Auckland's Climate Action Plan

It’s OK to build on the coast when…

Complete this sentence in the comments.

AlexSB 9 months ago

... the land is high above sea level. It would really depend on the circumstances and the land survey report, but there should probably be a default approach against. Homes inland below sea level may also be dicey.

Reply 1

Lorraine Hamilton 9 months ago

If land is on the coast and high above sea level, it's more susceptible to erosion

Reply 0

Lorraine Hamilton 9 months ago

...the purchasers of the land accept responsibility for keeping their property intact. This should include measures to reduce coastal erosion, sea level rise and flooding issues. This should not be council's responsibility.

Reply 2

Ngan Truong 9 months ago

enough design and investigation have been carried out.

Reply 0

Fred Smithers 9 months ago

... it's okay when the person/ organisation building on the coast understand that the land may be subject to inundation/ erosion in the future. In some cases this might not be for 50-100+ years, which may be okay for some people. Awareness can be raised through a new planning overlay the 'climate change sea level rise risk zone' or similar.

I think there needs to be a shift in consciousness - building in low-lying coastal areas or areas subject to increased erosion from rising seas is just as risky as building on a volcano or in a forest (e.g. bushfires in Aus/ US...). We need to understand the risk and can't necessarily rely on government or insurance to pick up the pieces if we chose to build in a low-lying place given present climate/ sea level rise projections!

Reply 1

Heinrich Havemann 9 months ago

When a robust risk assessment has been undertaken considering all factors and with necessary consultation.

Reply 0

Marcus Palmer 9 months ago

..there is no danger of erosion i.e. rocks.
I disagree with the personal responsibility argument because, as I see it, insurance rates increase for all of us to pay for it, or in 50-100 years the government will foot the bill anyway.

Reply 0

Lucia K 9 months ago

depending on how high the coast is

Reply 0

ARDM 9 months ago

Perhaps going forward we cold look at recycleable/relocatable homes and value coastal properties in accordance with their short term usability. Planning rules could be changed to ensure homes and infrastruture are easy to remove as the land becomes unusable.

Reply 0

Juliet Williams 9 months ago

Sea views are beautiful and I understand why people want to build or keep homes in these locations. I do feel conflicted about land like this being built on and building public out, though. Chains of walkways around coasts would allow people more access to our most scenic spaces as well as acting as a buffer for building zones, perhaps?
I do also think that if buildings are placed in these high risk spaces that engineering and insurance requirements need to be in place from the start to both alleviate risk/give options in case of erosion or other failure...

Reply 0

Generic user icon
This comment has been removed

Graham . 6 months ago

Property owners must have full responsibility for their property including access and services to it. No-one else should have to share the cost of their decision to build.

Reply 0

Generic user icon
This comment has been removed
Generic user icon
This comment has been removed
Generic user icon
This comment has been removed

Jason Mamford 3 months ago

For the last 100 years the sea level in Auckland has been rising at 1.55mm per year according to Statistics NZ and the tide gauge at Devonport and it is reasonable to assume that it will continue at that rate for the next 100 years. So by the year 2100 it should rise another 125mm or 5 inches.
Houses (not the land) should ideally be 500mm above the highest tides.
Please note that part of Tamaki Drive has sunk and is going to be raised to the correct level. It is scaremongering and a lie to post pictures of the flooded Tamaki Drive saying that is due to climate change.

Reply 0

Share