Why do we need to take the Seawall Debate seriously?

HERE’S WHY!!!

BOOF!!! The seawall takes a direct hit in the last big sea.

And another wave crashes into the recently built timber wall

Until the wall was constructed the sand dunes and root systems were under severe threat.

Boiling surf stopped at border

And after the storm peace breaks out —

The neighbouring sand dune has been eroded to expose round the end of the side wall.

Photos by Bride Coe – Ames Street.

Comment on the wall.

6 meter poles with 4.2 meter palings deeply embedded into the sand and tied back to a horizontal dead man placed 6 meters behind the wall.

It is a great wall, but being timber it’s life span is limited to around 30 years – for the Parade in Paekakariki we MUST consider the longer term.

Get involved in making the best decision for Paekakariki!

The design group met for a de-brief meeting following the 2 May public consultation meeting.

It was agreed that the community consultation at present has not yet clearly enough put forward a number of different options for the front, lower, wall of the seawall design.

It is important that we get the communities’ response to some different options for this front wall.  Other options may prove to be cheaper and or have a longer predicted life.  In the end the final choice will be influenced by the cost and practicality of construction, once the fundamental community design criteria are met.  It will be important to include some flexibility to cover different options within the final resource consent.

The other options do not alter the overall design – just the front wall.  The current preliminary concept document (Beca April 2015) covers the overall design but needs to include additional options for treatment of the front wall.  The options for the front wall are:

1. Flat timber with occasional sections of concrete steps for access (the currently presented front wall in the preliminary concept document)
2. Stepped concrete front wall, involving the extension of the currently presented large concrete steps along the entire length
3. Flat concrete wall with occasional sections of concrete steps for access
4. Flat concrete wall with a timber front face and occasional sections of concrete steps for access

It was decided to extend the consultation period by 2 weeks and provide some simple concept sketches and written info of other options. Also potentially a weekend drop in session at St Peters Hall to give people a chance to discuss and give feedback directly.

This would take the Feedback due date to 29 May 2015.

By John Mills
Paekakariki Seawall Replacement
Consultation meeting Saturday, 2/5/2015 attended by about 40 people.

The bulk of the post has been removed to gain an informed and balanced presentation of the options.

Should I care about what we end up with down on the beach front?
Well maybe yes, given the fact that my family and I together own 7 properties in the town, with 6 sited directly opposite the beach front. This could be a powerfully motivating factor I would suggest.

Keep watch for regular updates as the debate progresses.

Stepped Concrete Option — Paekakariki Seawall
List of advantages over the timber option
• Increased public safety:
o No unballastered high walls.
o Quick access observation platform for water sports.
• Wall usability:
o Enhanced beach accessibility.
o Multiple height single walk levels.
o Allows continuous seating along the dry sand beach whatever the tide level.
o Grandstand like usage. Allows continuous multiple height seating along the entire wall whatever the beach level.
• Longevity: more than three times the minimum life span of timber. (100 + years)
• Reduced wave reflection: Reduces storm surge and high tide impact on the seawall. This also reduces scouring.
• Reduced Maintenance: Virtually eliminates maintenance. Bolted timber becomes increasingly costly over time.
• Increased foundation depth:
o Washout risk to support material greatly reduced/eliminated by increased depth of the proposed front sub wall apron.
o Subterranean wall apron eliminates the need for seaward row of support piles giving 6.6 times the ground bearing capacity of the proposed support piles.
o Cantilevered strength provided by the sub wall apron eliminates/reduces the need for expensive tie backs.
• Lower impact: The concrete step option is far less labour intensive at the site.
Precast units constructed elsewhere craned/jetted into place, eliminates the need for large messy on-site timber construction in the wet.
• Faster construction time: The concrete step option would over all be 2 times faster than the single timber constructed wall.
• Affordability: Contractors estimate $8,200,000 (within allocated Budget)

Put together by John Mills, Constructiv, Shane Murland, Piling, and Ducare Industries.