Moewai Park Reserve must remain
Hand delivered to Thames-Coromandel District Council, prior to “Written objections” deadline Friday 22 May.
I wish to formally object to the proposed reclassification of Moewai Park Reserve from a Recreation Reserve to a Local Purpose (Community Facilities) Reserve.
Moewai Park Reserve is not “underutilised” (as stated in the Public Notice, also attached) land. It is a treasured green space used daily by residents and families for picnics, dog walking, informal recreation, riding four-wheelers, and enjoying the peace and openness that is becoming increasingly rare in Whitianga. The reserve is also home to our community fruit forest, creating opportunities for sustainability, education, and connection with nature.
Importantly, the park serves as a sanctuary for native birdlife including oyster catchers, bitterns, and grey heron. During storms, flocks of shoreline birds take refuge in this open space, making it an important ecological area within Mercury Bay.
Residents are deeply concerned that changing the reserve classification will open the door to future development and permanent loss of green space. Once this land is built on, its natural character and environmental value cannot be restored.
TCDC already removed the children’s playground from this reserve, reducing recreational opportunities for local families. Had the playground remained, more children and visitors could continue to enjoy one of the most unique outlooks in Whitianga – swinging while looking toward our beautiful maunga, There is nowhere else in our community where people can enjoy this sense of open space.
We respectfully ask Council to protect Moewai Park Reserve for future generations and retain its current Recreation Reserve classification.
Neera Giri, on behalf of Residents of Moewai Park Road and South Highway West, Whitianga
Objection to Reclassifying Reserve for community Marae
As a concerned resident of Whitianga, I wish to notify readers that a recent Public Notice from the Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC), was seeking “written objections” to its proposal, to change the “Recreation Reserve” classification of the Moewai Park Reserve, to that of a “Local Purpose (Community Facilities) Reserve”.
“Moewai Park Reserve” is located at 42 Moewai Park Road, and its grassy field abuts South Highway West Road. The name and location of the park, is not to be confused with Moewai Road, which is a road, on the opposite side of SH25.
TCDC initiated this reclassification process, as a stepping stone for the Ngā Tūmanako Whitianga Charitable Trust, to eventually build a community marae at that location.
Residents in the vicinity of the Moewai Park Reserve do NOT want a marae located there. Moewai Park Reserve is a rare “green” space, well used by locals, as a valuable place to walk to with their children and/or dogs.
In a TCDC Facebook post-dated 22 March 2024, TCDC communicated that, “There are no plans for Moewai Park to be used for anything other than public reserve.”
However, the TCDC has already taken away the much loved and used playground, that was located at this park. Erecting instead, a new but very rudimentary “playground” inside the grounds of the Mercury Bay Multi-Sports Park, which does NOT allow dogs inside its grounds.
Therefore, local parents, wanting to continue to take both their children and their dogs out to an open green space, will have nowhere within walking distance of their homes to go to. Fruit trees already adorn the park making for a family friendly place to enjoy.
The Mercury Bay Multi-Sports Park has sealed car parking which could be utilised by a community marae located on part of its lands.
TCDC should be sticking to its original intentions, to keep Moewai Park as a recreation reserve.
People wishing to voice their concern about this matter, can register with TCDC to speak in the “Public Forum”, from 9.00 am, at the upcoming Mercury Bay Community Board meeting, Wednesday 3 June, in the Community Board rooms, Mercury Bay TCDC office, 10 Monk Street.
Kathy Thompson, Whitianga
We had something that worked – it doesn’t know
At last we may be able to be free from the clutches of a regional council bent on using environmental toxins to solve all their problems. Before regional councils were formed in 1989, we had catchment boards who were responsible for catchment, harbour, drainage, and pest management. No shiny new utes, offices and glossy pamphlets.
Since then the overreach from Hamilton into our local affairs is both unwanted and unhelpful. Responsible for flood mitigation – how’s that working out? Riparian margins are the strip of land next to streams and water sheds. It’s proven that if they are native planted, wide enough, not only do they mitigate flooding, they decrease the amount of effluent, nitrogen and situation run off into the harbours and create corridors for native bird life, freshwater fish and prevent the spread of mangroves.
A drive around our peninsula shows the amount of farms and pine forests with none or insufficient planted margins is undeniable. The Resource Consents for forestry, although inadequate, provide the WRC with the power to enforce riparian planting and yet nothing is done to their corporate colleagues?
So due to our steep terrain and high rainfall, we rate payers pay for the clean-up (Hikuai Settlement Road, 2008).
Any pest problem from possums to polluted ponds is “solved” with environmental toxins. The amount of poison sprayed on our whenua and in our water by WRC is staggering!
The Mercury Bay Boating Club were prevented from saving the seaward land of their clubhouse by people from Hamilton? We are prevented from trying simple alternative seashore protections by WRC “policy”.
“Economy of scale” yeah right. If the WRC rates were managed correctly by TCDC,
We, and our environment, would far better off.
Roger Harwood, Whenuakite
Concerned parents to the Mercury Bay Area School Board of Trustees
We are writing as concerned parents, with the support of a number of other parents from Mercury Bay Area School, Whenuakite School, Coroglen School and Te Rerenga School regarding ongoing concerns about the safety, security, and privacy of students using the school toilets.
While the recent incident involving a student being assaulted in the school toilets has understandably heightened concern within the community, we would like to make clear that this letter was already being drafted prior to that event. This incident has reinforced that these concerns are longstanding and require urgent attention.
Over the past year, multiple students have shared experiences of feeling unsafe or intimidated when using the toilets at school. Concerns raised include toilet doors being kicked in while occupied, students being locked in toilet stalls, students being laughed at or harassed, reports of filming or fear of being filmed, and students avoiding the toilets altogether due to feeling unsafe.
Some students are avoiding drinking water during the day; girls have not attended school during their period, students are waiting until class time to use the bathroom, using the disabled single toilet because it feels safer, or left school grounds to use nearby toilets. These concerns are not isolated to MBAS students alone, but have also been raised by the satellite school students who attend MBAS for technology classes.
Every student has the right to feel safe using basic school facilities and to feel protected from intimidation, harassment, or invasion of privacy while using school toilets.
We respectfully ask the Board to urgently review the current state, supervision, and safety of the school toilets, and to consider what further measures can be taken to ensure this. This could include exploring individual fully enclosed toilet spaces similar to those used in the Hot Water Beach and Tairua public toilet facilities.
We also ask the Board to review the school’s behavioural expectations and consequences. Many families are concerned that serious behaviour issues are not being addressed strongly enough, and that clearer expectations and stronger consequences are needed to better ensure student safety and wellbeing.
We would appreciate acknowledgement that these concerns have been received, along with information about the steps the Board intends to take to address them.
Hanna Bramley
Richard Shelford-Woodcock
Sarah Nicholson
All from Mercury Bay
Climate change is a given
Although I agree with some of Mr Bould’s points, his letter (Informer, 19 May) contains a number of misunderstandings.
Firstly, he expresses concern over the expression “climate change”. However, this is the terminology used throughout our Climate Change Response Act, as well as internationally (eg by organisations such as NASA and the Yale Centre of Climate Change), to refer to human caused climate change. It would be both odd and potentially confusing if our Climate Change Commission was to adopt some other terminology.
Secondly, he says that the climate has always changed and always will. He is, of course, correct. Natural climate change cycles such as El Niño and the Milankovich cycles (relating to changes in the earth’s orbit and the sun’s orbit) will always be with us. However, our climate change legislation, under which the Commission operates, obviously doesn’t try to grapple with those natural cycles.
Thirdly, he refers to “anecdotal accounts” of causes and says that these are of no use. The causes have passed well beyond being “anecdotal”. Our legislation is based on the premise that human caused climate change is an indisputable reality. This approach plainly isn’t unique to New Zealand. It is shared by all the other countries who have signed the international treaties, with the recent exception of the USA.
Fourthly, he advocates that we focus our attention on quality research. There has already been a vast amount of climate change research. For instance NASA refers to over 80,000 climate related studies. And in New Zealand, apart from the recent report of the Commission a couple of examples of well researched papers are NIWA’s report on climate change in the Wellington region (June 2017) and, closer to home, the Waikato Regional Council report (23 May 2025). It is now time for decisive government action, not more research or reports.
Fifthly, Mr Bould refers to the need for the Commission to take certain further steps. This misunderstands its role. Under the legislation the ball has now passed to the Climate Change Minister to act on the Commission’s report. The Minister, for his part, has to engage in public consultation on a draft plan. Perhaps Mr Bould should consider participating in that consultation phase .
Phil Bartlett, Coromandel Town
Background to the baffling changes
To your readers who are baffled by seemingly odd local government goings-on and other things such as “managed retreat” etc, I would suggest they search United Nations Agenda 2021/2030.
There is ample information available, including on United Nation’s website.
This will make things much clearer for all to see and understand.
Dan Allen, Whitianga
