Our local council has decided to construct a wide concrete path for 1.2km of a beautiful grass trail beside the Uretara River and Estuary on the edge of Katikati. This is a stunning green space beside the water that feels like a wilderness experience. Many feel a wide concrete path will be like a road through it.

We need your help to stop the concrete path plan for this much-loved natural public reserve, before it’s too late. We want council to call a halt to the project, and before they go any further conduct meaningful, constructive, respectful public consultation, including options of just fixing areas with issues. Please sign and share this petition if you agree. And comments from locals will help add weight to our views.

We believe a 2.5m wide long concrete development is not what the majority of the community wants. Many think it is the wrong decision for this already well-used walkway and cycleway - inappropriate, expensive, unnecessary and a poor choice for the environment. There are other ways to address the issues and enhance this area and Western Bay of Plenty District Council needs to listen to the voices of the people this will impact.

215 locals had previously signed a paper petition opposing a concrete path. The only community consultation on this project has been a recent council survey that came out of the blue, saying plans were almost complete, and it will be a concrete path. It gave a choice of two grey concrete colours and did not ask about support for the concrete path. We know people who threw it away in disgust. Only 162 survey responses were interpreted as supporting a concrete path, but council used this survey to claim that more than half the community support the concrete path. This is incorrect, unfounded and underhand! 

The public survey was seriously flawed, the report totally misleading, and the petition was not considered as promised. Was this due to lack of thought, or very careful planning to produce the desired outcome? The incorrect majority support finding was then used with confidence by councillors as decision-makers. This is not acceptable behaviour from the council organisation and our elected representatives. Is this happening on other projects?

In the debate, Councillor Denyer stated that the beauty in this area is only to the side - in views across the water and in neighbouring gardens. He proposed a full length concrete path and investigating a green concrete tint, and the council committee decided on that. Only Cr Murray-Benge voted against it. A green concrete tint? Elected representatives still do not understand this special area, the issues and the views of the community. Elections are coming up, so as well as signing and sharing this petition, make sure you vote wisely and hold councillors to account for their decisions.

——————

More of the story on this grassy trail 

This section of trail is a continuation of the well-known Bird Walk, which starts in the centre of Katikati. This part begins further along, near the mouth of the Uretara River. It is an area that locals and visitors love for its natural beauty - a green space with grass, large trees, wetland vegetation, a variety of bird species, and views across the water to the hills. It runs from the new footbridge near Riverside Place, and passes properties on Riverlea Drive, Levley Lane, Belmont Rise, Francis Drive, Irwin Court and Park Road, finishing in the reserve opposite Summerset Retirement Village.

It’s popular with a range of users: walkers, runners, cyclists, those on mobility scooters and families with strollers and small kids on bikes. Adjoining residents welcome other trail users by placing bench seats for the public in viewing spots, putting out water bowls for dogs and sharing their fruit for free. As it is already a walkway and cycleway, constructing a concrete path will not extend the network or make it more continuous.

More than half of the length of this section is beside an area of estuary margin vegetation identified as a Significant Ecological Feature, and its a great place for birdwatching, including threatened species. There are Royal spoonbills, banded rails, Australasian bitterns, white herons and white-faced herons, variable oystercatchers, pied stilts and Caspian terns, to name just a few.  Some of them feed along the riverbank just metres from the trail and many rest at the sandspit near Irwin Court at higher tides. On the grass trail, people pass by the birds quietly and slowly.

Some reasons for opposing a concrete path

Some of the reasons members of the community oppose the 2.5m wide, 1.2km long concrete path include concerns around the environment, natural character, beauty and landscape values, the feel of the path and safety:

• Concrete footpaths are for urban areas, but this is a beautiful harbourside green space that feels more like exploring the wilderness
• A long wide concrete path would be an obvious artificial scar on this landscape, even if the concrete is tinted
• Concrete is a very poor environmental choice for many reasons, including effects of a large area of impermeable concrete on soil, water and ecology, and the cement production alone for this concrete path would emit an estimated 75 tonnes of greenhouse gas - Council needs to take seriously their commitments to action on climate change
• There are alternatives surface types that would be more natural and more environmentally friendly than concrete and would address the few issues
• Concrete is a very hard, high impact surface for walkers and runners, and concrete paths feel cold, unwelcoming, disconnected from the environment and sanitised
• 1.2km of path will result in a lot more herbicide use on edges
• Cyclists will travel much faster on concrete, increasing safety concerns, especially for the elderly and less agile and considering the combination of blind corners, downhill sections, and narrow boardwalks
• Faster speeds and more noise near the river and estuary edges will cause more wildlife disturbance.

Also many locals don’t believe this council would construct a good quality wide path for this long complex area, after seeing bad cracks that have already required repairs on the recently-constructed narrower concrete path nearby beside Summerset.

Options other than full length concrete path

There is a variety of terrain along this trail. As well as the new footbridge near the large wetland at one end, there are a couple of boardwalks for crossing short wetland areas, some steeper slopes, a high flat even grassy terrace (beside Francis Drive) and at one point trail users can pass on either side of the small freshwater wetland near the sandspit. A few lower-lying spots can get damp sometimes in winter and footbridge construction vehicles damaged some parts that are now uneven and have obvious tracks.

The grass trail and the few issues are not uniform. A one-size-fits-all concrete path for the entire trail section may be a convenient decision, but it is unnecessary and not the best solution. There are more appropriate and much less expensive ways to address the few issues and improve access.

There has also been a lot of speculation about the use of this area for those with mobility access needs, and it is important to provide reasonable access to waterfront areas. However, the steeper slopes could be challenging for some and the practicalities of access for the entire length of the trail need to be more carefully considered and balanced with all the other concerns.

There are multiple accessways from streets along the reserve and connections between these and the waterfront could be improved, with seats placed at nearby viewing spots. This would enhance the area for everyone, without constructing a full length concrete path. But instead of council and others speculating, we think the whole community needs to be able to participate in constructive consultation to find appropriate solutions that will work well for everyone and this environment.

The council process - ignored petition, no communication, flawed last-minute consultation 

In 2019 a paper petition with 215 signatures opposing a concrete path was presented to council, and it was promised this would be considered during consultation. The community heard nothing more about the project for three years, until they received a recent last-minute, very brief survey - the only public consultation for this project. It said the plans were almost complete, the path will be concrete, and “before we pour the concrete” gave a choice of two grey concrete colours, how often you might use it, and asked for comments on the route. Many in the community were stunned. We know people who were so disgusted they just threw it away.

Importantly, the survey only asked for comments on the route, it did not ask about support for a concrete path. However, the report on the results somehow divided responses into two categories: support or do not support, and listed pros and cons. Council claimed from this survey that more than half the community support the concrete path - incorrect and unfounded.

Only 242 responses were received from the public survey, and the petition that 215 had signed previously opposing a concrete path was not taken into account. None of the 242 survey respondents were answering a question on whether they support a concrete path - that was presented as decided. And people who did not support a concrete path were much less likely to respond. Was this final-hour survey manipulated to get results that suited council’s desired outcome? Whatever the reasons, this was appalling consultation.

Council Committee decision

Some of us spoke at council’s Performance and Monitoring Committee meeting on 5 May, where a decision was to be made. In our limited public forum time we presented some of our reasons for opposing a concrete path and very clearly showed the major flaws in the recent survey and report and also reminded them of the petition that had been ignored. Councillors and council staff did not respond to or acknowledge these serious concerns and proceeded with the debate, some using the statistics from the flawed report to support their arguments.

In the meeting Cr Allan Sole said he had been waiting for the public to provide evidence of effects on birdlife. But it’s the Council’s responsibility, not the public’s, to manage this area for the protection of the natural character and wildlife values of Tauranga Harbour, and this is not evident in the organisation’s considerations.

Cr Margaret Murray-Benge proposed only fixing the areas with issues, but this was considered not sufficiently well-defined. This would be a much less expensive solution, and many in the community have been suggesting it, but the other councillors clearly wanted to make a decision that was easier to describe.

Committee Chair Cr Don Thwaites, supported by Cr Anne Henry, proposed keeping the section beside Francis Drive as grass, but this was not passed. Mayor Garry Webber said to do it once and do it right. This may sound sensible, but will it be right to construct an expensive full concrete path if the true majority of the community don’t want it? And will it be right if this very permanent concrete cracks and has to be repaired like the recent path beside Summerset?

In the end the committee decided in favour of Cr James Denyer’s motion for a full concrete path, with his amendment for council staff to investigate a green concrete tint. The suggestion of a green tint to a concrete path just emphasises the lack of understanding of this special area, the issues and the community’s views. We asked the council in that meeting for genuine, constructive consultation with the community before decisions are made, but instead council decided they knew better and are now planning to spend a huge amount of money to permanently pave this paradise.

Please sign the petition and share it with others if you also believe the council needs to stop the plans to build a full length concrete path and listen to the community.