Voting papers returned as of COB Friday the 24th:

  • Hastings District: 12.76% (ranging from 11.08% in Flaxmere to 15.62% in Havelock North)
  • Napier: 13.54%
  • Central Hawke’s Bay: 15.42%

More detail here.


‘Tis the season for local body candidate surveys and questionnaires. Still pondering your vote? Here are the results to four questionnaires that many candidates have responded to.

Fish & Game Hawke’s Bay queried Regional Council candidates on a series of water management issues, clearly a subject of paramount importance in Hawke’s Bay.

Responding here were: Tom Belford, Robert Burnside, Alan Dick, Murray Douglas, Tim Gilbertson, Shaun Haraki, Liz Remmerswaal, Hugh Ritchie, Joan Ropiha, Christine Scott, Bill Shortt, Tim Tinker, Eileen von Dadelszen, and Fenton Wilson.

Not responding were incumbents Ewan McGregor, Kevin Rose and Neal Kirton (Kirton replied that he was “happy for my water quality advocacy and voting record to speak for itself”), as well as challenger Allan Baldock.

Grower John Bostock, on behalf of himself and other food producers in the region, put questions about “protecting the local economy from the impacts of outdoor GMO use” to candidates for the Regional, Hastings, CHB and Napier Councils.

Said Bostock in a press release: “The Hawke’s Bay economy relies heavily on high value food produce, and given the proven economic risks to both conventional and organic businesses from even trace amounts of GM contamination in food, the responses are encouraging. Though many candidates chose not to respond, the high level of support from respondents for investigating options for local control of GMOs is welcome and I look forward to successful candidates pursuing these investigations further.  It is a critical issue to get right if we are to protect the many food producers that sustain the region’s prosperity.”

Here is the complete Bostock media release, which includes responses from the 34 candidates who replied (of 89 queried):

Regional Council: Belford, Burnside, Douglas, Gilbertson, McGregor, Remmerswaal, Ritchie and Ropiha.

Hastings Council: Bowers, Collin, Hazlehurst, Kimber, Mohi-McGoverin, McKenzie, Nee Harland, Nixon, O’Keefe, Te Huia, Wilson-Hunt, and Yule.

Napier Council: Castle-Allen, Cocking, Furlong, Gwynn, Herbert, Jeffery, Jenkins, Jurczakowski, Pipe, Pyke, Sye, and White.

CHB: McHardy, Williams

Positions on coastal protection were sought by WOW, the Haumoana/TeAwanga community orgnization, regarding their beaches, and by Napier advocate Larry Dallimore with respect to Westshore beach erosion.

WOW queried pertinent Regional and Hastings Council candidates regarding the community’s proposal for an engineered solution to beach protection and enhancement along that shoreline. Responses have been published in this WOW newsletter, delivered to 850 homes along the coast.

Only Regional Council candidates standing in Hastings constituency were queried, and all responded, including: Belford, Burnside, Douglas, McGregor, Remmerswaal, Rose, von Dadelszen.

For Hastings Council, only mayoral and Heretaunga Ward candidates were queried. Responding were mayoral hopefuls Nee Harland, Nixon, Ratima, and Yule; and Heretaunga candidates Collin, Heaps, McKenzie, and Ratima.

Napier advocate Larry Dallimore offered three options regarding beach protection at Westshore to Regional Council and Napier candidates — beach nourishment should continue with beach re-profiling and proposed breakwater, ‘nourishment is unacceptable and more suitable option should be investigated’, and consideration of a rock sea wall. Responses can be downloaded here.

All Napier candidates responded, with these exceptions: Kerry Bartlett and Judy Siers offered no opinon, and no reply from David Trim.

Regional Council candidates responding were: Baldock, Belford, Dick, Kirton, Scott, and Tinker.

Plenty of fodder for your election decision-making. Need more? BayBuzz has collected it all for you here.

Tom Belford

Join the Conversation


  1. My failure to respond to the F&G survey was an oversight on my part. It has now been attended to and sent to Peter McIntosh. I will respond to anyone wanting my answer by email.

    Ewan McGregor

  2. Thanks for posting all the Westshore erosion issue documents. I keep reminding people that the waterline is the dividing line between NCC responsibility for the land & HBRC for the sea. It is not just a NCC issue – it’s a HBRC issue too.

  3. Thanks for posting John Bostock’s survey on where candidates stand on GMOs. Thank God someone is keeping the light house lamp on. Far from being a sleeping issue the potential pollution of the Bay by GMOs is wide awake right at our door. What is almost as frightening as GMO field trials or commercial release here in the Bay is the lack of knowledge or ‘cut and paste’ understanding of this subject I have experienced in the past ten years when talking with punters, from the man on the street to politicians elected to do their best for us.
    I have a copy here tonight of a recent letter (June this year) from Dr Nick Smith (Min. of Environment) to Dr Kerry Grundy, chairman of the Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options, which states very clearly that the government does not intend to amend the HSNO Act to make those responsible for GMO field trials (or potential commercial release) liable for harm caused ( to local GE free producers (that’s organic AND conventional)) by breaches of containment (ie pollen flying over the fence) because it would “stifle innovation”. Which means that yours and my right to grow and eat food free of genetically engineered material is secondary to the whims of scientists in our Crown Research Institutes as well as the interests of their ‘silent’ overseas commercial partners. Which also means that liability rests with those who have been polluted and their councils. Central govt has washed its hands of the issue of protecting NZ’s biointegrity (no prizes for speculation re trade relations with the US, Europe and China).
    The good news is Dr Smith also says local bodies (possibly Regional as well as District) may restrict or even PREVENT the use of GMOs in their region under the Resource Management Act.
    There are a lot of producers and consumers in this country who have been enjoying GE free status and won’t know it until it is taken away. Unlike much other environmental damage GE contamination is irreversible. For anyone who doesn’t care whether they eat GE food or not check out last year’s statement on the consumption of GE food by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. For anyone who doesn’t think GE plants will sound a death knell for our biodiversity and the ‘clean green’ perception of our untampered-with cultivars please do your research on the now superweed status of GE canola in Australia, Canada and the US, and check out the continued growth of the organics (as in guaranteed GE free) industry despite the recession; there are hundreds of horror stories about the commercial application of this dodgy science (and let’s be honest here GE crops are all about intellectual property rights and corporate control of the world’s food supply: the contracts between farmers and biotech corporations are very clear- you are not allowed to save your seed, you must buy new seed every year from your corporate partner and “commercial application” is a euphemism for the insidious introduction of GE seed to unsuspecting farmers) but I’ll just refer you to easy access stuff like the documentaries “Food Inc”, or “The World According to Monsanto”, the July/August edition of Organic NZ magazine has three pretty good articles on it for those who are interested in the world they want to leave their kids.
    Meanwhile, for those who still have a fire in their bellies to fight for freedom of choice, please vote for those candidates who care for this land enough to stick their necks out and say it’s wrong to foist this technology on Hawke’s Bay and stay tuned for an opportunity to present the case for a permanent and legal GE free Hawke’s Bay to all our councils in the next year.
    We may not have much time left. There are signs that developers are looking beyond small field trials into the realm of large release (rye grass is in the wings at present as well as Scion’s current application to grow 4000 GE pine trees in Rotorua (submissions close 6th Oct)).
    Please wake up.

  4. The situation at Westshore Beach is unique. Erosion has been a problem for 30 odd years and so have the 80 odd reports from expert engineers. Each report and all the solutions are based on cyclical erosion which can be successfully controlled with nourishment. Early nourishment was a disaster due large amounts of muddy sand or sandy mud from the estuary but when gravel was eventually sourced from the Marine Parade, the operation was considered a success.

    Prior to 1970, sand and gravel transported (within the coastal drift) around the breakwater and across to Westshore to replenish the beach. This material now accumulates at the Port end of Marine Parade and is trucked 5km and placed along the upper beach at Westshore. This “pea shaped” gravel material is formed into a shingle seawall because it is unsuitable to be put directly into the beach system and incompatible as nourishment to replace the eroded sand. During storm swells the wall of shingle erodes into the wave zone (it becomes a form of nourishment) and rapidly transports in the northerly drift. After 4 or 5 moderate swells or one large swell, it is totally demolished and flattened causing flooding of the reserve.

    The material sourced from Marine Parade caused beach access problems on the seaward face otherwise nourishment during the 1990’s appeared to be an acceptable solution. This was because the combination of natural replenishment and imported nourishment was in balance with the loss of beach sand by erosion. However, due to breakwater extensions and the deepening of the shipping channels, replenishment was starved and the natural input of sand and gravel was progressively reduced. The Council failed to increase nourishment to counter the exponential effect from depletion of the inshore barrier and the cessation of natural sediment flows. This resulted in obvious inshore seabed erosion, a constant lowering of the beach gradient and severe erosion of the beachhead.

    The beachhead has now retreated into the remnants of the old beach road. This can be seen in a recent photo on the home page of my website. The severely damaged beachhead has simply been covered over with new nourishment material. This is a guaranteed problem for next year or sooner. Brian Quirk from the Surf Club has been presented with an option to seal up the front of the clubhouse and get access to the lifesaving equipment from the back of the building. Is this called risk management or reckless engineering?

    In July 2010, the NCC Consultants finally conceded that Westshore was in a permanent erosional state (Becas answers no.7, Q & A page on our website). The reports on Westshore erosion have cost in excess of $1M and because they all fail to consider this condition, all recommended solutions are invalid. This permanent state of unnatural erosion precludes any notion of building groynes, reefs, islands, etc to divert sand. Any notion to return of a sandy beach to Westshore belongs in the same archive.

    It is imperative nourishment is continued but will need to be substantially increased to approximately 30,000m3. This increase will go some way to replacing the once natural input of 18,000m3 per year (per Becas Report 2003). This quantity is required to counter the weak beachhead protection until someone realises that the hard engineering option is a “no brainer” with time running out. The fact that the Nourishment Contract for 2010 has been reduced by 24%, down to 10,500 m3 is nothing short of “reckless engineering”. As cartage contracting recovered from the economic downturn, it is no surprise that the price increased by 36%. The adjusted quantity is an indication that remedial work is determined by a budget allowance rather than a need to remedy. The fact that nourishment is grossly inadequate and the Marine Parade source is unsustainable will put greater pressure on future budgets.

    The current Council and the next will not be able to declare the next extreme swell as extraordinary. The return of extremely high seas is inevitable and the beach is simply not prepared and will not cope with such an event. If a severe swell similar to 1974 is inflicted on Westshore, then major damage can be expected. The risk of common and private property damage is real and each Councillor should be held directly responsible. The engineers have a “get out” clause but Councillors have an obligation to comply with the Local Governance Statement as adopted by the NCC.

    A rock seawall should be constructed on the current alignment or closely behind it. It could be a regular design but ideally the “rip rap” configuration to minimise backwash. Nothing will change regarding having or not having a beach in the future. Any form of recreational beach will be totally dependent on imported material. Permanent easy access at convenient points is an option with a solid seawall and that would be welcomed by citizens of the region and tourists to the district. So far, beach users have had to endure 23 years of the unsightly nourishment solution and a permanent solution is overdue.

    My concern has always been the problem and that suggested, 23 years of nourishment and the near total destruction of Westshore Beach, is not the solution. I got pulled into the debate on a better solution because the standard response was the experts are attending to it. I got dragged into discussing the cause because that had to be understood to appreciate the problem and the solution. We have engineers on huge salaries to come up with the final solution, so why are Councillors commenting on and rejecting my assessment without making an effort to do a little homework, research and maybe, a visit to the beach.

    With the all the information that is available to Councillors and candidates, there is no excuse for the outrageous recent comments on the purpose and suitability of continued nourishment. Candidates suggesting that a rock seawall will have more sand, less sand or no sand have simply not researched the Westshore problem. Here is small sample.

    Outrageous Comments by Council Candidates:
    (These statements are extracts from the Napier Mail 15/09/10)
    Council’s nourishment controls the level of erosion – Cr Boag
    There will be less erosion with re-profiling and landscaping – Cr Pipe
    Council works keeps infrastructure and housing safe – Cr Cocking
    A new breakwater preserves the surf break for surfers – Cr Cocking
    A seawall will scour and ensure the loss of a sandy beach – Cr Cocking
    Continued nourishment is the only way to protect homes – Cr Furlong
    If you don’t care to have a beach – go for a seawall – Cr Furlong
    The best option is a breakwater and continued nourishment – Cr Pipe
    We must always remember, erosion is part of a natural cycle – Cr Pipe
    The breakwater will provide a more even spread of wave energy – Cr White
    Nourishment since 1987 needs to continue in the long term – Cr White
    The most convincing document is the Paul Komar Report – Mr Gwynn

    Go to: to see 150 odd similar bizarre statements.

  5. Sorry..never received any survey from Larry Dallimore, or would have completed it.

    Also a bit concerned to see comments paraphrased on the Bostock Survey. I said that I don't personally know enough about the GM issue to give an informed answer and asked John Bostock to get in touch and talk me through what the Grower concerns were and the implications of the questions as posed to Councillors. As John was not able to do that…I answered from a 'what seems to make sense perspective' with no true comprehension of a specialised industry. (quite frankly Daft for anybody to pay any attention to!). I put it to John Bostock that it was for growers to take their concerns and their professional opinions to the Regional Council and explain the impact/potential of any issue facing their industry (as I've had to do regarding my own industry, and never expected a single Councillor to have specialist waste and recycling knowledge – because they don't).

    Particularly though I'm concerned regarding the question on ensuring the 'neighbours ability to pay for damages'…everybody has the right to earn a living (rich or poor) and if we first insist somebody's wallet is fat enough to fork out for the potential (not actual) damages then we would limit competition, innovation and growth. I can't support that.

    I also made it clear that there already exists the ability to take somebody through the Court system if they are liable for damages to another's property…including crops. It's not that I wasn't sure it could/couldn't be done…the mechanism already exists for it to be done. I don't believe we need to add any more beaurocratic duties to the Regional Council in this regard.

    I'd still like to hear from growers as to what the actual issues are as it's not my area of expertise. What I would note though is that Hugh Ritchie is the lone voice against some of the statements regarding GM crops and given that he is a signficant long time grower himself, then have to wonder if he is the one that has it right…and the rest of us, all without a doubt 'laypersons' only…need to talk with Hugh if John Bostock hasn't the time.

    Thanks and regards


    PS As a farmer myself…I have some interest in genuinely knowing the answers to the questions…and no interest in pretending I understand the issues raised by John Bostock at this time…I don't.

  6. To Robert.

    Your interest to be involved in the survey is much appreciated and I hope that I can give you an acceptable explanation. The Survey on Westshore was to find out if Candidates agreed with the current solution, if another remedy should be considered, and their understanding of a “hard engineering” permanent solution (such as the option of a seawall).

    Last year, we asked the three Napier constituent members and Cr McGregor (due to his advertised interest in the environment plus we were at Boys High at the same time) if they were interested in visiting the beach to see the damage after 23 years of nourishment. Cr Scott declined to even discuss it. I explained at length that my concerns were principally about the nourishment programme but she insisted that she could not get involved because it just may have something to do with the RC hearing. I advised her that I have no intention of getting involved in that process but as my elected representative on the HBRC, she emphatically declined.

    Cr McGregor did not make it but Alan Dick, Neil Kirton and the HBRC Engineer did. We had a very cordial and a most informative meeting with many issues discussed and explained. The end result was advice that Westshore is not really an issue for the HBRC and there was not a lot that the HBRC was able to do to address my concerns. I was told that I over estimated the HBRC engineers expertise and knowledge regarding coastal processes. That removed any opportunity for discussion on the misleading content within the consultant’s reports and any chance of explanation for the absolute dire condition of the beach.

    We found that the Napier constituents were unable to add anything to the debate plus they gave clear advice that Westshore erosion was a NCC issue. Further advice was the NCC proposes coastal work and the responsibility of the HBRC is to give consent, subject to policy. For that reason, we did not see any point in extending the Survey to other HBRC candidates when our elected representatives could not and would not contribute to what could become a major issue for Napier and the HB district.

    We disagree with their stance and will always consider Westshore Beach as a regional amenity and asset. I have to note here, when I offered opinion that the erosion of the beachhead at Westshore Beach is a direct result of inshore erosion, there was a noticeable silence and further discussion was guarded. The HBRC jurisdiction for the area below MHWS is apparently fairly addressed in the Paul Komar Report. Unfortunately, we have to get a practical engineer who puts less emphasis on what happened in the 1800’s to confirm the common belief on the cause of inshore erosion, hence the subject was not raised.

    Robert, if you have a viewpoint, an opinion or comment on Westshore erosion, then you are most welcome to go to our website and make a contribution.

  7. It is vital for Westshore,Napier, Hawkes Bay, tourists, yet to visit Napier. that the extensive study of the wider aspects of the erosion of Westshore, conducted by Larry Dallimore are urgently shared with some independent engineerng consultancy,( if only of respect to Larry Dallimore)

    I lived at Whakaririre Avenue for 42 years,(opp Larry Dallimore)

    Recently I invited Barry and Mark Sweet from Waimarama to meet with Larry Dallimore.

    Barry Sweet, a Napier Architect formerly lived at Westshore, was the designer of the successful erosion wall at Waimarama,(some 15 years previous.)

    We spent 2-3 hours with Larry Dallimore,still not time enough to ask Larry a valid question as to the cost of the sea wall, and how far will sea wall extend.?

    However over past years, having attended dozens of Westahore beach erosion meetings,(when experts from afar have always got it wrong)

    our 3 hour meeting with Larry Dallimore conviced us, even through the extensive consultative process so far, Larry Dallimore deserves local government respect,if only to ensure his questions to Beca's Consultants are treated with the respect they deserve.

    When listening to Larry Dallimore, I thought of the late Fred Northey, ship builder of Westshore, and "the waste of time meetings" we attended over past Westshore erosion meetings,

    Fred Northey, I feel this time, would have looked at Larry Dallimore to say, "You have got it right Larry' thus my call to the expertise of Baybuzz H.B readers , to ensure the rescource concent given to build a $4 million breakwater at Westshore is held up. In my oponion to just build a breakwater on its own, could be described as "2 fingers in the dyke" concerning the wider erosion of Westshore beach

  8. Eventhough this subject is now in the archives, it deserves an answer to the two questions presented by Pat Magill. The questions relate to the cost and optimum length of a seawall to protect common and private land at Westshore Beach.

    Firstly, I am sorry that it has taken time to respond. My concerns for Westshore Beach go back to 1987 when the NCC caused severe damage to the beach by placing sandy mud or muddy sand on an eroding beach and called it nourishment. This mainly organic pug or sludge material was used to replace fine sand lost in the natural northerly coastal drift. My concerns since early last year, arose from the NCC announcement that a $4M project was planned to address less than 10% of beach erosion when there is a 3 km stretch of erosion that needs attention. Not only was the proposed breakwater an unnecessary option to protect land, it is problematic. The purpose of the backshore re-profiling was misleading and the new sandy beach is not feasible in the form being promoted. After establishing the problem of severe beach erosion without refute from the engineers, I was unwillingly drawn into offering my opinion on the cause which then progressed to being asked for a suggested solution.

    In my opinion, and now that the beach is confirmed as being in a permanent state of erosion, the long term solution is an affordable rock seawall utilising the most common and practical design elements. In the absence of replenishment sand, many old, new or fancy options are simply not suitable or sustainable.

    The traditional basic rock seawall will cost between $4M – $6M and an ideal “Rip Rap” seawall is approximately $7M – $10M. A “rip rap” seawall will reduce backwash erosion with an option to maintain a form of recreational beach with imported beach gravel/sand. Other options include a path/cycleway with night lighting, wave deflector for extreme seas, permanent access to the beach area and sand retaining groynes to form safe swimming beaches. This wall will have minimal annual maintenance with permanent long term property protection. The Consultants have estimated 60 tonnes per meter and $100/t delivered. The quantity for a seaward face armouring is overstated for a beach in the lee of a headland and the rate per tonne is based on rock sourced from New Plymouth and Tauranga. The engineers estimate in the Report of 2003 is up to $80.0M which is preposterous and reflects the inappropriate parameters used in the estimate.

    The NCC project costing about $4.0 – $4.5M, includes an intrusive breakwater that covers 25% of Rangitira Reef plus a sandy beach which destroys the inner reef with a sandy beach. The engineers have confirmed that it is unnecessary to protect property but is still required to address the severe erosion caused by an earlier NCC seawall constructed in 1997. The project includes re-profiling that is being promoted to increase the value of the backshore as an amenity but is in fact a backstop for the inevitable failure of continued nourishment. This breakwater will increase protection for less than 10% of Westshore Beach and continuance of the nourishment programme for the balance will expose the beachhead to further irreparable erosion. The $150 – $200,000 annual nourishment expense is to continue as a long term solution. This is likely to be subject to the establishment of an alternative nourishment source as Pacific Beach becomes unsustainable.

    A seawall (hard engineering protection parallel to the shoreline) must start from a headland or a beach in accretion and extend to within the next beach in accretion. The stopping of a seawall before this point produces what is called “an end effect” where waves will produce an eddy effect and scour out the leeward end of the wall. Sometimes nourishment at the end is performed but this requirement is dependent on the extent of nourishment placed at southern sections in front of the seawall for recreational beaches. The engineers measure 2.85 kms so I’m saying 3.0kms would be adequate and this point is obvious beyond the end of the Esplanade.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.