You need to be signed in to add your comment.

What are the issues for property owners and the wider community?

over 5 years ago

Consultation has concluded

  • Pete over 5 years ago
    Flooding isn't a problem in my area. I strongly object to any rates increase - it should be user pays. I have to pay for the rock wall because my property supposedly benefits from it - people whose properties flood should pay for any stormwater improvements. I don't mind paying a small portion (like they pay $18 for the rockwall), but the Council has set a 'user pays' precedent with the rock wall and dune works so making everyone pay for stormwater when only a minority benefit from it would be unfair.
  • AGC over 5 years ago
    I think that council need to come up with a few different options before they start anything and tell us what each will cost if any. I dont think I should have to pay for some one elses house that keeps flooding because I did my home work when I brought here and made sure that it was not flood zoned. I do not support any rates increase for stormwater.
  • Jenni over 5 years ago
    Education- People need to know that "flooding" is when people's lives or property are at risk. Water ponding on their section isn't flooding.- Educate people that ponding/surface flooding is a natural and legitimate way to manage stormwater.- keep the community informed about what the council already do to manage stormwaterFinancial/Rates- The percentage of people affected is very small compared to those not affected. If the council decides infrastructure improvements are necessary, this should be funded by a targeted rate to the properties affected or in the flood zone (i.e. Glen Isla and Shaw Rd residents pay for dune works, and beach front owners pay for the rock wall, flood zone people should pay for the stormwater improvements that they directly benefit from)- Council collects Development Contributions when development is completed in the area. Infrastructure improvements should be limited to the amount available from development contributions.Development controls- Council should consider greater development controls for new subdivisions. e.g. more development means less natural/porous surfaces, so more stormwater infrastructure is required - this should at the expense of the developer, not at the expense of existing ratepayers
  • apw over 5 years ago
    Our rates at the beach are already excessive so to rush in to any 'quick fix solution' for a problem that was caused by weather conditions that may not happen again would be foolish.Obviously we need to be aware of climate change and the possibility of more bad weather but surely controlled maintenance and fine tuning of the current system is the answer at the moment rather than rushing in to making changes. This will only lead to further rate increases and the money can only come from one place---the rate payers pocket.Whilst we must have progress lets also keep in mind that we don't need apartments popping up at the beach either as this high density living only adds more strain to an already stretched system.Lets keep the beach the special place that it is, with sensible control of growth.
  • Admin Commented ProjectAdmin1 over 5 years ago
    COMMENT RECEIVED BY EMAIL FROM WAIHI BEACH RATEPAYER. POSTED ON THIS SITE TO ENSURE COMPLETENESS OF INFORMATIONWe do not support any area wide ratepayer contribution to flooding which affects private properties.People will have bought properties with a knowledge of the flood potential or should have doen their investigations on this matter as we did for our property. Should they only have discovered the risk later that is something they should bear and not become a burden to other ratepayers. Caveat emptor to purchasers and the unaffected ratepayers should not be carrying the cost of other parties failures.People whose properties will have insurance to deal with damage. If they do not that again is their risk and lack of planning. If insurance becomes more difficult or expensive they should retain their own personal reserve fund for the contingency of flooding. Once again the costs should not be passed onto unaffected ratepayer properties.It will be inequitable to add to ratepayer's rates the cost of stormwater systems installed for the specific benefit of some private property owners or to use that problem as a basis in endeavour to add an area wide stormwater system for Waihi Beach.Waihi Beach has operated fine in the past without expensive stormwater systems installed for the specific benefit of some private property owners. We do not want new systems and the costs associated. Waihi Beach is attractive as it retains the character of early beach settlements. We do not want another Pauanui or Mangawhai Beach scenario. We do not want a satelite town of Auckland. The attraction is the difference. The rates for Waihi Beach are already excessive and it is unnecessary to continue to add costs to these. We object to any extra costs.If there is a supposed problem we do not identify it is not a problem for the general ratepayers. We are concerned with the Council constantly attempting to identify problems and drive them forward as part of their work brief - in short creating issues. There should be transparency as to how the alleged problems have been identified and by whom - date, names and details rather than just these blanket statments that there is something that the ratepayers need to address. This sort of organisational strategy is unacceptable.Your statement "Knowing that Waihi Beach will continue to flood means we have to do something and any solution will carry a cost..." is rejected as an attempt to cajole and drive a costly exercise on ratepayers who do not want it. The constant attempts at adding to the already large rates bill will be to make Waihi Beach unaffordable and unavailable for people. In short we do not want these services nor are we asking for them.
    • overcharged ratepayer over 5 years ago
      Our rates are excessive already. unfair that ratepayers again be targeted to meet costs that benefits a few. The council has recieved developers contributions from the areas new sub divisions and these funds should be re-allocated back to the area (without being added to rate burden) or costs passed to flooding property owners (as was done with the beachfront rock walls. Cheaper to raise the one or two houses that regularly flood or relocate the houses ?
  • No wet feet over 5 years ago
    We live in Brighton Road. Our house has never flooded with any of the weather systems that have passed over Waihi beach. Therefore our experience of the floods in Waihi Beach was of little consequence.However our flood damage has been caused by the Council who have now decided to include our home in the flood zone, when our house has never floodedThe Western Bay of Plenty Council has noted that the computer modelling of flooding in Brighton Road did not match the actual flood data recorded. Why then did they not, at the very least, wait and check their data against further events.The flooding in Brighton Road appears to be largely due to the Council approving the Maranui Estate storm water to be directed towards Brighton Road and inadequate drainage installation and maintenance, increased weather events may not be to blame.Devaluing people’s homes on the basis of an incorrect computer model is irresponsible management and we do not see why we should be disadvantaged by Council poor decisions.Houses should be included in a flood zone if and only if they actually flood.If the Council choose not to divert water from the Maranui Estate and not to provide an adequately installed and maintained storm water system, then the issue of who is liable for property damage and devaluation needs to be discussed further. If flooding in Brighton Road can be proven to be caused by Council negligence then the Council must be liable, it would be much easier to fix the problem than head down this road though.