendix that contains further diagrammatic details. A series of maps would also be beneficial to identify where specific actions are required.
§ How is the landscape character going to be assessed and measured?
§ What are going to be the impacts of future plans (District/Regional)
§ What are the impacts from certain activities such as new marina, boat ramps? / § The purpose of the Action Plan was to expand the scope of MAP to give a more strategic context, hence re-focus and addition of new objectives.
§ There are some localised issues and plan attempts to acknowledge these.
§ Landscape/ visual character assessment would be part of a Structure Plan/Spatial Plan. The Action Plan is neither of these. Nonetheless medium – long term actions 30 – 38 seek to protect landscapes.
§ Super city amalgamates existing councils activities including the Mahurangi Action. Plan prepared in advance of Super City to gain some momentum within local community.
§ Existing actions deemed ongoing.
§ Noted.
§ Objectives have deliberately been kept as simple end states. It may be possible to add further objectives in the medium-long-term actions.
§ In final plan many of the actions will be spatially defined diagrammatically.
§ Not applicable to this plan. Actions 30 – 38 discuss landscape in relation to long term.
§ The Action Plan is non-statutory, however, the desire is that the Action Plan provides a vehicle for local people to input into future plans.
§ Impacts will need to be assessed when such facilities are planned and provided for.
Cimino Cole / § Recommend inclusion of a illustrated tour of Mahurangi linking actions with geographic location via Jefferson Chapple’s etching
§ Strengthen the global warming content of the plan
§ Add an action for developing a walking and cycle trail linking Mahurangi to Waiwera / Support inclusion. To work with Cimino and others to produce.
Support. Many actions anticipate global warming. Issues section to more explicitly refer to global warming.
Noted. For discussion at 28 June workshop.