Ministry of Works Files – Coromandel

The Ministry of Works and Development was the principal organisation carrying out the physical, engineering and environmental investigations for many government departments before it was disbanded in the 1980s. Consequently, the Ministry of Works files contain a wealth of environmental information about the condition of our harbours, coastlines and waterways, both as they were originally, and as they were modified during settlement. To fully understand these files they need to be read in conjunction with information from other Government Organisations, in order to place the investigations into context. For example the development of the West Coast mobile sand dune problems and the subsequent attempts to stabilise them needs to be studied in conjunction with the Maori Affairs Department and the Department of Lands and Survey files. Both of these departments were involved in financing sand stabilisation projects. Eventually the work of sand dune conservation, (formerly done by the Agriculture Department and then by the Ministry of Works Soil Conservators (Water and Soil Division) after 1958), was passed on to the New Zealand Forest Service; who took control of nearly all exotic forest planting and management together with some erosion control functions where pine forests were involved. From 1958 onwards the Ministry of Works Water and Soil Division was the service provider for NWASCA (National Water and Soil Conservation Authority) and SC&RCC (Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council), which authorised the funding for the many soil conservation activities throughout the country. All projects submitted for funding to the Authority by the various Catchment Authorities were examined by members of the Ministry of Works Water and Soil Division to ensure they were soundly based, before funding was approved. Thus, as the adviser to other government departments and NWASCA, the Ministry of Works played a pivotal role in land development and conservation throughout its existence. These files as a result contain a wealth of historical information about; land development, flood control schemes and soil conservation in New Zealand. Because of their extensive engineering knowledge, the Ministry of Works and Development (MWD) reviewed various engineering structures such as wharf construction, reclamations and coastal aggregate mining licenses for the Marine Department and later the Ministry of Transport. From the early 1970s, the Hauraki Catchment Board was beginning to include Coromandel County within its operational district. Thus from this date the Hauraki Catchment Board have file data relevant to the northern part of the Peninsula. Purpose: See data set abstract below

7/8 Harbour and Marine Works Coromandel Wharf and Harbour, 1920-1946. June 1920: Coromandel County asks for funds to repair wharf. The County suggested £500 for concreting around piles. August 1920: the Resident Engineer (RE) Paeroa described the wharf as being 12'6"(3.8 m) wide, 240' (73 m) long and supported by 21 piers of three piles each at 12' (3.6 m) centres. Eight bays were built 1906, seven bays were built 1909 and an additional five bays were built 1912. The superstructure and the deck were built of Kauri in good condition and at the time were expected to last another 10 years with slight repairs. It was of light construction and not suitable for heavy loads. Many of the piles, lower wales and braces had been attacked by toredo worm but some were untouched. Summarised as - 8 piles completely eaten through; 8 piles half eaten through; 34 piles partly eaten through; and 13 piles in good condition. The wharf repairs were considered by the RE Paeroa as being very extensive and would cost of £800 and therefore considered that a new wharf at Preece’s Point would be a better investment. The RE's recommendation was for £5,000 to be sought for a new wharf of reinforced concrete in that year's estimate. Outcome of this suggestion not recorded. February 1925: Coromandel County Council raised the idea of government assistance for dredging the approach to Coromandel wharf, as the wharf was dry at low tide. The District Engineer asked for the government to consider 1. whether would it be more economical to extend the wharf to deeper water rather than dredging; 2. would the channel silt up again if dredged, and if so what would be the cost of maintenance; and 3. was there a suitable dredge likely to be available. The Head Office Wellington also asked if there was sufficient wharf traffic to justify the wharf as trade had dropped off since the mining days. (Auckland PW file 12/110). 19 May 1925: RE Paeroa reports that the 240' (73 m) long wharf was located on the end of a 1030' (313 m) mole. A summary of the annual trade of the port is as given as: Inwards goods 1820 tons, outwards goods 900 tons, and 1000 passengers in each direction. Vessels could only use the wharf one hour before and three quarters of an hour after a neap high tide. Three alternative actions were presented to improve the wharf: (a)Extend the mole to 1580' (481 m) and build a 140' (43 m) long wharf on the end. This would allow working 2½ hours either side of high tide. Cost £14,800. (b) Building a new wharf 140' (43 m) long at the end of the present wharf then dredging a channel and connecting it to the mole. Cost £7,600 plus £150 annual dredging. (c) Build a wharf at Preece's Point at a cost of £10,400. The report concluded that the amount of trade done by the wharf was too small to justify any improvements. The plan number is Paeroa drawing 796. 15 May 1928: Minister visited Coromandel and asked for a report on the wharf and the costs. Plan of alternatives in file. 12 April 1929: Report on the condition of the wharf reiterates the observations of earlier reports. 15 May 1929: Funds were made available for a bathymetric survey of the existing and the proposed wharf location at Preece's Point. 3 September 1929: The Coromandel Wharf report includes a plan number Paeroa 1267 also recorded as ADO 10701 Coromandel Harbour (Not in file). A comparison of these soundings with the 1901 chart suggests that there has been scour in the vicinity of the existing wharf. September 1933: Report by Consulting Engineers Mandeno, Lee and Brown noted that Mc Gregor Bay had lost approximately 2' (0.6 m) depth over the last 30 years due to silting. Their report suggests there was an error of 2' (0.6 m) in the Public Works survey. The report suggests that only Preece's Point wharf was feasible as a long term site. The Public Works comments suggest that the extra depth of water that could be obtained could not be financially justified given the volume of trade going across the wharf at present. The county then presented a proposal to build an embankment across Mc Gregor Bay to Preece's Point and to reclaim the land behind the embankment. The embankment was to act as access road to the proposed new wharf. The land behind the embankment was to become an airfield. This proposal was not supported by the RE Paeroa. April 1937: The Coromandel Timber Company Applied for permission to build a jetty to export timber to Auckland, as the existing wharf could not withstand timber traffic. The location was about seven chains (140 m) on the Coromandel side of the wharf. December 1938: A note to the Northern Steamship Company requesting the specifications of vessels used as they were investigating constructing an all tide shipping channel for Coromandel Township up the Whangarahi stream channel. 30 May 1939: A report on the proposal to dredge a channel up the Whangarahi to the vicinity of Furey's Bridge commented on the perceived problems of sedimentation. This proposal was turned down because of the maintenance costs and was followed by a recommendation to up-grade a dredged channel to the existing wharf. August 1943: Mr Benham, County Engineer wrote a report on the harbour and wharf facilities. His proposal was for a passenger jetty to deep water and a freight wharf at the existing facility. There was no further progress of this proposition. February 1945: Andrew Murray, Consulting Engineer reported to Council. This report is confined to repairing the outer end of the wharf for passenger traffic and upgrading the existing freight section. All earlier references to dredging a new channel have been removed from this report. July 1945: Andrew Murray Consulting Engineer reported on extending the mole out to 4' depth at low water on spring tide. He suggested that recent measurements indicated that the mole would need to be lengthened 520 yards (475m) to get the required depth. Referring to past reports which suggested up to 830 yards would be required, Murray concluded the length of 570 yards (521 m) was necessary in 1945. It would require 35,000 yd3 (26,800 m3) of fill and rock outer protection. The total cost estimate was £20,000. The structure was to be a solid groyne across the mud flats. 7/1 Harbour and Marine Works Annual Reports 1931-1945. January 1932: Rice grass Spartina Townsendii. A brief summary of discovery and its uses. Notes on planting or sowing seed. Lists experts who understand the plant. It was considered that the plant could never become a problem because of its agricultural value for grazing and hay making. The report was compiled by Mr. W. H. Hayes, Glen Eden Auckland. A land owner proposed to reclaim 294 acres of mud flats in Manaia Harbour using Spartina. Notes reference .Allen, H.H., 1929. Journal of Agriculture. Vol. XXXIX No.5. This article describes the growth pattern of Spartina planted in the Manawatu estuary. This is one of three reports on the plant. 7/8 Harbour and Marine Works - Coromandel Wharf and Harbour 1946-1961. This file starts with a three month tidal record from Coromandel Wharf (December 1946 - May 1947). Manual observations of high water were recorded each day, including wind direction and force. January 1948: Treasury approved the spending of £20,000 for the wharf extension from 20 to 24 chains (400-480m), with a shed 40' x 20'(12 m x 6 m) and a turning area for vehicles. The County share was £10,000. County agreed November 1948 to these conditions with Andrew Murray Consulting Engineer to do the design work. May 1949: Plans Paeroa 2582 show the results of borings in the Coromandel Harbour. These results were to be used to design the wharf foundations. In July 1949 there was a revision of costs to a figure of £46,000 (Hamilton file 6/107). Wellington office (file 63/187) questioned the justification for spending £46,000 for a small gain in water depth and suggested to Hamilton that further investigation of costs and possibly an alternative site that gave access to deeper water would be a more acceptable. March 1950: County Council decided to go for repairing the existing shed and then dredge a channel to the wharf. The decision was to not further consider Preece's Point (it was considered too exposed), or the mole extensions (these were too expensive). August - October 1950: there were a number of local meetings discussing the merits of the proposed wharf locations. At a Chamber of Commerce meeting Mr Strongman of Strongman Shipping suggested another site; Jacks Point, which he thought would be good as the water depth was satisfactory for the full tide cycle. The chamber decided to ask Mr Murray to comment on Mr Strongman's suggestion. The following is a summary of the development of the Coromandel Wharf and plans to improve the structure presumably by the RE Paeroa. The Reynolds Report 1897: There is no copy of this on file but there is a tracing carried out by F. Bayfield 6/8/1920 and recorded as plan Paeroa 305. Apparently the work was in two parts: (a) Mole construction of 2,350 ft (716 m), with a 300 ft (91 m) wharf at the end to reach the half fathom mark. This option also included a 35 chain (740 m) diversion of Driving Creek to the LWOST mark in the general direction of Preece's Point. (b) Future works were for the wharf to be extended by approximately 500 ft (152 m), a dredged channel at 8' (2.4 m) below LWOST extending for some 50 chains (1,000 m) out from the end of the wharf extension. A fascined wall about 5 ft (1.5 m) high for about two thirds of the length of the channel on the eastern side and a half tide wall about 55 chains (1,100 m) in length to the west of the dredged channel. Mr Reynolds envisaged work on a very large scale. His recommendations were made during the halcyon days of Coromandel. Mr Reynolds indicated that the LWOST. mark was a few chains beyond the end of the existing wharf, which was confirmed by the Admiralty survey of 1901. This mark is somewhat further out today. This seems to substantiate that shipping at Coromandel has always had to contend with working the port on the tides. T.M. Ball 1920: owing to the bad state of the existing wharf Mr Ball recommended building a concrete wharf at Preece's Point, but this was not proceeded with. L. May, 1925: suggested three schemes: (a) Extending the mole 580 ft (177 m) to reach a depth of 2 ft (0.61 m) LWOST. and building a wharf 140 ft (43 m) long at the end. Estimated cost was £14,800. This is qualified by stating that, if shoaling should continue it might be necessary to run a half tide wall across the harbour from the opposite side, a distance of 30-40 chains (600-800 m). Annual finance charges are stated as £1,332. (b) Building a new wharf 140 ft (43 m) long at the end of the existing wharf and dredging a channel (depth not stated) to connect with the present mole. Estimated cost £7,600; but this is qualified by stating that maintenance dredging would be required about every 5 years, at a cost of £150 per annum. Annual finance charges stated as £844 which includes £150 for dredging. (c) Building a new wharf at Preece's Point (supporting Mr Ball's recommendation of 1920), but with a revised estimate of £10,400. Annual finance charges stated as £876. Mr May concluded: "The obvious conclusion is that the amount of trade offering at the port is insufficient to justify harbour improvements. I would recommend that the County Council be pressed into keeping the existing wharf in good repair". A.P. Grant File PW7/8 April 1929 brought Mr May's proposals up to date: (a) Extend the mole 1,580 ft (480 m) and build a wharf 140 ft (43 m) long; cost £18,000, annual finance fee £1,520. (b) Construct wharf at present site and dredge approach channel. No depth stated for channel. "This requires a channel to be dredge of approximately 25 chains (500 m) in length and this channel will require maintenance dredging. The spoil to be dredged is apparently compacted sand and shell with mud and would be reasonably stable. There is little silt in the vicinity and as a consequence shoaling should be exceedingly slow.” Cost £7,200. Annual finance £806 which included annual maintenance dredging of £150. (c) New wharf at Preece's Point. The mole was to be 5 chains (100 m) in length so boats could work above half tide. Cost £11,000 with an annual finance fee of £1,475, which includes £425 for extra road haulage and £120 for road maintenance. Mr Grant's recommendation was: "In the event of a new wharf being constructed I would certainly recommend scheme (b)." Grant September File PW7/8 1929: After carrying out a bathymetric survey said that a comparison with 1901 survey the harbour has deepened (Paeroa plan 1267). This brought his earlier estimates up to date. (a) Extend the mole and build a wharf was then estimated at £16,500 with annual finance charges of £1,400. (b) Construct a wharf at present site and dredge approach channel. At this stage Grant stated the channel as 100 ft (30 m) wide and 6 ft (1.8 m) below low water mark. Estimated cost £9,000 and finance charges of £1,020. (c) New wharf at Preece's Point £11,000, (unaltered) with annual finance charges of £1,305. Grants conclusion was that they should construct a wharf at the present site and dredge a channel. Grant amended costs for plan (b) in September 1929 to £10,000 with annual charges of £1,150. Mr F. S. Dyson file PW12/110(Auckland) October 1929: sent memo to Council Asking if the Council recommending plan (b). He then asked (1) Did the Council agree to adopt plan (b) in its entirety or exclusive of dredging of the channel. (2) If the Council decided to proceed, it would be necessary to submit to the PW Department plans and estimates together with a formal application for a subsidy on a £1 for £1 basis. This is the first mention of a subsidy rate for wharf reconstruction (at this point the Wharf account was in credit by £1,500). January 1933: Grant reported that there was no unanimous opinion in Coromandel as to what wharf facilities and the depth of water required. The Coromandel County Council had not yet considered the position nor indicated its willingness to make the accumulated wharf monies available. March 1933: the right Honourable J.G. Coates said the government would give a £1 for £1 subsidy to the value of £2,000 for the construction of a new wharf. Mandeno, Lee and Brown Engineers mid-1933: reported that there was 2 ft less water than indicated on the earlier plans (Paeroa 1267). They also were not in favour of a dredged channel across McGregor Bay as it would be quickly in filled. They then presented a number of estimates for extending the mole by 1,500 ft (460 m), 2,000 ft (610 m) and 2,500 ft (760 m). The latter would give a depth of 4 feet (1.2 m) at low water. He concluded that the Preece's Point site was the most cost effective choice at a cost of £16,640. Future work could include a small amount of dredging to deep water if necessary. Alternatively the Council could rebuild the existing wharf and dredging a limited depth channel in what they considered stable dredging sediments. A comment on the file, possibly Grants, suggests renewal at the present site the most economic option. D.R. Williams May 1939: Suggests a dredged channel 80 chains (1,600 m) long x 66 feet (20 m) wide from LWST up the Whangarahi Creek up to Furey's bridge. The cost was estimated as £10,500 with maintenance dredging of £350 per annum. Then stated that these costs were too high for the Council funds and therefore plan (b) was the best option. Suggested the dredging of a pilot channel to the existing wharf for £2,300. The advent of WW2 prevented any further progress on the wharf. Andrew Murray, Consulting Engineer April 1945: Reviewed earlier reports and updated costs then presented the original three plans (a), (b), and (c) to the Council for them to make the decision as to which they would recommend. M. J. Thomas September 1945: Concluded that scheme (a) was the best option though most costly in the short term and that scheme (b) was the cheapest in the short term but dredging costs were likely to make it very expensive long term. He was prepared to recommend Murray's alternative plan which was a modification of scheme (b). R. H. Parkwood Auckland File PW12/110 June 1947: Commented that the depth of the dredged channel could increase from 3 ft to 4 ft (1.0-1.2 m) through propeller action. Captain Strongman June 1947: He suggested that if the channel was aligned at 231o true the current would help carry away sediment stirred up by propellers. See O. G. Thornton file 6/107 July 1949: for mole extension of 22 chains (440 m), wharf and shed cost £46,000. E. M. C. Wellington file PW 63/187 of August 1949 for overall observations. O. G. Thornton Auckland file 6/107 November 1949: Covers overall observations and suggestions to County Council. Marine Engineer file PW 63/187 (Head Office) January 1950 covers particular observations. Secretary of Marine file M 4/215 March 1950 covers particular observations. Also newspaper clippings hold relevant information. This summary is accompanied by two maps of the proposed wharf extensions. In 1952 the local Chamber of Commerce began asking Council for a decision on the wharf. They envisaged a small boat harbour with settlers from Auckland retiring in the area. They also saw that if road transport increased then the wharfage income could reduce significantly because of fewer passengers and freight. They proposed the formation of a separate Harbour Board to run the wharf and local subdivisions of Kingston and Wynyardton. The key barrier to the wharf development related to the problem of the stability of the mud when dredged. The economics of the present wharf with an income of £800 annually could not sustain an expensive development with on-going dredging costs. A report to the Commissioner of Works vetoed the present development proposals and suggested just the repairs to the existing structure. This structure was usable for the hour each side of high water. Also there was a suggestion of a trial dredging exercise to see if the mud was stable enough to maintain a channel. The file then contains a report that summarises the history of the wharf investigations and also mentions the possibility of the government investing the abandoned lands in the Council. The income from the abandoned lands would provide additional income for the reconstruction of the wharf. Mr Strongman of the local shipping company offered to dredge a trial channel to the wharf at a cost of £1,000 at his own expense. If it was a success then he would ask for the other part of the estimated cost to be paid to him. If the dredged channel failed then he would stand the cost. April 1953 Hamilton File PW 6/138: Advising the RE Paeroa that Head Office has approved the rebuilding of the existing wharf to be followed by the construction of a dredged channel. July 1954: newspaper cuttings show there were a number of problems with the wharf plans and the progress was delayed while sorting these out. Mr Strongman was also having problems with the dredging as the type of dredge first employed was unsatisfactory and a Strongman dredge had to be fitted to his barge before progress could be made. September 1954: Mr Strongman commented that the mud had proven much harder than anticipated and was impregnated with gravel. He had to place teeth on the grab so it would dig into the substrate. He had constructed a series of holes over 2.5 chains (50 m) and intended to link these when he had installed an engine on his barge. There were some discrepancies between the widths of the channel. Andrew Murray was of the opinion that the channel was to be 120 ft (36.5 m) wide at the top and 60 ft (18 m) wide at the bottom, while Mr Strongman was dredging 90 ft (27 m) wide at the top and believed that the mud was so compact that the channel sides would remain vertical. Andrew Murray would not start construction of the wharf till the dredged channel was near completion. June 1955: a newspaper cutting states that the sea link with the Coromandel and Great Barrier Island is to be cut in favour of an air link. At this stage Mr Strongman had removed the dredging equipment from the channel. The Council together with Andrew Murray were requesting information of Mr Strongman if he was going to complete the dredging job. August 1955: a letter from the County states that the dredging of the channel is not possible and therefore does it mean the subsidy is still available to build the wharf. The RE Paeroa made the comment that with the departure of the existing ship and the problematical replacement perhaps the County should review the probable changes to trade at the wharf. The Northern Shipping Company announced that it would commence a service to Tryphena on Great Barrier to replace the service lost from the Strongman Shipping Company's MV Coromandel. They also stated that they were not interested in the Coromandel shipping trade. November 1955 Hamilton file 6/138: Notes that the dredging has been abandoned because of the difficulty in removing the compacted sediment. The sediment was sufficiently solid to maintain vertical sides. However there was an influx of silt carried down by the stream. Works Hamilton required confirmation that the shipping would continue using a hired vessel until Strongman Shipping had the new vessel constructed. However Works thought that a smaller wharf could be built if the trade decreased in the future. January 1956: Newspaper clipping that the new Strongman Shipping Company's boat is being built and notes the problems people of Coromandel are experiencing with the reduced service at present. April 1956: the County Council notify Works Paeroa that shipping is being resumed and that a new bi-weekly passenger and cargo service is commencing with the firm Hauraki Gulf Excursions Ltd. Also noted was at Easter that 75 visiting pleasure craft had been counted using the wharf. August 1956: Coromandel Domain Board requests to take 250-300 yds3 (190-230 m3) of silt and gravel from Kapenga Creek to construct a camping ground by reclaiming part of the reserve. The proposal would also relieve flooding problems along Hauraki Road. May 1957: A proposal to build a jetty that would serve small boats at all stages of the tide was received by the County council from a local group of boat owners and businessmen. Council wanted to know if this extension could be included in the present building plan. June 1957: The Coromandel Chamber of Commerce supported an application by Sargents Transport to link up with an Auckland carrier and provide a road freight service to Coromandel. Road Transport Authority declined to hear the application as it linked two transport firms and was considered to violate the 30 mile limit that road transport was allowed. October 1957: Coromandel County Council proposed to ask the Ministry of Works and the Marine Department to investigate the feasibility of using the Te Kouma wharf as a suitable wharf for Coromandel. December 1957: Local rate payers resolved at a meeting that the existing wharf be continued and that the Te Kouma option be dropped. October 1957: The Chairman of Coromandel County wrote to the senior engineer, Paeroa about the wharf problem. The proposed improvements to the existing wharf required dredging before it would be useful. He found that if the mole was extended 120 feet (36 m) there would only be 1 ft (0.3 m) of water depth gained and this would only be at high tide. The dredging option will cost £10,500 with no estimate of maintenance. This was beyond council funding. The County engineer looked at Te Kouma site and found that the existing money together with £2,500 could develop the Te Kouma site for an all tide wharf. The difference in distance is 1.25 miles from Coromandel to the existing wharf and 4.75 miles to Te Kouma. However the all tide port would mean that freight and passengers would be able to use the wharf during daylight hours unlike at present. Also tourist operators had ceased to visit because of the availability of berthage at the existing wharf due to insufficient water depth. Two plans on file: one showing the existing wharf with land contours, the second of the proposed Te Kouma wharf. November 1949 File 6/107: Letter from Hamilton to the Engineer in Chief stating that the maintenance dredging costs associated with all the dredging proposals with the wharf at its present site or up the channel to Fureys corner were beyond the finances of the Council. The cost of extending the mole was likewise beyond the Council to finance and maintain. Also the probable loss of passengers to improving road transport makes the future use of the wharf questionable. Preece’s Point and Long Bay sites were examined but considered too exposed. However by January 1958 the RE Paeroa was recommending that the dredging programme be adopted. Alternatively if dredging was not viable then the Te Kouma site was the next best option. Further investigations in 1958 indicated there was insufficient trade to justify further expenditure on the wharf beyond a smaller shed and adequate landing facilities. April 1959: James and North Ltd put up a proposal for a 900 ft (275 m) long Jetty extending from the existing wharf to accommodate passenger traffic. July 1959 Tauranga file 16/33/9: The RE Tauranga commented on the finances of the proposed wharf with the jetty saying that nothing can be finalised until final plans have been approve and then subsidies can be assessed. February 1960 Hamilton File 6/138: advises that the whole wharf renewal proposal will have to be re-examined in light of the present trade and finance and a new submission be sent to the Minister. November 1960: A comparison of soundings taken in 1947 and 1960 show no appreciable deposition in the wharf area. January 1961: Note that shipping trade has fallen appreciably and therefore the wharf construction may not be justified. December 1961: a new and revised plan for the wharf was submitted with comments that the idea of dredging was also being considered. December 1961: North Swarbrick and Mills (consulting engineers) presented a plan for the wharf development. The wharf and shed were being improved and the proposal then said that a dredged channel was necessary to make this facility more useful. The dredging included a swinging basin (map in file). February 1963: A Mr Sinclair was found to have illegally reclaimed land on Long Bay, Coromandel Harbour. Most of the reclamation was removed by March after a visit by Ministry of Works Engineers. March 1963: The new wharf buildings are completed but full use of the shed cannot be made until dredging completed. May 1963: Sinclair undertakes to remove the remains of his reclamation from Long Bay. June 1963: the reclamation was inspected and all remains had been removed. However there was erosion taking place at the northern end of the beach that was threatening the area behind the former coast line. After a visit by a Marine Department official Mr Sinclair was given the OK to reposition some rocks to protect the threatened area. September 1963: The Coromandel Yacht Club applies to have a ramp built on the wharf mole to launch "P" class yachts. This was approved December 1963 plan MD 11639. January 1964: Mr G. F. Richardson applies for a permit to erect a slipway in Long Bay. Site inspected in February and no objections were raised. The wharf improvements costs increased between 1963 and 1965 and a new subsidy was approved to complete the dredging of the channel. June 1965 Wellington file 63/215: Notes an article in the Thames Star in May discussing the siltation taking place in the dredged channel. A Councillor Mr H. Brown claimed that the Council had favoured a 900 ft jetty and that the Marine department had been advised of earlier dredging failures. The RE Paeroa replied that the previous attempt at dredging was by Mr Strongman, who dug a vertical channel and piled the sediment adjacent. This resulted in the channel infilling and Mr Strongman concluding that dredging was not an option. Consultants and Works engineers had both recommended dredging with gently sloping sides to the channel. The present source of the infilling sediment was unknown. June 1965 file Hamilton 6/138: letter to Wellington states that the channel had filled in by an average of 2 ft. Maximum infill in the turning basin and near the wharf with lesser amounts further seawards. The infilling material was a fine loose silt which the County engineer suggested was drifting in from the south west while the RE Paeroa thought it was from the batters being too steep when cut (1 in 4). RE was given the job of finding out which was the case. November 1965: RE Paeroa reports that the post construction echo soundings were not well done and could not be used for comparison with present conditions. However he said that sedimentation had taken place up to 3 ft near the wharf to zero near the main channel. There is no known source for this material. The harbour bottom had been of a similar depth since 1901 and the material infilling the channel was of a different colour and texture to the material making up the bay floor. It was not considered possible that the Whangarahi Stream could supply such material. However the siltation was probably exacerbated by a lack of vessels using the wharf. Only two ships per week were using the wharf not sufficient to cause scour of the loose material. RE suggested pegs be put into the harbour and marked with the present level and after six months be re measured to see if there was a shallow layer of mobile sand moving around the harbour but not accumulating in one area. March 1967 Marine Department file M4/215: R. A. Simpson Marine works engineer wrote to the Secretary of Marine summarising the problems with the Coromandel Wharf and the fact that there were no ships visiting the wharf now or in the foreseeable future. He suggested that the County concentrate of small local jetties that would cater for tourist trade and that roads and signage be made to improve tourist attendance in the town. November 1967: A deputation form Coromandel County Council visited the Minister of Marine in Wellington to get Ministry of Works to carry out a survey of Coromandel Harbour. 7/2 Harbour and Marine Works: Removal of sand Coromandel Peninsula. 1958-1970 In the 1950s the Lands and Survey Department was responsible for all Crown land and this included river and stream beds. Ministry of Works and the local Count Councils often used shingle from local streams for roading material. To simplify licensing these activities and Lands and Survey issued a blanket licence to Ministry of works to take shingle from all rivers and Streams. The Ministry of Works then issued permits to the County Councils and sent in a quarterly return to the Lands and Survey Department. Much of the contents of this file contains these returns from the different areas of the Coromandel Peninsula and the collated summaries sent to the Lands and Survey Department. August 1951: There several memos referring to illegal taking of sand and shingle from beaches. Associated files Paeroa 24/256, SH39/1/1 and SH72/25/2C/6 also Paeroa 24/1256 October to December 1960. November 1963: Coromandel County applied to take 6,000 yds3 (4,580 m3) from the road reserve and the stream channel at Papa Aroha for local road construction. The Council application refers to the 1950 Rabone Report to support the application. May 1964: A complaint that shingle removal from the Papa Aroha Stream was causing erosion of Mc Coll's property south of the stream mouth. The inspecting engineer rejected these claims. June 1965: Ministry of Works was asked to investigate the silting up of the Coromandel Harbour channel. June 1965: The Ministry of Works was taking shingle from two beaches south of the Otakeo Stream (Kereta NZMG:E2727335 N6474350). There was a complaint that the shingle removal would have a detrimental effect on two recreational beaches nearby. December 1965: There was an application to remove small amounts of shingle from Waitete Bay. There was some local opposition. However permits were issued for locals to take some shingle for local access tracks. There was no commercial extraction allowed. April 1966: Approval for 100 yds3 (77 m3) from above high water at Waitete Bay. May 1966: Papa Aroha the county was applying for a permit to remove shingle for roading purposes. The County Engineer thought that the sediment movement was from south to north and that shingle removal in 1964 had caused significant retreat of the southern shoreline. The application was for removal of material in the Papa Aroha Stream bed behind the beach. April 1967: Mr Keegan (Ministry of Works) suggests in a report that no shingle should be removed from the beach as it has continued to erode the flats to the south of the stream. He suggests that instead that the stream bed should be mined to within 2 chain (40 m) of the beach. April 1967: There was an application to remove gravel from the Whangarahi Stream, Coromandel. This stream periodically flooded and the shingle removal was a means of keeping the channel open to the harbour to prevent flooding of the adjacent farm land. June 1967: Coromandel County applied to take shingle from numerous streams north of Coromandel Township. Shingle removal from the Whangarahi Stream was approved to aid flood control. The amount of shingle to be taken was to be limited by the amount washed downstream. August 1967: Removal of shingle Papa Aroha leads to complaints from the public about erosion. As a result all shingle removal was restricted to the stream two chains (40 m) upstream from the mouth on the beach. 7/2 Harbour and Marine Works: Removal of sand Coromandel Peninsula. Volume II 1970-1974. Note: This file contains 3 monthly returns of material taken from beaches and streams in the Coromandel Peninsula and sent to the Lands and Survey Department who was responsible for Crown Land. This summary does not include these returns and anyone wanting to know where and when material was taken will need to consult these files at Archives NZ. October 1971: Coromandel County applied for permits to take material from a number of beaches and streams, specifically Papa Aroha Creek, Goat Bay, Whangarahi Stream, Okahutahi Stream (Sandy Bay), and the Urarimu Stream at Melsops Crossing. A total of 9,760 yds3 (7,562 m3) of material was applied for. At the same time Parry Brothers Ltd applied for 3,000 yds3 (2,294 m3) from the entrance to Whangapoua Harbour and Mr Simpson of Whitianga applied for 500 yds3 (382 m3) from Kuaotunu beach. January 1972: An application for 40 yds3 (31m3) from Papa Aroha Stream, but no detail given of applicant. Most likely County Council. Map references and photographs were stored in folder 78 Paeroa Draughting Room. 7/2 Harbour and Marine Works: Removal of sand Coromandel Peninsula. Volume III 1974-1976. February 1974: Private application to remove 20 yds3 of sand (15 m3) from Papa Aroha. The request was directed to Melsop’s Crossing (Urarimu Stream). April 1974: A request was made to take 80 yds3 (61 m3) from Amodeo Bay. Outcome not recorded. May 1974: The Lands and Survey Department lost control of sand mining in rivers and beaches to the Mines Department. Control of sand removal now came under the Mines Act 1970. Ministry of Works now told that would have to apply to the Mines Department for a blanket approval to take sand and shingle from the catchments of the Peninsula. This was a continuation of the system run by the Lands and Survey Department. Ministry of Works then issued permits to remove material to local bodies and contractors. May 1974: Ministry of Works were told by the Mines Department that shingle removal from streams etc. was better dealt with under the Lands Act 1948 and that the Lands and Survey should control such licences. November 1975: Papa Aroha Beach. The inspector recommended that the extraction be limited to 1,000m3 per year as there was no knowledge of the source of the sediment. June 1976: Kereta Bay approval was given to remove 25 m3/ yr. October 1976: Papa Aroha Beach was to be closed to all removal with the exception of TCDC. 7/2 Harbour and Marine Works: Removal of sand Coromandel Peninsula. Volume IV 1977–1981. February 1977: The Ministry of Transport instigated a requirement that the local Catchment Authority would have to be involved in approval of any sand mining operations. June 1977: Ministry of Transport asked the Ministry of Works if there were any other beaches that were suitable for mining out of the public eye. March 1978: The Hauraki Catchment Board and Ministry of Works agree to work together on matters of coastal sand extraction. June 1978: The Thames Valley Gazette ran an article that reviewed present sand mining permits. Included was a report by R.W. Harris, on "Sand and Shingle Extraction from Coromandel Beaches and its Relation to Coastal Erosion" The report concludes that the existing licences should be declined. 7/21 Harbour and Marine Works: Buffalo Beach Whitianga. 1924-1979. October 1957: The County was concerned about sea erosion at Oamaru Bay (Papa Aroha). There are no further details. 12/1 Harbours and foreshores: Harbour and river works general 1926-1937: July 1930: Regulations for the reclamation of mudflats for agricultural and pastoral purposes passed and gazette May 1930. File 6/138. Coromandel Wharf. File starts from 1944. Associated files are: Works (Paeroa) 7/8 Marine Dept 13/881. The file starts with a request for information about the condition of the Coromandel Wharf (Auckland file PW12/110 (important)). In April 1945 Andrew Murray (Civil Engineer) requested to draw up plans for a road from Sandy Bay to Stony Bay. The file then refers to a report (dated 1939) on the condition of the wharf (Marine Dept file M/3/13/688). Andrew Murray proposed an expensive scheme that involved dredging a channel from shallow to deep water and rebuilding the wharf which had become unsafe. The existing wharf was built in 1925 but had received no maintenance. The alternative to Andrew Murray’s proposal was to build a mole 750 yards long to reach deep water so that the wharf could be operational at all stages of the tide. On the 25th August 1946 a deputation went to see the Minister of Marine Environment. They had two concerns: (1) wharf construction, (2) taking of shingle from the beaches. There is no further information about what was happening, but the Council were to get a beach custodian appointed. At the end of 1946 the Marine Department commenced observations of high and low water to establish a datum for wharf construction. These records are in the file and commence in November 1946. The file also contains estimates of wind direction and strength. These records continue until June 1947. On June 24th 1947 a strong NW gale brought waves 5 feet high (1.52 m) into Coromandel Harbour. Note: December 1947, the Hamilton District Office of the Ministry of Works was opened and from this date on, correspondence from Hamilton District Office (HDO). The close of the Auckland file makes reference to plans of Coromandel Harbour ADO 21582, 10701 and 21718 (tidal records) and Paeroa Office 1949, 2582 and 1267. Coromandel County wharf sites ADO 19372. Hamilton file No. 6/107. File 6/168. Coromandel Wharf extension Pt 2. File opened September 1959. Proposed changes to the mole end of the wharf included the construction of a “shingle wharf”. It is possible that shingle was being loaded/unloaded for use in either Auckland or the Coromandel townships. Plan HDO 9062 shows the 1947 and 1960 soundings to demonstrate sedimentation rates. In September 1961 a summary of events from 1959 was compiled, as part of a supporting argument for a new subsidy to dredge a channel from deep water to the wharf in order to provide service over the full range of the tide. The channel was eventually dredged to a depth of 4 feet (1.2 m) between May and December 1964. By June 1965 it had filled in by 2 feet (0.6 m), caused predominantly by a drift from the southwest. A report in June 1965 by MWD (Hamilton), describes the amount of silting in the channel. The file closes December 1967, concluding with no action to be taken about the silting and no refund of council money spent. Basically silting was thought to be the problem in the 1940’s and 1950’s and was proven in the 1960’s. File 6/139. Coromandel Harbour. Report covers the period from 1949–1953. The file mainly covers the proposal for a new wharf at the granite quarry near Moehau. File 47/16. Coromandel Township. Report commences October 1971. File contains an application for mining shingle from Whangarahi Stream. Whangarahi and Karaka streams are tributaries that join Fureys Creek just above Wharf Road, Coromandel. They have shingle beds that aggrade and have regularly been a source of shingle for local supply. Mining takes place to improve the waterway and stop flooding of residences on Wharf Road. The complicating factor noted in this file is that the lower river is tidal, and was therefore under the control of the Marine Department. Above high water the control was with the Lands and Survey Dept. Complication occurred when the extraction took place and the river bed under the Lands and Survey control becomes tidal as the stream bed is lowered. Report commences October 1976. Involves a private shingle extraction licence. Shingle was being removed from the creek bed for road metal. The area above high water was under the control of the Hauraki Catchment Board. It appears the applicant was applying for a licence while already taking material. A plan of the site in application is given in the file. The licence was issued to keep control of the situation. In October 1980 there was a new request for shingle extraction by the District Council to stop flooding of properties near Wharf Road. The volume to be taken was not specified but approval was given. File 74/30/28 Part 1. Coastal erosion surveys. Report covers period 1974 to 1983. BOPCC file 21/4. The file notes the existence of the Bay of Plenty Coastal Erosion Survey (1977) and the Coromandel Coastal Survey (1981). The storms of July 1978 appear to have started a review of protection works around the coast. The list includes; Kawhia 1953, Ohope 1954 (Tropical cyclone), Maketu Domain 1965, Waihi Beach 1968, Ohiwa 1969, Whitianga Esplanade 1969, Whangamata 1970, Kawhia 1970, Whitianga 1970, Waihi Beach 1971, Ohiwa 1972, Aotea 1972, Whitianga 1972, Ohope 1973, Miranda 1975, Waihi 1975, Kawhia community shore 1975, Waihi estuary 1977, Marakopa estuary 1974. File 74/30/5/1/1 (pt 2). Hauraki Catchment Board Hydrology; Operational surveys File contains a proposal for a thesis studying the west coast of the Coromandel Peninsula by Mr Reitema. There is no information on whether this study went ahead. File 74/30/28 (pt 1). Coastal Erosion Surveys. File commences in 1974. Note: this file is nearly a duplicate of a similarly numbered file (above) and has some duplicate information. File 12/243/1: Harbours and foreshores. Includes report Rabone, 1950: Beach sand and shingle supplies, Auckland and Coromandel Areas, Special Report November 1950. File also contains the photos and negatives used in the report. There are also notes on meetings held with sand merchants, land owners, and regulatory authorities. Note: Marine Department file:M4/1965. The file contains a request for a copy of Rabone's study. It is reported here that the Marine Department supplied copies of the 1911, 1923 and 1924 reports as background information for the Rabone report. Following the Rabone report the Engineer in Chief recommended that all beaches on the east coast of Auckland Province be closed to mining. This created strong opposition from the sand mining interests and construction industry in Auckland. A petition was sent to parliament complaining about the beach closures and Mr Sheat (MP) went on a tour of the Firth of Thames and along the east coast of the Northland Peninsula. As a result Mr Sheat came back with the recommendation that that the sand could be removed from Pakiri, Mangawhai Heads and the Waipu River mouth as was being done in 1952, and recommended by Rabone (1950). There was no comment about Coromandel beaches at this time. During the 1960s there were a number of applications to take sand from offshore islands or other remote areas such as the Kaipara Harbour, which had been regarded as uneconomical while the east coast beaches could be mined. The Rabone (1950) report contains a number of recommendations for the Coromandel, including: • Wilsons Beach: A large quantity of shingle was removed in the early 20th century and by 1950 the beach had been closed to mining (probably since 1923). Despite this, there appeared little recovery of the beach. There is a comparison photo of 1911 (Wright Report) held be the Alexander Turnbull Library. • Fosters Beach: This beach was stripped of shingle by 1923 and remained so until 1950, and therefore remained closed to mining. • Kirita Bay: This beach protects the low lying inland and therefore Rabone (1950) recommended it remain closed to mining. • Manaia to Koputauaki: This area includes Te Kouma and Coromandel Harbours. The Rabone (1950) report recommended this area remain closed to all mining. • Koputauaki Bay: Rabone (1950) recommended that this bay be closed to mining due to its recreational value, despite there being sand and gravel deposits readily available. The Rabone report frequently mentions the opening up of coastal areas for recreational purposes and the building of baches and holiday homes along the coast. This reflects the improvements in roading and access to many coastal areas, especially the Coromandel Peninsula where sea access had previously been the main method of access. • Okahu and Hautapu Bays: These beaches were closed in 1923 and had made little recovery by 1950 so the recommendation was for them to remain closed. • Papa Aroha Beach: This beach has a history of supplying shingle for local uses as well as some coastal scow removal. The Wright (1911) report indicated there was considerable shingle available and the Attwood and Tanner (1923) report determined that there was more material coming down with the stream. Despite this it was noted that beach levels seemed to be lower than previously. Recommendation by Rabone (1950) was to close the beach to scows but allow a local supply of 50 yds3 per annum for local use until a local quarry could be established. • Cabbage Bay (Ahirau or Big Bay): Rabone (1950) recommends that the sandy deposits fronting the road and farmland should not be disturbed. • Otautu Bay: The Wright (1911) report suggested that there were adequate supplies of shingle here. Despite this, by 1935 the coastal road had to be moved inland. Houses that were previously landward of the road were then seaward of the new road position. There was fear that the houses could be washed into the sea if mining continued. Rabone (1950) therefore recommended that the beach be closed to mining. 12/243/1Harbours and Foreshores: Beach sand and shingle supplies, Auckland and Coromandel Areas. File starts 1950. This file contains the Rabone Report which described individual beaches and their suitability for supplying sand of shingle aggregate for industrial purposes to Auckland City and some of the supporting investigation information. Much of the file is on the Auckland and Northland region with a later section on Coromandel Beaches. The coverage reflects the reduction in importance of the Coromandel area as a source of industrial sand and shingle for the Auckland area. File 12/243 contains a report dated 1958 which suggests the recommendations by Rabone to close all beaches was too harsh and though sand mining had not stopped after the 1950 report, this report recommended that mining to continue.

Coromandel Harbour and surrounds.

1931-1981

Summaries gathered from physical files held by NZ Archives. Frequency of collection: Irregular

Some reports and images scanned and stored by Waikato Regional Council.

None

Complete, historical