Mount surf reef to be removed

Mount Maunganui's $1.5 million artificial surf reef is to be partially removed in an attempt to remove the risk to swimmers near Tay Street, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council has announced.

According to council the artificial reef, 250m offshore from the Tay Street/Marine Parade corner, has never functioned as intended.

A surfer riding the break at the reef in December 2005. Photo: surf2surf.com

In the past the reef has been criticised with surfers saying it did not provide the intended surf breaks, and surf lifesaving organisations concerned it was creating dangerous rips for swimmers.

Regional council's deputy chief executive Eddie Grogan says the reef's expected positive effects have not been realised.

'It's also generated some unforeseen effects, including creating a large scour hole, which affects waves and currents, increasing the frequency and intensity of rips, which pose a serious risk to swimmers in the popular Tay Street area,” says Eddie.

'We have commissioned a specialist report to consider the effects on the beach, swimmer safety, navigation safety, surfing values, cultural values and ecology. The review evaluated three options - status quo, removing the reef and repair and restoration - and recommended removal.”

The Mount Maunganui Reef Trust obtained resource consent in August 2000 to construct the pilot offshore submerged reef.

It was to be part of on-going research into artificial reef development by the University of Waikato, as well as providing a superior surf break for surfers, but the structure was never fully completed.

It was constructed from 2005 to 2008 with donations from the public and community funding groups.

The five year consent term granted lapsed in 2010 and council, as Resource Management Act regulator, needed to consider options for its future management.

The review recommended the reef structure be removed in a staged process. Removing the largest geotextile containers at a cost of about $60,000 would likely eliminate health and safety and environmental issues, it said.

While the Reef Trust has told the Council it would like to see the reef completed to achieve its original intent, it is not in a financial position to maintain, manage, re-consent or complete it, says Eddie.

He says council had to consider whether the reef could be left in its current state, or whether hazard or environmental issues meant it needed to be repaired or removed. There were significant costs involved in leaving the reef where it is, risks to swimmers at Tay Street beach and adverse environmental effects.

'Repairing the reef could pose more issues, including altering coastal processes, changing currents and exacerbating risks to swimmers.”

Work is likely to start as soon as possible, following selection of a preferred contractor and weather conditions permitting.

You may also like....

11 comments

Oh the Folly of it!

Posted on 16-04-2014 12:37 | By Mary Faith

.....and another 'white elephant' bites the dust! More money down the drain!!!!


Overit

Posted on 16-04-2014 16:39 | By overit

As a donater to this project I am very sad it has never lived up to the grand idea of its purpose. It seems such a waste of money. I just hope the good folks of Opunake dont fall into the same trap as they were going to build one.


Who will pay?

Posted on 16-04-2014 16:48 | By Annalist

The reef trust or perhaps the universtity of waikato if it was installed based on their studies? Silly me, us ratepayers will have to pay, yet again.


Your joking $60,000

Posted on 16-04-2014 16:52 | By Age

How did they come up with that figure, Wouldn't it be a case of getting a barge with a small crane attaching it to the bags , cutting the bags lifting it so the sand falls out ,surely $60000, is over the top.


Oh what a good idea

Posted on 16-04-2014 17:04 | By YOGI BEAR

$1.5m out the door to create it, likely $500,000 to remove part of it. What a complete waste of time and some ... and guess who is paying ... ratepayers


What a waste

Posted on 16-04-2014 17:26 | By whiskers

Wgat a waste of money that could have been spent on something in the community that was tried and proven. Who is paying for the removal????


You just have to wonder

Posted on 16-04-2014 17:37 | By s83cruiser

at the people that think they can do something that nature never bothered with. If a reef was called for in that location nature would have provided one. I do hope the Reef Trust is footing the bill for the removal of this disaster or is it going to fall back on the rate payers AGAIN to clean up.


I'd like to know..

Posted on 17-04-2014 01:59 | By awaroa

Who did the assessment of effects for the Reef Trust's resource consent application? Why was one granted when obviously the assessment of effects wasn't up to scratch? So how does that same approach stack up against other man made structures in the coastal environment? Are we to expect the same "unanticipated" environmental results and will we be having to remove other hard structures in the near future? - seawalls, marinas. I mean, if a relatively modest artificial reef is causing scour problems... This only highlights that the consent process is a load of crock and the people behind it.. hmmm


And

Posted on 17-04-2014 08:58 | By Capt_Kaveman

i knew this was a waste of time yet again no one listened great waste of funds and was so much against the council funds that went into this


Awaroa and s83cruiser

Posted on 17-04-2014 12:21 | By YOGI BEAR

Yeah mate(s) you are right on to the case there, you really do wonder at the creative that goes into getting these things approved, how they were justified and the ramifications will the botch up for any official involved will be zippo.


Whingers

Posted on 23-04-2014 06:50 | By mk2 bill

Waht a bunch of whiners, obviously no surfers among you. As I recall the installation and completion were hampered/destroyed by storms right at the very start of construction. The same thing happened to a reef built on the Gold Coast. The Oz reef was left to its fate and has become a dive and fishinb spot, claimed/reclaimed by nature. Another option?


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.