Ministry of Transport Files - Raglan

These files from the Ministry of Transport deal mainly with the administrative aspects of structures, reclamations, power, telephone, and pipeline crossings of waterways around the marine foreshore and in navigable rivers and lakes. There is not a lot of environmental information in these files but occasionally there is a copy of a report that deals with the environmental aspects of a structure. In about 1964 the Ministry of Transport (MOT) took over the role of licensing structures on the foreshore from the Marine Department (MD) and employed the Ministry of Works and Development (MWD) as its environmental advisers. Reports from the MWD therefore contain much of the environmental information available in these files. Purpose: This dataset provides a brief discussion of coastal information contained within historical Ministry of Transport files, collected during a review commissioned by Environment Waikato as part of the Coastal Database project. The Ministry of Transport (MoT) was responsible for the administration of structures in the CMA and in navigable rivers and lakes from 1964 to 1997. These files are now held in Environment Waikato’s archives. These files contain useful information on the history and legal status of existing coastal structures.

54/14/28: Control of foreshores, Raglan County, 1955 vol 1. Notes erosion around the foreshore but does not specify where. Te Kopua camping ground sewage is discharged directly into the estuary. In 1956, this was septic tank effluent. Note; Raglan Harbour Board do not use file numbers. Second part of file covers Raglan Harbour Board getting control of Port Waikato, with a view to controlling surfers. No environmental information. Volume 2 No environmental information. 54/8/91: Boat ramp Manu Bay Raglan 1971. Raglan County M1/3. Records an argument between the engineers and the surfers about whether the new ramp would affect surfing. No environmental information. 54/16/0: Reclamation, West Coast 1985. Proposed replacing of the Puti Bridge Kawhia with a culvert. Opposed by Wildlife Service as environmentally unsound. Spoil was being dumped on the embankment, presumably to be used as fill around the culvert later. Aro Aro Creek causeway, Raglan Harbour had the effect of slowing flows in the estuary and reclaiming land upstream. The flood gate was a one way trap door thus restricting flood tide flows and allowing sediment to settle on the mudflats. There is a note about reclamation on Puriri Sreet and Wallis Street but no details. 54/16/1: Reclamations Aotea Harbour 1914. There are also records of a section of land accretion at Te Kopua Block Raglan Harbour. By July 1965 the beach had commenced to erode again and was nearly back to the old survey position. No reason was given for the changes but a storm in November 1964 caused some severe erosion. Because the changes were not slow and imperceptible and Maori incorporation could not claim the foreshore, it reverted to the Crown. 54/19/27: Bridge Opoturu Causeway, Raglan.1969. Refer also to 54/1/51 reviewed below. File commenced because MWD were preparing to build a bridge across the estuary beside the causeway to provide access for a proposed Department of Education child welfare facility. This plan for the facility was abandoned and the bridge proposal lapsed. The proposal brought the existence of the causeway to the attention of the MOT, who license such structures. Raglan Harbour Board file R2/20/2. In 1962-63 the population of Karioi riding of Raglan County asked for a bridge to be built and to be included in the county roading budget. The bridge proposal was included and approved and the county applied for a 3:1 subsidy from the government and was given a 1:1 subsidy. The bridge was therefore too expensive for the county to afford. There are a series of photographs of the causeway taken by MOT in 1975 when they were trying to determine responsibility for the structure and the footbridge. Another reference is to file 54/1/27. In 1977 the bridge and causeway were licensed to the members of the Rangatahi Access Group individually. It was a two year license and the foot bridge had to have an annual inspection by an engineer and have a weight restriction notice on it. There was also a clause that said the group would have to raise the level of the channel span if navigation became an issue. MOT also queried the County about the clearance under the Wainui Road Bridge and the footbridge leading to the Te Kopua camping ground. MOT had no records of these structures. D. T. Harrison of Hamilton complained to the county that he could not get his boat out of the estuary due to the presence of the causeway. He had bought a section and house further up the estuary and was well aware of the presence of the causeway and footbridge. However it had been established earlier that boat access to property was not an option as there were extensive mudflats between the channel and the shore over most of the estuary. Not satisfied with the response from the county and MOT, Harrison wrote to the Ombudsman who threw the case out. There is mention of some petition by the Rangatahi Access Group but neither the petition nor its contents or outcome recorded in this file. 54/44/439: Marine farms Raglan marine farm 1981. Proposal declined mainly because the farm would obstruct regular shipping lanes up the harbour. The farm was to be located off Tokatoka Point. Refer MAF files 7/6/24 and 9/5/853. 54/27/208: Power line crossing Opotoru estuary, Raglan 1982. Lines were close to a boat ramp near Cliff Street. MWD notes that the ramp is on Nero Street reserve. No further information. 54/44/486 Maori Trust Board 1982: west coast harbours such as Kawhia, Aotea and Whaingaroa were regarded as being under the authority of the Board. A report was produced by the Centre for Maori Studies, University of Waikato titled “Maori Trust Board Cultural and Ethnic attributes”. This document is a detailed discussion of land rights of the Maori people and the importance of some locations to the tribal history and religious beliefs. This discussion is followed by a discussion of the west coast harbours. 54/44/670: Marine Farms, Gerring, Patikirau Bay Raglan 1982. MAF file 7/6/40, Raglan Harbour Board file R2/20. Revised application declined. 54/44/816: Marine Farm, Mitchell, Bridal Creek Mouth Raglan 1984. Much of the file focuses on the Maori Trust Board’s interpretation of the 2nd article of the Treaty of Waitangi. There were 14 other objectors who raised personal objections, not technical ones. License was recommended. There is mention of photographs of the site but none are contained in the file. 43/60/6: Harbours, Raglan, Aro Aro Bay 1925. MD file M3/2/8. With the increase in small boats since WWII the Harbour Board was receiving requests for endowment money to be used to build more boat ramps, slipways and launch and generally increase boat facilities. Raglan Harbour Board file R2/20/2. Lands and Survey file 22/1678. Top end of Aro Aro Creek silted through construction of a causeway. The Harbour Board then wanted the reclaimed land vested in it to rent or lease or make into a reserve. By 1972 the area upstream of the causeway was considered above MHWS therefore under Lands and Survey control and thus invested in the Harbour Board. Lands and Survey file 3.2896. It appears that the causeway and floodgate were installed illegally. The causeway was built in the 1800s to access the wharf. In 1978 there were ongoing discussions as to what to do with the land upstream of the causeway. There are 21 black and white photographs of the site in an envelope. 43/60/9/4: Berthing and Mooring dolphins Raglan 1974. Nothing environmental in these records. Mainly on construction of dolphins and the volume of trade at wharf. 54/1/51: Bridge and causeway Raglan. See also 54/19/27. Contains a plan of Omahina Creek Bridge showing the planned bridge and the borehole location together with the depth of sediment above the andesite bedrock (plan date 1968). This bridge site had a name change to Opotoru River Bridge by September 1969 and work was abandoned on bridge site. 18 August 1975 Marine Dept was writing to Raglan County Council. It is noted that the causeway was located from an extension of Opotoru Road to a Mr Strawbridge’s property on the peninsula. The file also notes that several other illegal structures exist around the harbour. Raglan Harbour Board letter of 20 August 1975 explains history of the causeway. Originally the causeway was known as Yeoman’s access. Date of construction is unknown. In 1962-63 the county applied for funds to upgrade the causeway to allow better access. Obtained a subsidy 1:1 but needed 3:1 to fund road (discussed above). In 1968 Yeoman sold to Department of Education for a child welfare facility. The Education Department intended to put a welfare home and school on the peninsula. Education Department abandoned idea of home and school and sold land to a Mr Strawbridge. However there was a paper road from Te Hutawai Road to the peninsula. This road was amalgamated with the land sold to Strawbridge thus legal access of the properties on the peninsula closed. At the same time the plans for the causeway were abandoned. Raglan County was not responsible for causeway even though it did give a one-off donation of $250 for construction at one stage. The road was considered private and the owners were to bear the cost of upkeep. A further note shows that the original road and causeway were built in the late 1800s to service a farm called “The Oaks”. Later this property was caller Rangatahi. From 1975 there are a series of letters from MoT asking for plans to legalise the road and Raglan County avoiding responsibility. Local MPs were pressured to get things done, without success. An envelope has a fair sheet of the main channel from the entrance to just upstream of the concrete silos. No side streams were surveyed. MoT 3 June 1979 letter has a detailed summary of the history of the causeway since the late 1800s. 54/1/333: Raglan County ramp and Breakwater. October 1971 proposed ramp and breakwater at Manu Bay. 54/1/627: Raglan harbour Berthing facilities. Construction of a mooring dolphin at the concrete wharf to facilitate cement ships tying up. This file starts 1979 but there is a previous file 54/20/68 or HO 43/60/9/4. This file 627 is the contract file outlining contract conditions and structural details. No investigation information. These investigations must be files in Raglan Harbour Board files of Raglan county files, or possibly Ministry of Works. 54/1/708: Boat ramp to be built at Pokohue inlet Raglan harbour board file M1/2. No environmental information. 54/2/242: Boat shed, Opotoru Creek Raglan. No environmental information. 54/2/428: Jetty Waitetuna River Raglan County Council. Raglan CC file M1/2MOT/MD file 54/3/811. File shows some of the problems in sorting out spacing of white baiting jetties. Finally all jetties had to be removed by December 1984. No environmental information. 54/2/432: Jetty Te Uku Waitetuna River 1968. No environmental information. 54/2/438: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/445: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/801: Boat House Raglan. Raglan Harbour Board file A2/20/2. Photos of the rescue boat house but do not show much of the harbour. No environmental information. 54/2/800: Jetty Horongarara Point Raglan Harbour. No environmental information. 54/2/769: Car access ramp Raglan Harbour Lorenzen Bay. No environmental information. 54/2/730: Jetty Kerikeri River Raglan. No environmental information. 54/4/426: Reclamation and ramp at Lorenzen Bay Raglan. Envelope with nine black and white photographs of the ramp and reclamation. The land was surveyed in 1923 but had eroded between 9.6 m and 5.54 m by 1978. The owners built a seawall on the boundary line and back filled the area to regain original section size. Marine inspectors said the reclamation was illegal if the erosion had been slow and imperceptible as the land eroded would then become part of the Crown Estate and harbour floor. If erosion had been rapid then structure would be legal. No environmental information. 54/11/140: Sewage scheme Raglan Harbour 1975. Raglan County file R2/17. Not much environmental information about the sewage plant. Note storm damage in 1978 exposed an old wreck and several rocks on Ocean Beach, Raglan that had not been seen for 40 years or more. New Zealand Herald reporter blamed it on a severe storm that had occurred in the New Year. The wreck that was exposed was probably the same one that was exposed and washed away during the Christmas of 2002-2003. 54/2/480: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/495: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/504: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/505: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/516: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/822: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/797: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/791: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/790: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/783: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/780 : Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/779: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/763: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/740: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/712: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/656: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/544: Jetty Waitetuna River. The Waitetuna River was a very sought after whitebaiting site. Files underestimate the number of people using the river because of the high number of unlicensed structures reported by inspectors. Note many of the plan pockets in the files are empty and it is possible that the plans were microfilmed and the originals destroyed. 54/2/596: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/617: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information. 54/2/624: Jetty Waitetuna River. No environmental information.

Raglan Harbour shoreline, including tributaries and adjacent coast.

1960 to 1984 with notes on earlier information.

Frequency of collection: Infrequent/irregular

Gaps in collection: Many files and pieces of information from the files are missing. Many engineer's reports are missing from the files held by Environment Waikato. Completeness: Only includes information available on specific files. Important to note that Ministry of Works files contain further environmental information relating to these files.

Physical files. Digital Format: n/a

Historical background to present situation.

This data is publicly available in EW archives. Sensitivity/Confidentiality: No confidentiality, public information.

Files closed. Include a note where this record continues after end date of file where possible – e.g. Dept of Conservation files. These files have been continued where appropriate but have been amalgamated and given a new file number by DOC making sourcing more recent information difficult.

Raglan Harbour has a large number of unlicensed structures which continue to exist to this day. This file series only deals with those that came under the eye of MOT when they inspected the harbour from time to time. The Opotoru causeway is a case in point. Additional comments: By-law Development and the County Councils Control of the foreshore, lakeshore and riverbeds was vested in the Marine Department (MD) and then later in the Ministry of Transport (MOT). As roads improved access to the coast and lakes increased and the MOT vested its powers in the local County Councils to enable them to create by laws to control the use of these areas while the MOT retained overall control and was responsible for vetting any proposed by law. Jetties and Wharves There were two types of jetties and wharves; those built for catching Whitebait, and the fishing boat jetty. As the local fishing industry developed, there was a steady increase in requests for licenses for jetties to load and unload fishing boats. Records in the files indicate that there was either a shortage of hardwood for jetty piles or the locals preferred to rely on piles made from Manuka or Kanuka. This is especially noticeable of the piles used for fishing boat jetties. As the fishing fleet grew so did the demand for fish processing facilities on shore. The increased number of requests for jetties for commercial fishing probably reflects the increased government investment in the fishing industry in the 1960s and 1970s. Boat sheds Boat sheds that housed a launch or dinghy between uses were common up to the 1960s. In the 1970s and onwards there are few requests to license a boatshed. This is probably because of the increased use of light materials for boat construction such as fibreglass and aluminium and the development of the boat and trailer combination. Thus boaties did not have a boat at one location but were mobile and could go to a variety of destinations both fresh and salt water. This added mobility probably also reflects better roading and better vehicles. Boat ramps These appear associated with two activities. Commercial fishing or the storage of a boat used occasionally. As roads improved and boat-building materials became lighter the trailed boat became more popular. This in turn put pressure on local County Councils to either build boat ramps or license boat ramps to be built by for fishing or Boat clubs to access the water. After a burst of activity in the 1960s and 1970s many clubs were wound up leaving the structure the responsibility of the local Council. Slipways Slipway installation commenced from the earliest of settlements because most of the early communities were serviced by boat and needed repair and maintenance facilities locally. There were also some slipways constructed by local boating and sailing clubs. Boat Clubs. There seems to have been an upsurge of boat clubs in the late 1960s early 1970s but by the end of the decade wanted to transfer their ramp assets to the local county. Falling membership could not sustain the costs of licenses and maintenance for buildings and ramps. Bridge Construction The notification of many new bridges built on the roads of the Coromandel indicates the slow but steady improvement of roading on the Coromandel Peninsula. There are a series of files that examine bridges as they might affect a waterway for navigation. This demonstrates the importance placed on sea compared to road transport. The second aspect of the bridge construction is the development of better roads and therefore the less importance of the coastal trade to the development of the country. Note that up to the 1970s, fertiliser was barged to Whitianga but after that time it was more common to truck the material in. The Marine Farming Act was passed in 1971 but it was only towards the end of the 1970s that marine farming began to be developed in the area around Coromandel Harbour. Early applications were met with strong resistance by Auckland boat users who thought that marine farms would interfere with their recreation along the Coromandel west coast, especially within Coromandel Harbour. As the development of marine farms became accepted there were fewer objections and the industry became well established. The Thames Coromandel District Council (TCDC) commissioned a study to determine sites suitable for marine farming. This report also indicated where marine farming should not take place and became the main planning document for further coastal development. Related information: All these files are related to Ministry of Works and Development files as the MWD was the adviser to MOT.