At the moment everyone who has a place at Waikawa Beach relies on collecting rainwater, or using a bore, or sometimes bringing in water for all their water needs. Septic tanks deal with sewage.
The Horowhenua District Council have recently pointed out that our region is experiencing much greater population growth than previously — a jump from around 0.4% to nearly 2% per year. By 2040 they expect an extra 10,000 people and 5,000 households in Horowhenua. See: Will the Waikawa Beach population grow in the next 20 years?
The Council are also about to launch into their 20 year Long-Term Plan, and as part of it are talking about the possibility of providing piped water and a sewage system to our small community. Councillor Christine Mitchell spoke about this at the December 2017 AGM. From the unconfirmed Minutes:
Growth is coming and the Horowhenua Council needs to be ready for this. They have a Long Term Plan — a 20-Year Plan. There is a report coming out on 21 February 2018.
Residents need to decide whether they want these services. The services could influence where people choose to live. It would cost approximately $18M. This would then be charged on to ratepayers with an estimated $1500/pa rate increase. Important to let Council know what residents think. Must have your say. Important that committee submits to the HDC 2018/38 Long Term Plan. Also important to individually make submissions. Strength In Numbers.
There are March/April deadlines around submissions for Long Term Planning both with Horowhenua District Council and Horizons.
What the Minutes don’t include there is that the $18 million accounts for only some of the additional spending, so the additional rates burden could be much higher.
We should note too, Council are looking for places to put the extra people, and that could include locations immediately adjacent to Waikawa Beach.
A very useful online mapping tool for viewing Census figures is StatsMaps, which allows you to select down to a Meshblock (the smallest unit of Census measurement) and see information such as the number of people, number of households, median income and so on. The map above, and the most recent information available is from the 2013 census. We’re due for another census in 2018.
Councillor Mitchell pointed out that it’s crucial we make submissions to the Council on these and other topics, or we may find we end up with things we don’t want foisted on us, or alternatively things we do want simply overlooked. By
we she meant that both individuals and the Association as a whole should make submissions. There is weight in the sheer number of submissions the Council receives.
So as residents, ratepayers and visitors we need to ask and answer some important questions. Keep in mind that new services we receive will almost certainly add to our rates bills.
Please use the comments area below to let us and others know what your thinking is on these important issues. Feel free to also email the Committee directly firstname.lastname@example.org with your responses. Commenting here though allows an open forum where we can gauge the feelings of the community as a whole.
So here are the first questions to consider:
- Do we, as a community, want the Council to provide our tap water?
- Do we, as a community, want the Council to dispose of sewage?
- Do we, as a community, want the farmland around us turned into residential areas?
- Are there additional facilities we want or need for Waikawa Beach? One example could be a secure vehicle access to the beach.
- Do we want Horizons Regional Council or Horowhenua District Council (or both) to make specific provision for environmental issues, such as beach erosion or river water quality?
- Are there roading developments we want? This could be things like handling excess water when it rains, footpaths, road widening, speed limit changes.
Please, think about these things, and other matters where either of the Councils can provide or remove services. Discuss the issues with your friends and neighbours. Bring the issues here (please keep the comments constructive, useful and family-friendly) to discuss with other readers, and watch out for news from the Committee.
When the time comes for submissions, please make a submission of your own, and help us, as an Association, know what our members want so we can make submissions and lobby on behalf of our community.
These are important matters and we’ll be talking about them more soon.
Update Friday 23 February 2018: The Council have released their draft plan. Please read our post about the Plan on this site at: 2018-38 Long Term Plan Consultation.
26 thoughts on “Water Supply and Sewage Services to our Village?”
We as a community have been here before and declined reticulate water, sewage, footpaths and kerb and channelling. We have also worked against further major subdivisions. Suggest you refer to previous submissions made by the community. Nothing has changed.
Our settlement is unique and what we have is what makes it so attractive for both permanents and weekenders.
The rating impact (300%+)will see the outgoings for many weekenders unaffordable.
I would like to see the Regional Council improve its monitoring of river pollution. Would be great for it to revert to what I remember 30 years ago – sandy bottom and certainly clearer water.
Beach vehicle access has always been at the pleasure of landowners who could restrict at any time. The Distrct council should be encouraged to provide a formal and formed access over the area reserved for this purpose just south of Duncan St. May also require Regional council concent etc.
happy to discuss.
We are bach owners at Waikawa and we don’t support water and sewerage provision by council primarily because it would increase the number of residents, make it unaffordable as a bach community, and make it a popular choice for new development which would increase its size. We love Waikawa because it is small, laid back, friendly, casual, and basic so we’d be against anything that would threaten its nature. Including footpaths and more subdivisions like Strathnaver. We will be making individual submissions on this but wanted our views to be known by the association as well.
Thanks for the wonderful newsletters and the great work you all do btw 🙂
Ella & Ty (23 Sarah Street)
Thanks for that Ella and Ty. 😀
I want to endorse the remarks by Neville Hyde.
We have had a bach at Waikawa Beach since 1976.
At the risk of being a NIMBY, we feel it is perfectly legitimate to want to control the growth of Waikawa Beach.
In essence, if growth is encouraged, by landowners’ proposals to subdivide being approved by the district council, it will change the character of the beach.. Like native forest reserves, beaches are fragile and very subject to damage or destruction by uncontrolled housing or other kinds of development.
Growth, other than very slow growth, will ruin the very qualities than people who choose to live in a beach settlement like Waikawa Beach are seeking. The provision of piped water and sewerage will only be needed IF the council permits further subdivision. It will not happen unless that is encouraged by the council. The council is pretending that it will happen willy-nilly and that it is necessary to accommodate it. But the fact is that, like most local authorities, they love “GROWTH” and want to be able to sideline efforts to limit it. Once they have made the huge investment that water and sewerage involves, naturally they will want to see significant growth to maximise the benefit of their expenditure.
The council must not be allowed to conceal that motivation.
Most existing owners have installed water tanks or bores or both, at a substantial cost and are comfortable with that situation. We draw bore water for washing and a little for the ‘garden’ and bring drinking water from home in Wellington, or we can simply boil the bore water. That is very easy and we need no change.
Growth CAN take place in existing settlements that have arisen in the district for commercial or community service reasons – arising from things like schools, hospitals, shops, cultural centres, originally from the existence of a railway station; and they should again be encouraged primarily in places that can be reached by public transport, avoiding the use of the private car: that should be rail where it exists or can be restored.
Thus acceptable places for growth in the Horowhenua district are the settlements that were created by the railway in the late 19th century: Manakau, Ohau, Levin, Shannon, Tokomaru (and Foxton); but none of the beach settlements. The former are places where a revived passenger rail service could operate. In fact there is a strong case now to encourage a certain amount of growth close to railway stations (some now eliminated) so that people who want to live in a rural environment can commute to Wellington (or Palmerston North).
This Government has signaled its support of rail recovery, both for goods and passengers. Now is the time to press them with a realistic and sensible case.
Although we are new to the Waikawa Beach community we feel INCREDIBLY lucky to be able to share in its peaceful way of life and warm community. We would be very opposed to any changes to provision of water/sewerage to the area, and likewise not wishing to appear NIMBY about it nor unsocialist, it’s why we came to Waikawa. Development is everywhere and of course people need places to live. But it’s illogical (and would be hugely expensive for us as ratepayers) to bring these services all the way out to Waikawa at great cost when there are locations nearer to public transport, schools and other amenities which would be far cheaper. And with mains water/sewerage comes the risk of large-scale residential building. We LOVE that there are so few dwellings in Waikawa. We know we are lucky and hopefully not too selfish to want it to stay comparatively tranquil and uncrowded for as long as possible.
And what about climate change – coastal erosion / tsunami? Wouldn’t the Council be crazy to encourage more people to live here?
The additional costs to rates cannot be underestimated.
It is not just the cost of supplying water and sewage (near-enough $1000 additional rates);
The contribution to installation (maybe $700/year, but realistically probably double that).
Add to that that things like water are not strictly user-pays (although we’d probably all be metered). Councils will charge extra to cover potential maintenance, and long-term upgrade.
The potential cost amongst ratepayers of coastal erosion property protection defenses – lets be honest, if they spend $500,000 and split it, even by way of interest free loans, that could be $10,000 to $20,000 per property over 10 or more years (NOT each year).
If you are retired and live here, the above could easily be an additional $3,000 to $4,000 of your annual pension outgoing on rates (acknowledging you will be eligible for some rates relief).
And all is this ON TOP OF the 27.5% increase in general rates separately costed as part of the draft Plan.
“A plan for new drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in Hokio Beach, Manakau, Ōhau, Waikawa Beach and Waitārere Beach could cost the council $108m.”
Without looking at actual population split (and basically, the cost of instructure for each of the 5 locations will probably similar) so maybe $20,000,000 to put water in sewerage into Waikawa????
This Council (all councils) ARE OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!
(ps, that should read ‘infrastructure’)
About 6 years ago, Himitangi Beach had a voluntary sewage (waste water) scheme implemented.
DO NOT BE DECIEVED!
The Ratepayers at Himatangi Beach that joined the VOLUNTARY Sewerage scheme paid $9775 to join the scheme and are now paying $714 per annum extra on their Rates to maintain the system. Refer http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/7796792/Can-costly-sewer-plan-residents
New connections now cost over $22,000. Refer http://www.mdc.govt.nz/Services_Information/Council_Projects/Infrastructure/Himatangi_Beach_Community_Sewerage_Scheme
It is fair to conclude that a waste water scheme at Waikawa Breach will likewise cost $10,000 per property.
That does not include reticulated water.
I should note, that might be $10,000 lump sum payment; or more or less double that, if you spread your payments our over time (through your rates).
Hi All – This issue is gathering some momentum – and we need to encourage all those in our community to voice their view to the Council – what ever that is. Please talk to your Waikawa neighbours, follow the information coming out on this website and go the Council website and read the information there. And the ACT – have your say by making a submission. Otherwise we will get what THEY want us to have. We all love Waikawa – and if we want to maintain they village in they way we love it , it is going to take action by each one of us.
Hi, I am firmly opposed to the council providing sewage or water , all this will do is ruin the Waikawa Beach that most of enjoy and of course will encourage more subdivisions .Increasing rates both council and regional .No Thanks
Just had a look at the 2040 DRAFT plan – thank you for posting it here.
Why they produced this without waiting for a confirmed decision on the Expressway route is completely beyond me. A project that will have a profound affect on the area’s actual priorities and so allocation of available resources>.
I’ve read all the documents the Council has released and done a lot of thinking. I’m writing a series of posts on my own site, and have completed two so far. Please look at:
1] What we have and what we need in February 2018 — http://lovewaikawabeach.nz/what-we-have-and-what-we-need-in-february-2018/
2] Why more houses here? — http://lovewaikawabeach.nz/why-more-houses-here/
My third post will be about water, and I aim to write it today or tomorrow, as time allows.
I’m strongly opposed to the Council’s proposals. One key point they make clear is that the *reason* they aim to supply water services (*at our cost*) is in order to draw more people to live here. That in turn will put pressure on all our resources, the environment, and the unique character of Waikawa Beach.
Am I right in saying that HDC have NOT written to all ratepayers with details of proposed changes, consultation process (timelines, links etc)? I did not receive anything along with my latest rates Notice a week or so ago.
Apart from our RatePayers Association, how are we meant to know consultation is even being undertaken? [Big shout out to our RatePayers committee and this site (and the email yesterday) – you’re doing a great job!].
Thanks Frank, for the kind words. I can’t speak for the Council, but I don’t recall receiving a letter from them about this stuff. Cr Christine Mitchell *did* alert us to these matters when she spoke at our AGM in December 2017.
Thanks for all your efforts to get the information in this report understood Miraz.
A notice arrived in our Wellington mailbox today – so mail out underway …
Just to reinforce what Miraz has been writing about – a very clear diagram stating that their preferred preference is to provide water and sewage at Waikawa beach.
With existing ratepayers (and al the new people they assume will move here) paying for this somehow…
It is interesting that they “plan to produce a feasibility study to explore where the water supply would be sourced from and how wastewater would be disposed of for these settlements.”
A potential sewage pond somewhere?
Thanks Debra. The key thing I learned from my wide reading was the *reason* they want to put in this infrastructure: to bring people here and increase the population of Waikawa Beach. And we know where water comes from: the sky, in the form of rain which fills our water tanks!
I’ve just finished my third post on Love Waikawa Beach about the plans and have a clear conclusion and response. Read it at: Water, water, everywhere — http://lovewaikawabeach.nz/water-water-everywhere/
Thank Miraz for all of your communications – and for the great website with comments facility, brilliant.
The key question is whether Waikawa should be a growth area – if the settlement doesn’t grow, then there is no need for additional infrastructure services, and vice versa. Having separate consultation documents is a classic tactic of not presenting the whole story and making submitters jump through hoops to do two submissions.
Issues re growth as I see it are
– Does the community want it? We have previously said no to growth (WBRA made submissions to the LT Plan in 2008 – and presumably we have since then?) – hopefully most of us still have this position.
– Wouldn’t growth be better where there are good transport links? As someone else pointed out, the consultation on Otaki-Levin Expressway options is just starting. This is a major issue for the region and should dictate where growth is – with good access to transport.
– Why would you grow an area that is at risk from coastal inundation and erosion?
Our submission will oppose growth.
No growth means we should leave water/wastewater at the status quo, so most of the following points are redundant, but the document leaves out alot of detail that the Council should be challenged on.
– The documents contain no information on what is driving the requirement for provision of water/wastewater treatment facilities (other than providing for growth). Are the existing septic tank systems affecting groundwater? Is there a health risk to residents? Effects on the environment? Are Waikawa residents getting sick from poor quality drinking water? The Ministry of Health will have some guidelines on the level of service for various sizes of settlement – it would be good to understand what those are relative to our current population.
– Residents have existing water supply and wastewater systems – the ultimate in resilience.
– If any schemes are voluntary – then residents with existing investments would decline to participate and the rates burden falls on fewer, newer land owners (although probably on everyone in the long run).
– My quick look through some of the supporting documents has so far failed to find the assumptions behind the costs for the water and wastewater schemes. (I have also looked in the Infrastructure Report – but I’ll keep looking). Schemes for seasonal populations in particular run into problems because of the challenge of designing a system to cope with the seasonal fluctuations – low flows in winter – higher demand/ flows in summer (when its dry and when the population swells in size). There are plenty of examples of cost blow outs for such schemes.
Finally, there is also a question of affordability which needs more transparency. Look at localcouncils.govt.nz – HDC does appear to be at the lower end council performance metrics. Debt already seems to have grown >600% since 2007 with cost of servicing representing >10% of rates collected.
Given the issues with existing water and wastewater supply elsewhere in the district, I reckon the Council would be better to concentrate on getting those things in order before trying to grow areas where there is no infrastructure.
We will put in a submission along these lines. Sorry if I’ve repeated whats in your blogs Miraz – haven’t read them yet.
So I started typing my thoughts for a submission ….
Firstly, I am dismayed that Council’s ‘consultation’ on the whole issue of reticulated water and sewage here at Waikawa Beach appears minimal to say the least. To garner wide-spread consultative response, notice of these proposed changes should have been mailed to all ratepayers.
We individual ratepayers do not have a staff of hundreds, do not have time to search Councils’ websites each night, in case there is anything of importance for us. Not just the councils’ website, but all websites that might remotely affect us.
I respect our local (volunteer) Ratepayers Association, who have taken the trouble (in their own unpaid time) to filter Council information and feed it through to us both via a local website and email. One of those bits of information was a link whereby I find I am up for 6.6% rates increase this year – about 4 times the current rate of inflation.
I am completely opposed to installation of reticulated water and sewage schemes here at Waikawa Beach because:
My rates have already increased by 400% (from around $450 to over $1800) over the last twelve or so years. Enough is enough.
My rates are already projected to increase by over 38% over the next 6 years.
Ref: https://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/101524966/horowhenua-rates-rises-expected-to-peak-in-in-202122 proposed increases quoted: 2018-19: 6.53%, 2021-22: 6.42%, 2023-24: 2.91% Extrapolating the intervening years, = 38.35% growth over 6 years.
That will bring my annual rates to circa $2,500 per year, sans water or sewage. Enough is enough.
We have been advised (at our Ratepayers’ AGM) that the annual charge for both water and sewage would be about $990 on top of annual rates.
That will bring my annual rates to circa $3,500 per year. Enough is enough.
The cost of installation of sewage alone could easily be an additional one-off cost of $10,000 per property.
Himitangi is a coastal settlement not much different from Waikawa Beach in size or infrastructure. Enough is enough.
Given the general infrastructure for water is the same at least as far as pipes in streets and connections to houses go, the cost of installation of reticulated water could easily be a further one-off cost $10,000 per property.
Even if it was only half the cost of sewage infrastructure, or $5,000 per property, enough is enough.
Sure, the above two one-off costs could be spread through our rates bills over maybe 20 years, meaning an average additional $2,000 per year in rates [sewage only].
Ref: http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/7796792/Can-costly-sewer-plan-residents [covers annual rates bill repayments of sewage installation alone].
That will bring my annual rates to circa $5,500 per year. Enough is enough.
Reticulated water could bring the figure closer to $7,500 per year!
Lets’ be optimistic and agree the actual annual costs from 5) and 6) above came in at $3,500, that adds up to a massive combined $7,000 in annual rates.
How is this affordable for anyone? Especially low-income / single income families and beneficiaries / retired people?
Agreed there are low-income rates rebates available on a year-by-year application basis. But really? A beneficiary receiving a Rates bill equal to 25% or even 40% of their entire benefit?
What about other ‘sides of the coin’?
Newer places, admittedly not mine, will have spent thousands over the last several years on bore/rain water and septic tank facilities, being basic planning requirements mandated by HDC. I myself recently replaced a septic tank pump at a total cost heading towards $1,000. To now turn around and say that those homeowners must now pay again – and at far greater cost – is sheer lunacy! Enough is enough.
Once a new sewage / reticulated water system is in place, each new connection for sewage alone could cost over $22,000 each!
Ref: http://www.mdc.govt.nz/Services_Information/Council_Projects/Infrastructure/ Himatangi_Beach_Community_Sewerage_Scheme
And even if cost wasn’t the issue, Levin struggles to provide enough water to its own residents without summer-time restriction – the very time most holiday properties at Waikawa are occupied, and would be demanding water. #NeverEnough!
And throughout winter, Levin frequently struggles to provide clean water without the need for boiling! #RepeatingMyself!
We have just had Cyclone Gita pass through. Granted other than a minor flooding over one stretch of Waikawa Beach Road, it hasn’t impacted Horowhenua very much. However New Plymouth residents were left bereft of safe drinking water for several days after a tree knocked out the water main.
This highlights that single-source systems only need one point of failure to severely affect everyone. Individual systems mean only one person is affected by a single failure.
And where would all this water come from? Drawn from bores? Drawn from Waikawa Stream (formerly ‘river’, but heavy water draw-down in the upper reaches put paid to that – up the top end bordering where it was once known as the Kaitawa River.
Notice that. Lower swamp end – Waikawa / Manga Pirau. Top-end pristine food-source hills – Kaitawa. Maori knew how to name things!
Where would our sewage go? A new oxidation plant inland somewhere? Local Farmland? Perhaps somewhere between Waikawa Beach and Manakau – land that already floods with regularity every winter?
Where would ‘treated’ runoff go? Back into our streams and waterways – already severely affected by [mostly bird / animal] e-coli waste?
But really, like it or not, there is an even-harsher argument against progressing Waikawa Beach infrastructure any further: Climate Change.
Some properties are already red-flagged as subject to risk of coastal inundation.
The southern corner of Hank Edwards reserve floods frequently – twice last week, thanks mostly to ex-tropical cyclone Gita.
Loss of vehicular Beach access due to estuary erosion has been an ongoing issue for several years.
And we are now (finally) experiencing actual coastal erosion impacting on residential properties at the southern end of Manga Pirau St.
None of this is unforeseen; The Council cannot argue they ‘did not know’. I for one warned Council about the potential impacts of Climate Change last time I submitted on the Long-Term Plan (ten years ago). Now there are properties that are actually losing land [sand].
To propose placing water and sewage infrastructure into streets just 50 metres away without addressing the more important issue of coastal restraint in my mind meets the definition of Absolute Idiocy (including pretty-well all appropriate synonyms)!!!
Coastal Erosion must be properly addressed before we ever contemplate water or sewage infrastructure, else house by house, street by street, we risk retreating inland from the very coast that we have all moved here to enjoy.
Is the council going to manage Coastal Erosion (given landowners themselves basically can’t without engaging the full force of the Resource Management Act)? Council have already advised informally that the cost of construction of sea walls etc would need to be met by the people of Waikawa Beach (ie individual bills to ratepayers of many-more thousands of dollars).
OR should HDC be honest, upfront and tell us whether they would (or should) simply adopt a policy of ‘managed retreat’?
Sadly, even our country’s largest Council doubt how long or how much money they can put into averting inevitable coastal erosion. What chance then of HDC tackling the issue here at Waikawa?
If the Council are to opt for ‘Managed Retreat’, then surely any question of installing piping infrastructure is already answered! NO!
I am also completely opposed to further subdivision here at Waikawa principally for the following reasons:
Most people seem to accept that Climate Change is ‘underway’. This means that Waikawa Beach’s future may be quite uncertain: if coastal erosion doesn’t force people out, then Coastal Inundation (rising sea levels) will!
Proposals include zoning old swamp land for residential development. What part of ‘liquefaction’ in the Christchurch earthquakes is not obvious?
And other land (the block of Maori land south Manga Pirau Street) proposed for residential zoning is already being eroded by Costal Erosion.
Whilst it may be a statistical anomaly, the Tasman sea experienced an above average temperature of circa 5-6C above average over this summer.
If the trend continues, Climatologists advise that sub-tropical storms and consequently coastal flooding / erosion will increase in both frequency and intensity.
HDC need to wake up to the imminent impacts of Climate Change / rising Sea levels and Coastal Erosion. They are happening; Waikawa Beach’s future is under a cloud with a practical residential future of maybe only 50 to 100 years left.
Sorry; section bullets got lost the act of copy-paste!
Thanks Miraz for your work in getting all the information and opinions in front of us, and for your own comments. I’ll try not to repeat what others have said but just add a few points. I’ve looked at the main draft Long Term Plan document from the Council, but not all the supporting documents.
We generally agree about restraining growth and expansion at Waikawa, and rejecting the water and sewerage infrastructure proposals from the Council.
Some extra points:
1. It is inevitable that more people will want to come to Waikawa. But looking at page 39 of the draft Plan where Waikawa Beach is discussed, it seems to say that over 80% of the expected expansion of 63 houses can be accommodated within the existing areas zoned residential or greenbelt residential. The proposed new areas totaling 44 hectares are ten times the area needed to provide for the small number of houses that can’t be fitted within the present zones. So why is so much land needed for re-zoning? Possible answers could be that growth might be more than 63 houses, or that owners of the presently zoned land which could accommodate most of the growth have indicated they don’t want to sell or sub-divide. What do the owners of the two areas of land designated for future re-zoning want to do? The Council should be more clear on its information and reasoning.
2. There seems to be an error in the draft Plan about the areas of land involved. The map on page 39 shows WB 1 at the north end of Waikawa as being much smaller than WB 2 at the southern end, but the table on that page shows the areas differently (13 hectares for WB 2, and 31 hectares for WB 1). Something has got reversed?
3. The Council claims that the land chosen for rezoning does not get flooded or pond. Other comments have pointed out this is not true for the southern area. For the northern area also, the flat section in the south-western corner of the area proposed for rezoning can pond badly. In our family this portion is known as Swan Lake because black swans have been known to come and swim round in the field when it floods.
4. The Council should also be clearer on exactly what level of “Residential”
zoning it is proposing – is it greenbelt residential, low density residential, standard residential, or what? (See page 29 of the draft Plan which shows section sizes for each type.)
5. We are strongly opposed to any general water and sewerage infrastructure for Waikawa Beach. In fact we think that a basic requirement for, and constraint on, future growth should be that any additional residential areas should only be approved if new properties provide their own individual water supplies and sewage disposal systems and can do that without jeopardising the quality of (bore) water used by existing residents.
6. Don’t like the idea of improving vehicular access to the beach. There are enough vehicles on the beach already. (Most of which are not keeping to the 30kmh limit.)
Thanks Dave. I noticed that error about WB1 and WB2. In one of the documents too they show a map of Waikawa Beach for Waitārere Beach.
When I tried to find definitions for Greenbelt etc I was unable to, beyond the minimum section sizes. I found the information from the Council to be fragmented — you have to look in several places to get a full picture.
The notion that each new residence should be able to support itself with rainwater and sewage disposal makes enormous sense, in my personal opinion. I’d like to see it as something we as a society at large aspire to. If we could also apply that to electricity, wouldn’t that be fantastic!
It’s great to see so many Waikawa residents are taking this to heart. This is the SMALL caring community and that is the reason we bought our bach there for what it offered. A beautiful beach, small caring community and great location. We survive with tank or bore water and septic tanks just fine and have already put that money into providing our own services. Your proposals could just see some of us having to find a large amount of money when we have spent enough on providing these services ourselves. Growth will always occur but what the people of Waikawa seem to be saying it not here and as a rate payer(paying a considerable amount for what we get) that is the point I want to make is I am opposed the council providing sewage or water.
Let me say straight off – I am NOT a resident of Waikawa Beach. I have lived all my life up North Road. I spoke (I fear not very well) at the meeting this morning in Manakau hall and would like to take this opportunity to emphasize some things that I see: change is inevitable; further subdivision will occur; water is an issue; sewage is an issue. Is it time for lateral thinking? Just because matters have been done in a particular way for years, and we have lived with and accepted that way, could we not achieve adequate outcomes by a different means?
Community water supply has been mooted before (when Helen Clark was PM) and will be mooted again. But many people live on rainwater tanks and though ‘the white coated brigade’ will say it’s not good enough for you, people still seem to live. Such an approach to water availability puts all the management in the householder’s hands and totally avoids the need for water meter and charges – both items being inevitable with Council water supply.
Could sewage be separated from “grey water” (e.g kitchen, washing machine ) and the sewage be transported away to a commercial site. Just a thought! It should not be a huge cost and would remove the need to remember to get the tank emptied and the plumber to remedy the blockages because you forgot it was time to get the tank pumped out. You would still have the grey water but is that as large an issue as sewage?
Most people have no appreciation of the volume of water that runs off a hard surface when it rains. If there is kerbing and channeling all the water runs to the lowest point and there has to be infrastructure to manage it. It will be water that is not drinkable or swimable, into the Waikawa river by the bridge? Why the need for kerbing and channeling? Have we just assumed it needs to be there, have the developers put it in because it is usual, and will make the area more saleable, or do they have to do it because that is what the office planners say MUST be done – ‘it’s in the book!’ Why not do away with kerbing and allow the water to run off the side and through the porous sand? Manakau village does not have kerbing but the new subdivision to the south does.
I got the feeling at the meeting that the concepts involved with the inevitable Beach growth were being advanced by Council in the way they usually think and the residents were ‘going along with it.’ But it’s YOUR environment which should be able to be advanced in the manner you wish – it need not be just another urban extension. It is away from SH 1, it will have its own character, which only you can enhance and if you feel that you want to advance it in a particular way which is different to what is being proposed you need to take those concepts to Council; solutions need to be advanced, not just “I am opposed to…….I don’t want’ – that approach has a built-in timeframe and gets nobody anywhere. An example – a 4 lane motorway was proposed for behind Manakau village about 20 years ago and there was such a hue and cry that the matter was dropped. But it has reared its head again and now the hues and cries are more strident but could have less effect.
Just some thoughts of mine, a person who is not affected,