Jump to content

Sandspit marina debate continues


shorebreeze

Recommended Posts

I think what he is alluding to (why can't anyone speak in plain english on this thread???) is the suggestion that the developers and/or others pushing the marina have bought a number of berths to keep the ball rolling as it was at one point undersold. Don't know if it's true or not, or whether they have been on sold, just trying to clarify an earlier post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what he is alluding to (why can't anyone speak in plain english on this thread???) is the suggestion that the developers and/or others pushing the marina have bought a number of berths to keep the ball rolling as it was at one point undersold. Don't know if it's true or not, or whether they have been on sold, just trying to clarify an earlier post.

Even if they were, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a developer choosing to put more of their own funds into a project.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been remiss and I apologise, thank you for pointing that out Crux; I forgot to say please. So here goes,

Please answer the questions to my two previous posts.

You know, I really think that a blind man should be able to ask his neighbour if the sun is up yet without having to go to an astrophysicist to get the answer. Crux you sound as if you might know the answer to at least some of these questions. Are you a good neighbour?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Albatross, why do you need to ask? The answers are to be found at SYC. Like we all have told Shorebreeze. Simply, you two are just trying to stir.

By the way, the Dredgings are going ashore and not far from where they are being dug out. They are being used as part of the actual build. Ask the SYC if you want to know the purpose they will be used for.

Personally I think this thread should be shut IT. These two guys are not here to debate. They are simply stirring up rubbish due to not getting there way with the environment court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to clarify some points before continuing the debate.

Despite posts suggesting that the whole marina case is cut and dried and thoroughly tested, I sincerely hope that readers take note of how the resource consent process works in the favour of developers from the outset, because many communities have and will continue to be left high and dry by the process. Your community could be next.

Developers talk to each other, just like we ordinary folk do. Those who desire a marina have their team of ‘go to’ people and they get the reports that favour the desired outcome for the developer after they pay them the big money. The community enters the game much later at the submission stage, usually totally new to the endeavour of protecting their patch from inappropriate, unsustainable or unwanted development. By the time they learn how the resource consent game is played and have raised huge amounts of their own money, they’re already behind the 8 ball.

And...its all legal. That’s not anger on my part. That’s just how the game works.

There’s a lot of talk about the Environment Court. It would appear that some readers are not aware that the marine part of the marina has nothing to do with that court.

Constantly shouting ‘stirrer’ and 'sell up and leave' doesn’t answer the legitimate questions. And if there is nothing for the marina society to hide, then they would be happy to give accurate answers on this very public site. There are more than 3,300 views to date.

I like the way that Westhaven marina has posted their openness to their community through creworg-Feb 14.

Wheels- Dredgings; I am aware that some dredgings are part of a reclamation for parking at the SYC.

I am aware that about 2,000 cu m are consented for the SYC land in Brick Bay Drive.

But Wheels, there are about 120,000 cu m to dispose of. The amount was increased by the marina society when they changed their plans after the consent. Even if it's 10,000 cu m for reclamation and BB Drive land, that leaves about 110,000 cu m looking for a home. I suggest viewers measure out a cubic metre and visualise 110,000 of them. And yes we know that the CLG has been told that the dredgings are bound for the Barrier. But that doesn't mean that they are actually going there.

I know that the marina society via its other arm, having taken over the local Ratepayers group, applied to have the dredgings dumped on the spit and then later on the eastern shore of the spit road under the guise of tsunami surges and other arguments that were highly emotional, sensational and illogical but they failed in that bid at the top level of Auckland Transport. And a report was written last year at Auckland ratepayers expense ( i.e. you and me) with the answer that no work needed doing on the seawall but the community knew that all along. And yet, the marina society salesman tried a second time with the new Local Board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Summerbreeze assured us that an unidentified NIWA scientist has identified squid eggs in the marina excavation area. After seeing an article about it in Mahurangi matters, I pointed the way for viewers to www.whangateauharbour.org There is a report about that white marine species invasion on the website, along with the other exotic marine invasives at Sandspit especially in the area consented to be excavated. They are NOT squid eggs and I’m sceptical that any real scientist would say so. Moving and spreading the 2 species of seasquirt poses a big problem to aquaculture, the environment, recreational beaches and marine reserves such as Goat island and Poor Knights. According to Mahu Matters, the sea snot’s next northerly site is Whangarei and its no further south than Sandspit. So some boat or barge brought it to Sandspit, and the marina excavation has the potential of spreading it all over the Gulf.

Have a look at www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests/eudistoma-elongata

As for sediment accumulation in the proposed marina basin, I think Dr Grace’s letter to the Herald on 17 February should clarify this.

Also take a look at www.stuff.co.nz Milford marina silt build up. (Thank you Wheels for bringing my attention to that site) The Council is being asked to dredge that marina at the ratepayers expense.

Then there's the recent report about Bayswater marina. That marina is not at the base of a heavily silting river as is Sandspit. One would think that Bayswater would remain relatively silt free being on an outside bend within the harbour.

Here are some snippets from their report 2013.

Unexpected siltation, "last dredged in 2008, some 20,850 cu m of silt has accumulated in the marina beyond its design depth."

The Beca company says; "siltation most likely a natural occurrence which will continue."

The report says they have only half the estimated cost in the kitty-the dredging cost is $1.5 million.

There needs to be an increase in fees of 15-20% plus a temporary levy to cover the current level of siltation.

Also the silt fence which protects the northern end of the marina has been badly eroded and at risk of collapse. So that means more costs to the berth holders.

Now that brings me to another question...what happens if the change of tidal flow of the Glen Eden River wipes out the end of the spit? Who pays for that if it happens? The Auckland ratepayers? Not only buyer beware but ratepayers beware.

The current consent of the Sandspit wharf dredging allows the clean excavated sand to be dumped on the intertidal flats by the boat ramp and after the last such excavation its interesting to watch it migrate towards the SYC. A perfectly natural process. So with the new marina design its likely to spill over the low breakwater ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another question which having read Albatross' post has got me thinking. Why did the marina society remove a certain piece of news from their website concerning financing the marina? And yet they have not removed the false hope for investors of dumping on or alongside the spit.

Albatross asked-“The current scuttlebutt says that some people have bought multiple berths, is this true? Does this scenario comply with the financial memorandum?"

I think it’s a fair enough question. He’s simply asking if everything is kosher and above board. Maybe he was referring to this below?

Marina News (1)

07 Dec 2013

The committee believes they have overcome the problem discussed in the last newsletter when we had a shortfall in the money required to start the marina after a number of supporters pulled out when the time came to pay for their berth. We had a meeting with a number of the existing berth contributors who have indicated that they will put up bridging finance to allow the marina to meet its financial requirements so the contract can become unconditional. This is great news as it means that we won’t be held up waiting for berth sales to catch up with the shortfall. Providing there is not another problem we don’t yet know about the start date remains the 1 February after the main part of the holiday rush is over and people are back at work.

 

Some suggest we ask the SYC or marina society. The community to date believes it has not had straight answers to questions.

I believe that the SYC has to take on the conditions of consent for the marina and the SYC is supposedly a community organisation. So let the community know please. From some of the replies it would seem that some SYCMS members are watching this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SYC marina project is not by a 'developer,' unlike most marinas. It is being done by the SYC itself through an incorporated society affiliated to the club. After receiving resource concent, the contractors needed guarantees from the society trustees that the funds were available to complete the project before they would start work. As not all berths were sold, there was a shortfall. Not being a commercial entity, the usual means of financing and guarantees were not unavailable. So it was arranged that a group of investors would purchase the unsold berths on terms satisfactory to the investors and the society, until the berths were sold.

 

The proposal to use the dredgings on the sanspit was the result of discussions last year from the Residents and Ratepayers regarding solving the problem of storm damage to the sandspit and the spit road in eastery storms. During the last decade, on at least two occasions, the road and seawall was considerably damaged by seas breaking over it and scouring away the road surface due to the low lying nature of the spit. I witnessed the waves sweeping over the entire spit during one storm doing considerable damage. Unfortunately, it seems that there is insufficient time to go through the consultation, design and consent process for this to be a viable option. Additional note: I don't think the council had set aside any funds for the work either.

 

For your information, most of the dredging is rock and sand and not mud. In most of the area, mud is just a cover over the rock beneath. I believe there are satisfactory plans to stockpile and prevent live invasive marine species from be transferred to the dump site.

 

Again, I don't know why you are asking this forum for the answers, when a phone call to the society will give you what you want to know. But that is probably asking of you too much!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The SYC marina project is not by a 'developer,' unlike most marinas. It is being done by the SYC itself through an incorporated society affiliated to the club. After receiving resource concent, the contractors needed guarantees from the socity trustees that the funds were available to complete the project before they would start work. As not all berths were sold, there was a shortfall. Not being a commercial entity, the usual means of financing and guarantees were not unavailable. So it was arranged that a group of investors would purchase the unsold berths on terms satisfactory to the investors and the society, until the berths were sold.

 

The proposal to use the dredgings on the sanspit was the result of discussions last year from the Residents and Ratepayers regarding solving the problem of storm damage to the sandspit and the spit road in eastery storms. During the last decade, on at least two occasions, the road and seawall was considerably damaged by seas breaking over it and scouring away the road surface due to the low lying nature of the spit. I witnessed the waves sweeping over the entire spit during one storm doing considerable damage. Unfortunately, it seems that there is insufficient time to go through the consultation, design and consent process for this to be a viable option.

 

For your information, most of the dreding is rock and sand and not mud. In most of the area, mud is just a cover over the rock beneath. I believe there are satisfactory plans to stockpile and prevent live invasive marine species from be transferred to the dump site.

 

Again, I don't know why you are asking this forum for the answers, when a phone call to the society will give you what you want to know. But that is probably asking of you too much!

 

Nice to hear a sane, voice of reason on this issue. :D :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told that the contracts were for a fixed price and it is pay as they go. Any failure of a contractor and the work would be transferred to others who I was informed were readily available. As contingencies were built into the contract price, so a very low risk to SYC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Crux for your answers.

So the dumpsite for the majority of the dredgings is still the Barrier?

Where and for how long do you intend to pile up 120,000 cu m of sand, rock and mud?

How will you keep the tide away from the mountains of dredgings?

How will the tide and stream be managed, since conditions do not allow you to go close to the island?

Has Biosecurity given written consent for this method of killing the several invasive species AND their reproductive spores, eggs etc?

 

If the marina is not a commercial entity and only for SYC members then why has the 'society' been advertising it far and wide? newspapers, magazines, berths for sale websites and radio to name a few?

It would seem that the situation is;- non member + buy a berth= SYC member? And that is in a yacht club which has publicly said it is full?

 

"terms satisfactory to the investors"...does that mean the investors get interest on their money?

Why was the information on this suddenly removed from the website?

Why is the 17th December marina news still saying that the dumping on the east side of the spit a possible goer when you know it isn't?

 

SYC website suggests that the clubhouse facilities can no longer be used by the members as its now a marina office. Why is that please?

 

Freeeeedom, you are so right....Black Panther indeed is another sane voice of reason. :clap:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't said anything, just tried to ask what I thought were pertinent questions.

 

 

Re reading the thread I am still not sure if the GB site is intended to be used, but I have been told that most of the available space there is already spoken for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed Black Panther, very pertinent questions.

 

From my investigations the limit to GB dumping amount is 50,000 cu m per year, November-November.

About 28,000 cu m are already spoken for by all other Auckland marinas for maintenance dredging.

You can see what a huge amount needs to come out of just Bayswater (20,850 cu m) and I guess that needs to be soon. The report I accessed for Bayswater was for 2013.

 

50,000-28,000=22,000 cu m per year space available

 

Sandspit marina? Minus reclamations and BB drve.....100,000 cu m. Hmmm. Doesn't fit.

So, back to the original question. Where does the dredging go? 100,000 divided by 22,000 = about 4 years of dumping? The resource consent runs out May 2015.

 

I don't recall the SYC ever calling a general meeting for every member to vote on whether they accept the marina conditions or not. Wouldn't such a move be a constitutional matter and require a higher voting threshold than just a resolution type meeting? After all, it appears that many members don't turn up to meetings for many reasons, one of which is the aggressive environment that has been created by the proposed marina. So it all just sliding through without that meeting?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally we have one answer to part of a question: there have been multiple berth purchases by one person or entities! Well done, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

A further scuttlebutt says that the marina footprint is to have a bund wall built around it and that excavations will be carried out within that wall. Is this true? If it is true, then one end of the excavations will grow high. How long will residents have to look at a pile of sludge before it is removed? Remember that we are looking at over 100,000m3 and if you have ever gone past marine dredgings that have been in the sun for some time then I am sure that you may have noticed a distinct odour. Do residents want this near a restaurant, recreational area, the SYC and camp ground for any period of time?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've only skimmed some of this stuff, as there is too many words in general.

 

From what Ive seen, I truly hope the marina goes ahead with no issues. Not because I support the marina (which I probably do if i thought about it), but because the opponents come across in such an irritating manner, and I'd just love them to get more pissed off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do residents want this near a restaurant, recreational area, the SYC and camp ground for any period of time?

Albatross/shorebreeze - transient nuisance is an inevitable consequence of most building operations. This is really starting to sound like clutching at straws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...