The Bluff Hill Bowling Club Proposal: A Vision for Lighthouse Road
The land currently occupied by the Bluff Hill Bowling Club is overseen by the Department of Conservation (DOC). Originally established in the 1920s to house a new lighthouse, the site gave "Lighthouse Road" its name. The relocation of the Napier Lighthouse was necessitated by city expansion, which made it difficult for vessels to distinguish the light near Napier Prison. However, following the 1931 earthquake, unstable land conditions on the Ahuriri Bluff halted construction. Today, the club leases this historic property, and it was Jesse Jones—the club’s former Green-keeper—who first proposed returning a replica lighthouse to its site.
Jesse’s vision was as practical as it was creative: transforming the existing toolshed next to the bowling green into a lighthouse.
This approach removed the need for a complex lens reproduction; instead, modern spotlights could provide both atmosphere and utility for evening games. Jesse’s deep connection to the land inspired this solution to enhance the club’s identity and attract new members. Imagine the experience of standing on a lighthouse deck after a match, looking out over the Port of Napier.
Despite its potential, the proposal never reached a committee meeting. It was swiftly rejected via email, and visual mock-ups were removed from the notice board without discussion. The reaction was unexpectedly hostile; rather than seeing a tribute to maritime history, some members viewed the concept as disrespectful. Under pressure, I temporarily removed the proposal from my website. It was a disheartening experience to have a viable promotional idea for the club’s future dismissed so abruptly.
This experience highlighted a surprising lack of imagination regarding Napier's maritime heritage. While the Napier City Council and Crown Property Management gave the research due diligence, the Bowling Club’s response felt dismissive of both my efforts and Jesse’s innovation. As a member of the club, it was frustrating to see "out-of-the-box" thinking squashed in a manner that felt personal rather than professional.
The contrast in club priorities became clear when a proposal was introduced to replace 70-year-old shelters with second-hand 1999 Britomart Bus shelters. Despite not being on the official AGM agenda, the $50,000 industrial shelter project received broad support. While the lighthouse replica was viewed as a "vanity project," there was a push to install modern Auckland bus shelters into a 150-year-old historic reserve. Fortunately, the original shelters remain for now, but the vision for the reserve’s aesthetic remains contested, and unresolved.
A replica lighthouse or Britomart bus shelters—these represent two colliding visions for the future of Lighthouse Road. While modern shelters are functional, they fail to respect the Napier Hill Character Zone. I argued for timber shelters that match the club’s century-old heritage at a similar price point, but the preference for industrial utility over historical symmetry persisted.
In a separate effort around Easter 2025, I proposed the installation of a 7th order Fresnel lens at the Napier Lighthouse Signal Station Reserve. Although Maritime New Zealand and the Port of Napier confirmed it would not interfere with navigation, the Council declined the project, citing "limited public benefit.
The club’s reaction to this initiative was particularly aggressive. During an on-site meeting I arranged with the Council, the club accused me of "stealing power" for a few hours of use to show the project to the local Council Reserve manager. They subsequently lodged a complaint with the City Council reserve manager regarding the trimming of vegetation on public reserve land—an act intended to protect the site's heritage—and used the incident to attempt to suspend my club membership. It is a telling example of how heritage protection efforts can be met with hostility rather than collaboration. Currently, I am in the position of defending my membership over a project intended to honour the very history the club sits upon.
Although Maritime New Zealand and the Port of Napier confirmed it would not interfere with navigation, the Council declined the $5,000 project, citing "limited public benefit" and safety concerns regarding the bluff’s edge. Like the replica lighthouse, this attempt to celebrate our local history was ultimately shelved.
The land currently occupied by the Bluff Hill Bowling Club is overseen by the Department of Conservation (DOC). Originally established in the 1920s to house a new lighthouse, the site gave "Lighthouse Road" its name. The relocation of the Napier Lighthouse was necessitated by city expansion, which made it difficult for vessels to distinguish the light near Napier Prison. However, following the 1931 earthquake, unstable land conditions on the Ahuriri Bluff halted construction. Today, the club leases this historic property, and it was Jesse Jones—the club’s former Green-keeper—who first proposed returning a replica lighthouse to its site.
Jesse’s vision was as practical as it was creative: transforming the existing toolshed next to the bowling green into a lighthouse.This approach removed the need for a complex lens reproduction; instead, modern spotlights could provide both atmosphere and utility for evening games. Jesse’s deep connection to the land inspired this solution to enhance the club’s identity and attract new members. Imagine the experience of standing on a lighthouse deck after a match, looking out over the Port of Napier.Despite its potential, the proposal never reached a committee meeting. It was swiftly rejected via email, and visual mock-ups were removed from the notice board without discussion. The reaction was unexpectedly hostile; rather than seeing a tribute to maritime history, some members viewed the concept as disrespectful. Under pressure, I temporarily removed the proposal from my website. It was a disheartening experience to have a viable promotional idea for the club’s future dismissed so abruptly.
This experience highlighted a surprising lack of imagination regarding Napier's maritime heritage. While the Napier City Council and Crown Property Management gave the research due diligence, the Bowling Club’s response felt dismissive of both my efforts and Jesse’s innovation. As a member of the club, it was frustrating to see "out-of-the-box" thinking squashed in a manner that felt personal rather than professional.
The contrast in club priorities became clear when a proposal was introduced to replace 70-year-old shelters with second-hand 1999 Britomart Bus shelters. Despite not being on the official AGM agenda, the $50,000 industrial shelter project received broad support. While the lighthouse replica was viewed as a "vanity project," there was a push to install modern Auckland bus shelters into a 150-year-old historic reserve. Fortunately, the original shelters remain for now, but the vision for the reserve’s aesthetic remains contested, and unresolved.
A replica lighthouse or Britomart bus shelters—these represent two colliding visions for the future of Lighthouse Road. While modern shelters are functional, they fail to respect the Napier Hill Character Zone. I argued for timber shelters that match the club’s century-old heritage at a similar price point, but the preference for industrial utility over historical symmetry persisted.
In a separate effort around Easter 2025, I proposed the installation of a 7th order Fresnel lens at the Napier Lighthouse Signal Station Reserve. Although Maritime New Zealand and the Port of Napier confirmed it would not interfere with navigation, the Council declined the project, citing "limited public benefit.
The club’s reaction to this initiative was particularly aggressive. During an on-site meeting I arranged with the Council, the club accused me of "stealing power" for a few hours of use to show the project to the local Council Reserve manager. They subsequently lodged a complaint with the City Council reserve manager regarding the trimming of vegetation on public reserve land—an act intended to protect the site's heritage—and used the incident to attempt to suspend my club membership. It is a telling example of how heritage protection efforts can be met with hostility rather than collaboration. Currently, I am in the position of defending my membership over a project intended to honour the very history the club sits upon.
Although Maritime New Zealand and the Port of Napier confirmed it would not interfere with navigation, the Council declined the $5,000 project, citing "limited public benefit" and safety concerns regarding the bluff’s edge. Like the replica lighthouse, this attempt to celebrate our local history was ultimately shelved.