This is the catch cry of the community campaign to save New Chum beach from development.
Imagine walking through the bush, a stand of nikau and then coming down into a beach of golden sands with pohutakawa trees right down to the sand. A large bay with rocky headlands and rolling waves. A beach that is completely pristine with absolutely no development at all. No roads, no paths, no rubbish bins, toilets, ice cream sellers or anything other than the absolute natural beauty. A beach on the Coromandel Peninsula that can only be accessed by a 30 minute walk or by water. This beach is New Chum – Wainuiototo.
I first saw New Chum 10 years ago and I have to say it took my breath away. I have visited many beautiful beaches but the absolute unspoiled nature of New Chum was something special. Since that first visit I have been back many times to sit, to picnic, to walk, to swim and every time it takes my breath away. On one occasion my partner and I ended up being the only people there at the end of the day – it was a magic feeling. If you haven’t visited and you have the chance I would highly recommend it. The beach lies north of Whangapoua beach on the eastern side of the Coromandel peninsula. It is an easy 30 minute walk.
Yesterday I had the pleasure of joining over a thousand others who are fighting to stop development of New Chum. There are so few beaches of this size and quality that remain undeveloped, especially so close to the large population centres of Auckland, Waikato and the Bay of Plenty. We want to save this beach in its untouched state for our children, our grandchildren and future generations.
A wonderful community campaign -New Chum for everyone - has worked tirelessly over the last few months to oppose the development of New Chum. They have submitted, they have lobbied, they have built community support and got the support of Labour leader Phil Goff and Green MP Catherine Delahunty. Yesterdat a message was sent to the Prime Minister to put pressure on him to do what is a no brainer and that is to buy New Chum from the developer to ensure it protected now and into the future.
It seems the developer is willing to do a deal that means this could cost as little as $10 million. This is a small price to pay for something which has enormous economic, social and environmental value. This beach has been described as one of the most beautiful beaches in the world by Lonely Planet and National Geographic.
Yesterday at Matarangi, led by Phil Keoghan (Host of the Amazing Race) and supported by many others including Linda at The Informer newsletter, we sent a visual message made up of over a thousand people; it said “John Key Save Me! New Chum”. Phil Goff, Steve Chadwick, Catherine Delahunty and I (but not Sandra Goudie the local MP) all participated. The Mayor of Thames Coromandel District Council, Glenn Leach and a number of TCDC Councillors were also actively involved. One person I was really pleased to see was Robyn Malcolm who was recently vilified for taking a very principled stance in the whole Hobbit debacle.
The Government can make a difference by buying this wonderful asset for the people of New Zealand. As Phil Goff says ‘National can invest $1.7 billion in protecting South Canterbury Finance Investors and pay Warner Brothers up to $95 million in handouts for filming The Hobbit in New Zealand, $10 million is such a small price for protecting such an invaluable asset as New Chum beach”.
This is something worth supporting. We can save New Chum. Please go to www.preservenewchum.org.nz for more information. As the community campaign states “Whatungarongaro te tangata Toitu te whenua – people come and go but the land remains”
I cant see how the Government cant step in, in light of the seabed and foreshore debate and it seemingly centring on the right of “ordinary” NZers to access the beachfront. This beach essentially going into the ownership of a small number via a development is no different tot he outcry over maori charging $5 to access a beach over their land… the difference being the private owners wont allow access through their properties?
Tracey, whoever buys the land from the developer is irrelevant to whoever owns the beach. All that is needed is a path for public access. If the land is sold, a road will be required anyway. Residents will have no right to exclude the public from using the beach, just as is the situation over 95% of beaches. This is apparently such a difficult place to get to at present that hardly anybody ever goes there. So what’s the point of preventing development? A properly planned and restrained development would allow many more people to enjoy time at this beach, and make it easier in fact, for general public, or “ordinary” NZrs as you call them to have time there too.
That’s $10 mill of which taxes, at minimum GST on the sale, would come back to the government anyway so in effect the cost should be less. Definitely a no-brainer… I guess that’s why the NACT’s won’t do it
“what is a no brainer and that is to buy New Chum”-
I hope that this does become protected fully by govt ownership. It is a a very special place, and as someone whos family had previous pushed for this to be purchased.
I am only confused as it is a no brainer why between 99-05 there were 3 opportunities fpr the govt to purchase this and this was not a no brainer then, especially as there was a forced sale?
But nice to see that Phil and co have seen the light… finally good on you
‘As Phil Goff says ‘National can invest $1.7 million in protecting South Canterbury Finance Investors’; I hope he actually said ‘$1.7 billion’, even so, I wouldn’t really call it an ‘investment’.
As an place of outstanding of natural beauty it doesn’t really matter who owns it, just as long as it’s not allowed to be developed.
The environment minister has the provision under the RMA to call in submisions and the power to deny consents. All he has to do is flag to the owner his intent and the job is done – No development.
Obviously the chances of nick smith doing anything worthwhile are less than zero, but with a new minister at the end of the year, who knows?
HHAHAHAHA 10 mil??? then no chance the Smiley one would rather give it to his mates.
Holidayed at the next door beach Whangapoua from mid 80s. New Chums is very special – I think it the best beach in the world. It has great waves for body surfing or bodyboards as well as the wonderful visual appeal. Done plenty of sleeping under the pohutakawas.
Developers have been lurking for ore 20 years – it would be great to see them off.
My only request is that DoC or regional council don’t improve the access – the clamber around the rocks is part of what gives it a sense of isolation – and making it too easy would spoil it.
Uhmmm I think this may well be a case of corporate welfare you are all looking to spend cash on. The developers will have sunk costs and they are simply trying in a cunning way to recover those because they are too skint to finish what they started.
Still, i have a solution. But it requires some choices.
http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2011/01/04/save-a-beach/
I see that Robyn Malcolm was there
I wonder if she has had second thoughts about the $48,000,000 or so that we taxpayers coughed up to make the TV series she worked on.
Perhaps she should be the one refunding the part of her income that the taxpayer paid her.
Then we could spend it on parks for everyone.
Outrageous Fortune indeed. It is outrageous that we should have to pay out a fortune for her to pursue her interests.
Alwyn blaming Robyn Malcolm for a money making scam that half billionaire Jackson cleverly thought up on behalf of his Hollywood corporate handlers.
And which Key and Brownlee unwittingly bought into.
Try another one.
Hey Alwyn what about the $1,770,000,000 that wealthy SCF bondholders got handed to them on a silver platter?
Or the $9,100,000,000 in tax cuts Bill and John just gave the wealthy of NZ over the next 4 years?
I mean, if you want to bring up the big sums of money, how about the unfunded deficit that English has found himself with, and now he has to borrow $300,000,000 p.w. just to pay the bills? (I mean, not just himself).
Colonial Viper. I wasn’t talking about the movies that Peter Jackson makes.
I was talking about the $48,000,000 that the taxpayer put towards making the TV series Outrageous Fortune. As far as I know he had nothing at all to do with that.
Also it wasn’t Jackson that was reported as being at the protest, it was Robyn Malcolm.
As far as the 1.7 billion goes. I suggest that you ask Phil why SCF were included in, and paid out by, a scheme that HIS government set up.
Thanks Christopher T it was indeed $1.7 billion and I have changed accordingly.
Richard the First your comment that it is such a difficult place to get to that hardly anybody goes doesn’t align with my experience. Yes you do have to walk 30 minutes over rocks and an easy track. I have seen people with very limited fitness get over to New Chum. Many people visit New Chum. Yesterday at 8am there were about 15 people there – some just visiting, some fishing, some surfing. No doubt during the day families would have arrived to picnic and swim. Some boat or kayak around to the beach. But it is wonderful to go to a beach that is not crammed full in the way that some of ‘developed’ beaches are – that is part of the value of retaining New Chum in its current state.
Good on those who went and stood there,
!
G
FF . 2 
11 . !!!!!!!!
N E W . C H U M S . 2
11 
infinity! 
Hi All
If this beach is so close to everyone’s heart (Phil x 2, Richard / Stephen (non playing All Blacks) and other then please put your money where your heart is – Why should the crown always fill the bag for these public shows of protest with at least $10 million dollars this time.
Regards
Glen
Should new Chums be purchased- I hope that there will never be a road put in. For it will destroy the nature of Whangapoa and what New Chums currently offers will be lost. part of the value is the walk thru the bush from the estury. Though at high tide there is some effort required, and many inexperienced to the area get caught out returning at high tide and the crossing involved.
Re SFC most (I hope) of the money will be returned when the “investments” are cashed up $1b+. It also displays how nieve Cullen was in formulating the legislation, how can you pay some out fully and others partially and then take full control of the coy and the investments. Like all rushed legislation we get a very poor outcome
The name New Chum only sets one into giggles.
Sounds like a BVI shelf company name that only could be dreamt up by the Chinese.
All this excitement over building a couple of houses that cant be seen from the beach and in return a road so more people can access the beach. I fail to see who looses out here aside from half a dozen regulars who dont want to share. No One is stopping access as far as I can see just making it a little easier.
Having looked up the beach on google maps, I have some concerns about ‘saving the beach’ so the developer can make a nice profit.
Often the deal is done so that the land behind is still developed- so that the beach them becomes a ‘virtual private reserve’ for these new sections.
Too often the country has been held to ransom by the district council in Coromandel who put self interest first- who would forget their delays on the new Kopu bridge which was held up for nearly 5 years. And of course the marina at Whangamata was in the same vein
By your comment in return for a road. If from this the developer wants a free road constructed for them. the cost of road construction over that area and parking facilitiesis not cheep especially over the terrain concerned and a culvert over the esturythat would not have negative inpacts upstream in regard to flooding.
there also was planned a jetty at the northern end. Slowly the area losses its uniqueness and its reason for saving. If it is to become just another Coromandel beach why then save it. To save it, it must keep its uniqueness.
For some not aware there is a tie up with SCF and New Chums
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/residential-property/news/article.cfm?c_id=76&objectid=10671323
And a bit of The Histories on the area.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/geoff-cumming/news/article.cfm?a_id=88&objectid=3542864
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/geoff-cumming/news/article.cfm?a_id=88&objectid=3542811
@Cactus Kate – Thankyou!
Yes it is a terrible name, who the bleep came up with that bunder? 
@David – yeah settlers to pollute the place up!
Agreed Ghost – these people need to be stopped!
Herodotus – your last sentence is beautiful
Spud – Cactus Kate – that would be my whanau and it has great significance with the history within our rohe/area.
When New Zealand was being developed/colonised the deepest harbour locally was in Kenedy Bay, which is the bay to the north of Wainuiototo/New Chums. Ships from Auckland with settlers/opportunists and landed there to unload passengers and goods. They then set off to Whangapoua/Opitonui and were there was reported in the Auckland newspapers of the time great wealth to be made in Kauri and gold. They were ocasionally met during this journey in Wainuiototo by members of my whanau. Most were to become good friends hence the name New Chum Beach (Thats where they first met their “New Chums”.) Chums = friends
Carole – I was fishing at New Chums twice in the last week (by boat) and there would have been about 200 people walking, swimming and fishing off the rocks over those 5 hours that I spent there. (I remember when it used to be just us) Sigh…..
David it sounds to me that you don’t know the full story.
Herodotus I heard from a cousin that council is putting a walkway through to New Chums – there is already a new walkbridge to nowhere across one of the runoff drains along from the camping ground.
I do not support corporate welfare, any kind, so I found the SCF thing very disappointing. I doubt you’ll find many outside the National Party caucus who supported the move, I know those on the right generally believe that if something fails it’s its own fault. The comparison can be made with Barack Obama’s bank bailouts, you found the American people hated it, most Republicans despised it, but the Pelosi/Reid Democratic congress passed it with great glee. These are the curious anomalies that arise with centrist thinking. Not that I’m calling Barack Obama a centrist, he’s certainly personally left, but early on he did pursue a reasonably centrist agenda.
With this, I really take the same stand, we didn’t have the money to bail out SCF and we don’t have the money to save a beach. Once appropriate cuts have been made to public spending perhaps then we can save it. Perhaps we could do as WhaleOil suggests and take the money off the NZSO and Royal Ballet? Or perhaps we could sell TVNZ? There are plenty of ways to save this beach, but it’s just one beach, a fairly ordinary one at that and the question begs whether its worth the money to have the Government throw its weight around.
I will say, this is very opportunistic from the Labour Party to latch onto this fairly irrelevant issue – especially in an election year and especially when there are considerably more important things you guys could be spending your time on.
Akldnut – I doubt anyone knows the complete story but I heard a councillor interviewed on National Radio, they had made the developer jump through hoops, the houses wont be seen from the beach and there will be improved access for the public. It seems that the protesters dont want to share their beach with other memebers of the public, increased access=increased use. The beach is currently publicly owned.
Not necessarily Richard. Obviously people can access thebeach via the sea with a boat but it does not follow that unless specific public access is delineated that people will have it.
For example I own a piece of land in Marlborough which backs onto a river. There are four properties sitting next to each other. Because of the terrain the only way people can access the river behind us is by entering at some much farther point and making their way up or down the river. Effectively we have “exclusive” access unless we allow people to walk across our land.
There are beaches all over NZ inaccessible without express permission from the landowner, without which people are trespassing.
My point wasnt really directed only at New Chums but the principle of outrage over maori “potentially” stopping access to our precious beaches when so much of our otherwise accessible coastline is inaccessible due to private land ownership.
David – increased access = increased use which = increased crowding, potential for rubbish and other damage!
It would lose its ambience. 
Your property sounds great Tracey!
I too worry about Maori taking away my access to public beaches 
I also worry about development and damage to the environment 
I reiterate improved access is the last thing that should happen. Walking 20 min and no vehicles is part of what makes it special. If the deal involves a road or even a proper walkway then it isn’t a good one.
Aklnut – the beach has always been busier between Christmas and mid Jan – can still be almost alone there most of the rest of the year.
Spud – I dont spend any more time worrying about Maori taking away my access to beaches than I spend worrying about private owners. I wish I had spent some more time considering the later. Now we have a situation where, it seems, maori ownership may be more controlled than a private owners ownership is. I cannot see how those are compatible.
Trevor, if you wish access to remain as it is then I assume you have no problem with the private development of the beach as it wont affect people’s ability to enjoy the beach and only a small number will actually live or rent there?
Slippery slope Tracey
Even if you can’t see those houses there would surely be some kind of access provided to get to these houses and therefore the beach would there not? 
The land which is currently the only access to New Chum Beach is NOT part of the proposed development. It is owned by the descendents of the family who owned and farmed New Chum in the first half of the 20th century and is being overseen by the QE II Trust. This means that the public will retain the currect access to – ie around the rocks and through the beautiful nikau grove . I just hope people don’t abuse this privilege. I have spent the last five days at New Chum with my family and in that time have seen over twenty lots of people free camping and lighting fires, and was very disappointed to see that the NO FIRES and NO CAMPING sign that the family had erected had been ripped out. If people don’t respect the laws and the land, why should the family continue to allow access over their land to New Chum Beach?
Labour weekend is fast approaching, there are less untarnished beaches on the east coast of coromandel and STILL no news from Labour as to perserving the beach and adjacent area.
What a great time for a election pledge, that is if Labour believes that this is worth perserving, as I hope this was not just a smile and wave, photo opportunity: Labour version.
Scary to learn, thanks to Greenpeace and the Green Party, that our National leaders have already committed us to risky deep-sea oil-drilling ventures, courtesy of foreign companies.
The wake-up call of the RENA disaster, if nothing else, should be turning voters away from supporting National. We need a Labour-Greens alliance in government after 26 November to protect our precious sea, coastline and wildlife.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10768051
It was earlier this year worth making a stand, smiling and having your photo taken, then I ask why has there been no mention in the current election campaign?
Herodotus, I should have replied more quickly. Labour’s Conservation Policy, which is on our website, clearly refers to New Chum beach. We note the beach is one of the finest in the world but is threatened by development. We say how it can be protected and how we are determined that the beach will be saved for the enjoyment of present and future generations. We commmit to exploring the means to save New Chum beach.