To read the most up-to-date information go to the Coromandel Harbour Facilities Project page here. The information below outlines the various options that were explored back in 2012 as part of the thorough investigation into location alternatives. Sites that were investigated Kopu Sugarloaf Wharf Windy Point (Puhi Rare) Coromandel Wharf Report analysis All potential locations were assessed for suitability on a number of grounds. All locations had to offer all-tide access for users. Independent planning advice: Contracting an independent planner to undertake an assessment of the alternative locations for wharfing infrastructure to support the Coromandel aquaculture industry. Toxicity testing: Contracting an independent testing regime for toxicity both at Kopu and within Coromandel Harbour. In particular, the Te Kouma residents had raised concerns about the potential toxicity of dredging at Sugarloaf, and the likely impact on ecological values. Therefore this toxicity testing was undertaken for both Sugarloaf and Puhi Rare, along with core sampling for toxicity. Bathymetry analysis: Understanding the length and depth of dredging required, and the potential toxicity involved. This bathymetry analysis has been undertaken at both Kopu and within Coromandel Harbour. Wharf designs and costings for Kopu and Coromandel Wharf: In the 2010 Discussion Document, there were only wharfing design completed for Sugarloaf and Puhi Rare. So, in response to the Te Kouma residents urging about Kopu and a realistic comparison of alternatives, a consulting engineer has been retained to undertake detailed wharf designs for both the Kopu and Coromandel Wharf options. Economic analysis: In the feedback from a meeting with the Te Kouma residents, the estimates of aquaculture production and the value of the industry to the Coromandel were questioned. Therefore the Project Team contracted an independent analysis of the economic value of current and future production to both the regional and national economies. Roading: One of the issues raised by the Te Kouma residents related to safety concerns at the Te Kouma Road/SH25 intersection. Therefore the Project Team had Opus prepare some design options for improving the intersection, along with costings. Summary of findings Please read the decision matrix to understand more about the pros and cons of each location investigated in the report. Download the options report from the 'download box' on the right hand side of this page. Here is a summary of the findings Kopu is ruled out due to heavy metal toxicity Coromandel Wharf is not viable based on cost – and also faces issues with potential toxicity, and also increased heavy traffic movements through the town which could adversely affect its heritage and tourism nature. This leaves two locations – Puhi Rare and Sugarloaf. Of these two locations, Sugarloaf is recommended as the preferred option because it is an already modified site that currently operates as a wharf, and it is more cost-effective. Recommendations to Council "supporting the aquaculture industry, enhancing facilities for recreational boating, improving wharf operations for locals..." The Development Group has recommended Sugarloaf as the ideal location as a way of improving facilities for all users. An expansion of the facility will separate recreational and commercial operations allowing for a better operated wharf for all users and those living nearby. Select Sugarloaf be selected as the preferred site for wharfing expansion. Directs the Project Team to proceed with the development of a business case for the proposed Sugarloaf expansion Agrees that subject to negotiations with the aquaculture industry, the wharfing expansion at Sugarloaf which directly relates to the aquaculture industry should be funded by the aquaculture industry. Directs the Project Team negotiate with the aquaculture industry to secure confirmed industry commitment to funding such wharfing infrastructure. Asks the Project Team to investigate options, including the potential use of bylaws to ensure that all aquaculture vessels using the existing Sugarloaf are required to fund the expansion of the new wharf on an equitable basis – and that no aquaculture user can simply opt to continue using the existing wharf without contributing to the new upgrade. Asks the Project Team to provide advice on options for managing the financial and other risk associated with the Sugarloaf Wharf, including considering whether it should be recognized as a district-wide asset given the economic benefits that would result for the district as a whole. Agrees in principle that the Hannaford‟s wharf be upgraded to make it more suitable for ferry access, and that the carparking at Hannaford‟s be also upgraded with marking and sealing – with funding set aside in the Council‟s Long Term Plan for the upgrade. Agrees that it will consider suitable upgrades for recreational access to Sugarloaf as part of any wharfing expansion – and that the cost of this upgrade be funded as part of Council‟s contribution to the wharfing project. Agrees that if Council selects either Sugarloaf or Puhi Rare as the preferred option, then funding be proposed in the Long-Term Plan for improvements to the intersection at Te Kouma Road/SH25. Agrees that once the Business case is completed, options for part-funding from regional and central government should be more fully explored – recognizing that these are only likely to materialize once a resource consent is obtained. What happens next? Read the project plan page to find out, In weighing up the various merits of the four locations, the following conclusions are derived:1. Kopu is ruled out due to heavy metal toxicity2. Coromandel Wharf is not viable based on cost – and also faces issues with potential toxicity, and also increased heavy traffic movements through the town which could adversely affect its heritage and tourism nature.3. This leaves two locations – Puhi Rare and Sugarloaf.4. Of these two locations, Sugarloaf is recommended as the preferred option because it is an already modified site that currently operates as a wharf, and it is more cost-effective. Stay in touch Subscribe to our 'aquaculture' eNewsletter to stay in touch with this project as it progresses through the various stages.