The following comments were put together by John Dickie of Mangawhai Heads with his 'Initial Thoughts' on the Mangawhai Central development following a well-attended public meeting held from 4-5 p.m. at the Mangawhai Museum on Friday the 23rd of June 2017.
Mangawhai Central Initial Considerations John Dickie – 24 June 2017
Summary I consider the proposals for Mangawhai Central (MC) as outlined by Viranda have the overall potential to be of benefit to Mangawhai.
The stated commitment by Viranda to work with the community to achieve mutually acceptable outcomes is encouraged, acknowledging that there will not be 100% agreement on all issues.
However I have reservations about certain aspects that would require careful resolution by Viranda, KDC and the community to ensure that both Mangawhai as a whole (including MC) and specifically the existing Mangawhai community are not disadvantaged. These include:
1. Transparency by Viranda and KDC of all aspects related to the proposed MC
development. 2. Full and appropriate consideration of the effects of MC’s sewerage on the existing Mangawhai Sewerage Scheme, both technically (treatment and disposal capacity, and effects on the harbour) and financially. 3. Water supply 4. Traffic, “at wider Mangawhai” and especially at Molesworth Drive / MC
intersection(s) 5. Provision of a range of residential options 6. Environmental management demonstrated by action / performance and not just by
unfulfilled words.
Context
• Attended Public meeting at Museum 23 June 2017
◦ Listened to public presentation
◦ Had open question re “Resource Consent” vs “Plan Change”
◦ Private discussion after meeting with Mark and another principal from Viranda
• Previously registered with Mangawhai Central (MC) and also had phone discussion early-mid June
• Had involvement during Plan Change 22 regarding the land in question for Viranda’s proposed Mangawhai Central
• 45+ years professional career in Australia, many parts of Asia including sub- continent and NZ after initial degree in civil engineering, then worked on all aspects of environmental management (monitoring, EIA, EMP, etc), planning and community consultation for wide range of projects from very long term (50 year) strategic regional planning to “immediate” specific projects.
• Jointly (with wife) owned property at 15 Mangawhai Heads Road since 2002, resident from mid-2002 until present excepting periods when working or visiting overseas.
• Have been involved in “local issues” since 2002 via multiple submissions on Kaipara District Council (KDC) plans, “Ecocare”, Domain Committee (including Gala coordinator) for about 8 years until 2015, volunteer environmental science teacher at Mangawhai Beach School since 2015, and others.
.In line with Viranda’s stated wish for wide public involvement these comments are being submitted initially to:
• Viranda – as proponent of current development plans
• Bayleys Mangawhai – as marketing agent
• Winston Peters – as local MP
• Three local (Otamatea Ward) councillors of KDC
• Mayor of KDC
• Belinda Vernon – as chair of current KDC-appointed Community Planning Advisory Group
• Alan Preston – secretary, community-driven local planning group
• Mangawhai Focus – local newspaper
• Mark Farnsworth – local planner with whom I often discuss planning issues
• Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association
• Clive Boonham – local resident with whom I often discuss “Mangawhai and KDC” issues
I have specifically NOT copied to Northern Regional Council at this stage, but do draw attention to later comments about environmental management at and surrounding the MC site.
All comments (unless specifically noted to the contrary) are my own.
I am more than happy to discuss any comment, either on a one-on-one basis or in a wider group
Strategic setting
1. Accept the fact that land in question has gone through Private Plan Change 22 and that the essence of this has been accommodated into the reasonably recently adopted KDC District Plan. However, have concerns that: 1. Has been experience that many KDC planning decisions since adoption of the current District Plan have been outside the spirit of the Plan, and many have been pushed through with very limited or no public consultation. Acknowledge there does seem to have been some recent improvements in KDC seeking compliance with the Plan. 2. Viranda at meeting on 23 June suggested all approvals would be via “Resource Consents” and intimated that these might be undertaken over a period of about 3 months early 2018. I urge caution as this seems very optimistic. However, Viranda did acknowledge the possibility of a Private Plan Change; based on recent experience with KDC a Plan Change could take well in excess of 18 months. 3. Viranda at meeting on 23 June noted that council had suggested / intimated a desire for more intensive development than under the current plan. While personally I am not opposed to the concept of more intensive development: 1. I would expect that full and proper planning processes will be followed 2. KDC would not, as has been common practice over many years, pushed developers into, for example, maximising numbers of lots, obtaining “development contributions” in lieu of public open space, walkways, bicycle ways etc. 2. By admission at the meeting on 23 June Mangawhai has undergone extensive mostly residential development since Plan Change 22, yet many facilities /
.infrastructure is more than stretched / over capacity especially during peak holiday times: 1. The current two shopping hubs are obviously overstretched, and Mangawhai Central has the potential (personally welcomed by me) to partially relive this pressure. 2. Obvious (and marketed) attractions of Mangawhai include the ocean beach, boat launching in the estuary and general water activities within the harbour. These have finite capacities, are often at over-capacity at peak times and there is little that can be reasonably done to increase capacity, especially parking at the ocean beach and at the boat launching ramp. Development of MC (and in fact any further residential development) will aggravate the current situation. 3. Sewerage – see separate section below. 4. Traffic.
1. Generally to / from Mangawhai. I agree that this is largely an NZTA / KDC / central government issue, but sufficient realistic information should be provided in a timely manner. 2. At Mangawhai away from immediate Mangawhai Central area. Will be advantages (possibly reducing car parking needs at the two current shopping hubs at peak times) and disadvantages (car parking requirements at Ocean Beach, at boat launching ramp, at “events” such as weekend markets, Gala Day (if it continues), and, depending on outcome of primary school deliberations, at primary school; general traffic volumes through village and along Molesworth Drive leading to ocean beach etc. 3. In immediate area of MC – see separate section below. 3. Transparency. Viranda’s stated wish is for transparency and openness regarding the MC proposal. While I realise and accept that there are requirements for commercial confidentially in certain areas, my very open wish is that KDC adopt a transparent and “good governance” approach to their interactions with Viranda and act on behalf of all ratepayers of KDC and not undertake special favours / deals behind closed doors. Unfortunately recent, including very recent, history does not necessarily give confidence in this respect.
Sewerage It is assumed that the MC development would be required to connect to the centralised Mangawhai Wastewater Scheme (MWWS). Any deviation from this would make a mockery of KDC’s repeated pronouncements and decisions since inception of the scheme. Assuming this:
1. The timing of MC’s development will have very pronounced effects on when major capital improvements may be required at the MWWS treatment plant, and for effluent disposal. It would seem essential that KDC have these aspects worked out, including funding, by end 2017 given the intended programme outlined by Viranda. 2. I would expect (and I think many in the community would support this) that there be no “special deal” undertaken with Viranda to reduce the full cost of connection to and use of the MWWS. There are examples of such not being followed elsewhere within the “Mangawhai Sewerage District”, but more than enough examples of pricing policy being harshly applied elsewhere in Mangawhai to individuals and small businesses. My initial guestimates are that capital contributions in excess of $10 million would be required for the strictly residential component alone, and possibly another $3 million for other developments within MC. It will be interesting to see how this may compare with costs required to be spent by KDC to both provide any necessary upgrades to treatment and disposal and as offsetting retained debt from the earlier development of the MWWS.
.Water supply It appeared from the meeting of 23 June (including discussions afterwards) that little if any thought have been given to water supply for the MC proposal. Some comments on this follow:
1. It would certainly be disturbing to many in the community if in any way the MC proposal was used as an “excuse” by KDC to push for a centralised water supply scheme for Mangawhai. 1. With only very minor exception all water supply in Mangawhai is from individual property owners sourcing their own water from mostly rainfall harvesting from roofs, with some using shallow groundwater supplies. 2. For more than a decade there have been various attempts by KDC to push for a
centralised water supply. 3. Very recent KDC-initiated surveys indicate overwhelming (possibly over 70%)
community opposition to a centralised water supply. 4. No studies to date have identified and demonstrated a reliable close-by source that could feed a centralised water supply for the whole of (even existing) Mangawhai. 2. A very limited KDC operated water supply serves the Heads surf beach area, the Heads campground, the Heads village shops and (I understand) a few private properties. A considerable sum of the community monies (possibly from general previous development contributions?? - KDC could advise) were urgently allocated end 2016 to upgrade this supply. I at least would find it disturbing if use of ratepayers’ monies were used to provide / underwrite a KDC supplied water supply for the MC proposal. 3. There MAY be an overall benefit to the community if discussions with KDC regarding water supply for the MC project assist in tipping KDC’s hand to modify that part of the current District Plan that essentially requires individual households to have a separate large firefighting water tank on each property for the exclusive use by the fire brigade (not even the householder) to fight fires. For Viranda’s information, even though it is understood that KDC’s elected and executive and the vast majority of the community wish to change this (thus requiring a formal change to the District Plan) the process for the Plan change has been on-going for almost two years and a decision has been delayed because of the objection of one party only – the national fire service. 1. If the KDC persits in retaining this requirement, there MAY be an opportunity for MC to be exempted if it incorporates in its development a semi-centralised firefighting storage and / or reticulation sysytem.
Traffic to / from the site At the meeting of 23 June Viranda stated:
1. There would be a properly engineered entrance to / exit from the MC area to
Molesworth Drive 1. with slip lanes 2. with no traffic lights 2. There MAY be advantages to have additional access to / exit from the MC area via
Old Waipu Road, though several in the audience appeared to not favour this.
My comments as follows:
1. I consider it premature to pre-judge just what may be required at Molesworth Drive in the absence of a comprehensive traffic survey, considering the totality of Mangawhai, the importance of Molesworth Drive as the only realistic link between
.the Village and the Heads, and that at times it is used as an emergency SH1 by- pass. 1. Traffic lights may be necessary 2. With emphasis being given by Viranda and also community groups (for many years) for cycling and walkway linking the Heads and Village the intersection(s) between MC entry/exits and Molesworth Drive may well require more than just slip lanes – possibly lights and / or grade separation. 2. The medium – longer term development of Mangawhai in total and of MC may require some more radical consideration of how MC fits into Mangawhai traffic management as a whole. 3. If for whatever reasons an entry to / exit from Old Waipu Road is discounted, the wisdom of a single intersection with Molesworth Drive needs to be critically assessed given the risk of emergency conditions (whatever they may be – e.g. fire, flood, earthquake) and possibility of many 100’s of vehicles and 1000’s of persons within the MC area.
Schooling I endorse the concept of provision of schooling in the MC area.
Recognising the history of the current primary school location and facilities (possibly some opposition to relocation of the school by the community?), the fact that the school’s roll has and continues to be rapidly increasing I do see value in a rigorous assessment by Viranda, the Education Department and the Mangawhai community in assessing the advantages and disadvantages of moving the primary school to the MC area and future use of the current primary school grounds with might include:
1. land “swap” with MC and plan change to allow residential development on the area
currently occupied by the school 2. possible full or partial use of current school area as public open space and associated with this
3. what would happen with the kindergarten? 4. what would happen with the hall adjacent to the school? 5. what might happen with the school playing fields, especially given recent proposals regarding the Domain that have the potential to seriously limit this area of community owned land for such activities as casual recreation, the Annual Gala Day of 02 January (been operating for some 40+ years), dog training and exercising)
Type of residential development My understanding of the Plan Change 22 was that it was to provide a variety of residential options, ranging from stand-alone single allotments to 3-story apartments.
From the public presentations on 23 June it appeared that MC’s current concepts were for: 1. almost exclusively “medium-high quality” allotments (some community comment at the meeting was that did not want “slum-type” developments that are already present in Mangawhai) 2. discussion was around lot sizes of 600 m2 3. reference was made (see earlier) to KDC’s “preferences” for more intensive
development 4. specifying types of houses and in response to comments from the floor perhaps
even limiting the source of materials (more specifically “not Chinese”) 5. inclusion of a “retirement village”
Subsequent discussion by me and others elicited that:
.1. the MC development would NOT include gated communities 2. I (and at least one other) was not opposed and in fact support having options of
apartment-type developments.
My initial feelings are that:
1. There should be a range of lot sizes (and thus pricing) to accommodate the range
of persons who may want to live in the development. 1. By targeting “high end” only MC could effectively exclude most younger families
who would have children for the school(s). 2. There will always be a need for medium and lower cost housing in Mangawhai; a focus on “high end” would tend to concentrate the balance into developments that have potential to be low end and with little or no facilities such as open space, linking walkways / cycle ways, etc. 3. There should be clearly set and enforced time-frame (identified on LIMs) preventing subsequent subdivision of allotments once S92’s have been issued. KDC has been very lax regarding this in recent years across many types of developments. 2. Specifically I support
1. a retirement “village” (which should probably be “gated”) 2. areas where apartments up to 3 stories can be developed 3. linking walkways, cycleways that are not merely roadside footpaths which do
little to encourage non-vehicle access 3. Specifically I do NOT support:
1. developer designation of type / standard of housing. There are examples in
Mangawhai of: 1. after some initial sections had been sold, relaxation of the “standards” apparently to encourage additional sales, thus leading to possible resentment by initial purchasers 2. giving little flexibility to purchasers to develop housing, garaging etc that suits
individual needs 2. restricting in any way “sources” of materials, or labour, or equipment, other than
to specify compliance with appropriate standards.
Commercial and industrial development I support a mixed commercial and light industrial development, hopefully with Viranda allowing for a quality development in terms of appearance and also infrastructure that will be turned over to KDC. The types of developments identified at the meeting of 24 June all appear appropriate, though there could be some concerns about competition with already established operations at Mangawhai (I understand that this is not a valid reason for an objection under the RMA).
Environmental management During the presentation an open statement was made by KDC Deputy Mayor regarding the importance of the harbour to Mangawhai and a hope that this would be protected. Assurances were given by Viranda that this would occur.
After the meeting I raised one-on-one with Viranda that in fact on Thursday 22 June I had been very close to lodging a formal complaint in relation to an excessive amount of mud that was being transported off site on the tyres of trucks currently working on the site, with very clear mud deposition from the site almost up to Old Waipu Road. I surmised that with the rain Thursday night this mud would now be in the estuary and in fact on Saturday
.morning when I traversed the road I see that the road was now clean. Words are meaningless unless followed up by action. It is certainly possible to implement an effective construction site stormwater management, erosion and sediment control (I was first involved in such in Victoria, Australia in the late 1970’s and have been involved with many others on both large and small sites since then). As but a current local good example, there are single allotment earthworks being undertaken on a section on Molesworth Drive just on the village side of Old Waipu Road with extensive facilities in place to retain eroded soil on site.
My expectations are that:
1. From today Viranda ensure that all its actions, and the actions of its agents and
sub-contractors, do incorporate good environmental management at MC. 2. KDC in association with NRC monitor the environmental performance of Viranda
and its agents and sub-contractors working at the MC site. 3. Viranda fully complies with its obligations with NRC for “land disturbance” / soil excavation / stormwater management approvals, and that NRC publicly notify any application for a Resource Consent given the size of the MC development and its proximity to the Mangawhai Harbour
Retention of the Esplanade Reserve is assumed as a “given”, and it may be of overall benefit to the community and Viranda if there could be a trade-off of more public open space yet retaining the same or even slightly increased number of allotments.
John Dickie 15 Mangawhai Heads Road Mangawhai Heads 0505 johndickie05@gmail.com