3. Is it imperative that W.B.V.C.G. have their headquarters at Anzac Bay? We feel it is not - the location of site two kindly offered by Pio Shore Developments would be a more appropriate site. We have to question - what exactly are the Coast Guard’s motives? - It would be unfortunate to think that they are seeking their site merely to provide a magnificent view for their Clubrooms. We would like to see W.B.V.C.G. make a genuine effort to consider site two and leave Anzac Bay unblemished for those who appreciate its historical and aesthetic qualities.137
The Waihi Leader reported on the proposed new site in detail and suggested the barriers to the coastguard building on the water tank site were considerable:
After months of chess-like bureaucratic manoeuvres the coastguard last week came out and pinpointed the site it wants to lease and build on. It is neither of the two locations put forward, and recently opened up to public submission … it is highly unlikely the coastguard organisation will be allowed the site it prefers.138
It would seem from the outset that the coastguard had their sights set on the water tank site. To secure this site they had to overcome the Tauranga County Council 1988 management plan which emphasised the need to maintain the domain’s natural character of open spaces. This plan took into account the council’s responsibilities under the Reserves Act, the Town and Country Planning Act and the Historic Places Act. The coastguard did not gain approval for their preferred site.139
On 8 October 1992 the proposed lease for site II was advertised for public objection subject to sections 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977. No objections were received.140 On 18 December the council decided that the general location of the site was acceptable and, after the unchallenged objection period to October 1992, decided to go ahead with leasing proposals. The Department of Conservation confirmed that there were no apparent historical or archaeological sites in this locality, an opinion that had earlier been confirmed by the Maori liaison officer’s consultation process with local Maori.141
It is possible to argue that the defeat of the coastguard’s preferred site at Anzac Bay was a victory for the Resource Management Act and Otawhiwhi Marae. A more pragmatic assessment would show that the coastguard were unrealistic in their attempt to gain approval to build at Anzac Bay. They were either unaware, or unconcerned about, the recent history regarding the domain board’s and Crown’s efforts to remove bach owners. The battle to remove the bach owners in the 1950s made future building on the site unlikely.
137 Ibid
138Waihi Leader, 3 December 1991 [p 32]
139 Reserves Planner/Manager to District Planner, 8 June 1993, Katikati Domain Records, WBoPDC
38