Rubble on the beach which the owners (above) propose to clear if they are allowed to build the new sea wall. Photo / Auckland Council
Rubble on the beach which the owners (above) propose to clear if they are allowed to build the new sea wall. Photo / Auckland Council
How did part of the old Westfield meat works end up at the bottom of a cliff on a North Shore beach? And will a proposed sea wall stop erosion and protect pōhutukawa or is it privatisation of a public space?
These are the questions for Auckland Council after homeownersproposed a sea wall on a beach at the bottom of a Belmont cliff. But an opponent says pushing back against nature is futile and nothing will stop further erosion.
Allen and Barbara Peters own two waterfront properties on Seacliffe Ave between Devonport and Takapuna. They have applied to build a sea wall at the bottom of the cliff beneath their neighbouring properties, where a collapse occurred, in an attempt at stabilisation.
But an opponent says that should be declined because it encroaches on to the beach and is only for the owners’ benefit. Ruth Ell for Environment Takapuna Inc wrote in a submission to the council, that the scheme is a privatisation of public space and the wall will be big at 51m long, 5m wide and 3-5m high.
“One of the stated purposes is to tidy up a previous slip from the properties that happened many years ago and includes some concrete and steel debris,” she said.
“This plan for reclamation is an encroachment into a natural beach environment and seems to be solely for the purpose of providing access via a path and a picnic area for the owners,” she told the council.
Granting it would establish a precedent that would encourage other homeowners, she said.
“The sea will rise, the cliffs will erode and these storms will get bigger and wetter. Nature is not always tidy and attempts to tame it or push back against it are futile,” she said.
Allen Peters’ submission on October 13 gave a history of how the rubble landed on the beach below, telling how owners of various properties had tried to stabilise cliffs beneath them over many years.
During the 1960s, the then-owner of 66 Seacliffe Ave built a more substantial retaining wall than the neighbours’, made of steel and concrete beams and columns from the Westfield freezing works, which was being demolished at the time. That material was stacked at the top of the cliff at 68 Seacliffe Ave in anticipation of being used to stabilise the cliff, Peters said.
Around 1972, a storm caused a large slip and the weight of material caused the seaward lawns of properties to collapse on to the foreshore, including a significant portion of the steel beams and concrete.
Between 2000 and 2002, a palisade wall was built in front of 62, 64 and 66 Seacliffe Ave to protect those homes after the many historic slips and to allow for the construction of a new home at 66 Seacliffe Ave, Peters said.
“Since owning the properties, my wife and I and our adult children and grandchildren have been frequent users of the beach below. Over the years, we have witnessed the steel beams, concrete slabs and steel cables at the base of the cliff being increasingly strewn out across the foreshore by tidal forces,” he said.
Is this privatising a North Shore beach? Arguments for and against are before the council. Photo / Auckland Council
Many bits of the talus material, including those spread across the foreshore, were exposed and could cause a passerby to harm themselves on jagged steel fragments and cables, he warned.
The two key reasons he gave for building the sea wall were to protect the cliff toe and pōhutakawa and to clean up the foreshore: “There has been publicity regarding the dangers of removing trees from foreshore/cliff properties causing slips which will eventually happen here unless the trees are protected,” Peters said.
“The sea wall will also look significantly better than the debris and will greatly improve the aesthetic value of the area,” he argued.
The existing palisade wall across the properties was now 20 years old and while it would provide adequate protection in the short to medium term, it would not be a permanent solution over the next 100 years.
Davis Coastal Consultants for the Peters said the construction of the new rock masonry sea wall would protect the cliff toe from further retreat.
“A landward retaining wall will be placed at the rear of the sea wall, to address steep contours. This will allow protection of the upper talus area, ensuring the pōhutukawa can reach maturity. The establishment of re-vegetation planting is also proposed as part of the works,” Davis said.
Caitlin Slabbert, the council’s planner, does not recommend consent be granted. The natural features adviser from environmental services said the proposed works should be considered reclamation and would therefore be considered a prohibited activity.
“I am of the opinion that the proposal would result in an unacceptable adverse effect on the values for which the outstanding natural feature is scheduled,” she wrote.
Building the wall would permanently disrupt the “natural erosion processes of the feature” and could require further structures to be built in the surrounding area.
She cited potential negative effects on the public’s enjoyment of the area and the lack of visual mitigation.
Submissions supporting the application came from a number of parties including Joanne Peters of Murrays Bay, Michael and Geraldine Weeks of Seacliffe Ave, Martin and Lexie Smith of Seacliffe Ave and Murray Inglis, formerly of Devonport. Tracey Gregory of Winscombe St at Belmont backed it for the safety of beach walkers and land protection.
George McMahon opposed the scheme, saying the proposed structure would be very visible and represent a private intrusion into a public space. Fiona Sprott of Kingsland said it would be visible from high tide and wasn’t a small change. Ben Gundry of Narrow Neck said it would “visually degrade an area of outstanding natural beauty”. The historic debris is already doing the job of a sea wall, he said.
No decision has yet been made by Auckland Council.
