queens wharf 85-89 quay street, auckland …...a gangway connection to the central northern terminus...

Plan.Heritage

QUEENS WHARF

85-89 QUAY STREET, AUCKLAND

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS FOR CRUISE SHIPS

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

PREPARED FOR PANUKU

AUGUST 2018

Plan.Heritage Ltd.

48 Lake Road

Narrow Neck

Auckland 0624

[email protected]

www.planheritage.co.nz

Plan.Heritage

2 | P a g e

Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018

QUEENS WHARF

85-89 QUAY STREET, AUCKLAND

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS FOR CRUISE SHIPS

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR PANUKU

AUGUST 2018

CONTROLLED DOCUMENT

Version Date Prepared by: Reviewed: Approved: FINAL for Issue 27/08/2018 J Brown

Revision record Date Prepared by: Summary of Changes Aprvd July final revision 10/07/2018 J Brown New figures and updated photos.

New text to physical effects T Ma

June Draft revision 29/06/2018 J Brown Adoption of project team comments

T Ma

2018 May Draft 09/05/2018 J Brown Revised to consider central gangway

Revision 1 22/09/2016 J Brown Amendments following client review

Revision 2 30/10/2016 J Brown Updated following revised design

Revision 3 15/11/2016 J Brown Planner’s Comments addressed

Final (Revision 4) 12/09/2016 J Brown (MA ACIfA)

A Brown (MA MSc BSc) J Brown (MA ACIfA)

Reference this document: Brown. J, 2018. Queens Wharf, 85-89 Quay Street, Auckland: Proposed Modifications for Cruise Ships. Heritage Impact Assessment prepared for Panuku August 2018

Cover image: Queens Wharf, Auckland (Plan.Heritage Ltd)

Plan.Heritage Ltd.

48 Lake Road Narrow Neck

Auckland 0624

[email protected]

www.planheritage.co.nz

021 02973641

Plan.Heritage

3 | P a g e


CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 4

Proposal and Planning Background ............................................................................................. 4 Summary of Heritage Impact Assessment ................................................................................... 5 Material reviewed and previous meetings .................................................................................... 7 Special information requirements ................................................................................................ 7

HISTORIC HERITAGE VALUES ..................................................................................................... 7 Queens Wharf, 85-89 Quay Street, Central Auckland.................................................................. 7 Summary Statement of Significance ............................................................................................ 9 Identified historic heritage places within the vicinity ................................................................... 10

SITE AND CONTEXT ................................................................................................................... 12 General location and topography ............................................................................................... 12 Brief historical background ........................................................................................................ 13 Prevailing character ................................................................................................................... 15 Key historic heritage views and setting ...................................................................................... 17 Historic Heritage Features ......................................................................................................... 25 Results of site and context analysis ........................................................................................... 25

THE PROPOSAL .......................................................................................................................... 27 Summary of activities ................................................................................................................ 27

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON HISTORIC HERITAGE VALUES ............................................ 33 Physical Effects ......................................................................................................................... 33 Effects on Setting ...................................................................................................................... 34 Indirect effects ........................................................................................................................... 34 Overall Effects ........................................................................................................................... 35

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 REQUIREMENTS ......................................................... 36 Auckland Council Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (AUPOP) 2016 ............................... 36 AUPOP B5.2.1 Regional Policy Statement: Built Heritage and Character – Objectives ............. 36 AUPOP B5.2.2. Regional Policy Statement – Policies ............................................................... 37 AUPOP Section D17.2 – Historic Heritage Overlay Objectives [rcp/dp] ..................................... 37 AUPOP Section D17.3. Policies [rcp/dp].................................................................................... 38 AUPOP Chapter F2 – General Coastal Marine Zone ................................................................. 42

HERITAGE NEW ZEALAND POUHERE TAONGA ACT 2014 REQUIREMENTS ........................ 45 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................ 46

Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 47 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 48 APPENDIX ONE: SIGHT LINE 20 (PAUP APPENDIX 9) .............................................................. 49 APPENDIX TWO: PLANS AND ELEVATIONS ............................................................................. 50

Plan.Heritage

4 | P a g e


INTRODUCTION

Proposal and Planning Background

Panuku (the Applicant) is proposing to undertake modifications to Queens Wharf, Quay Street,

Auckland. The purpose of the proposed modifications is to enable Queens Wharf to berth "extra-

large" cruise ships.- The berth modifications are required to accommodate extra-large cruise

ships, with the design vessel of the 362m long ‘Oasis of the Seas’, capable of carrying more than

6000 passengers.

The site is located at 85-89 Quay Street, Auckland, and extends into the Coastal Marine Area

(CMA) of Auckland’s Waitematā Harbour (Figure 1). The legal Lot Description is “Pt Bed Harbour

WAITEMATA 31350m2 DI 33A/195”. The site is included in Schedule 14.1 of the Auckland Unitary

Plan Operative in Part (AUPOP) as a Category B historic heritage place (Schedule 14.1, AUPOP ID

2735). Queens Wharf is also included in the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero as a

Category 1 heritage place (HNZ List ref 9500) and it additionally forms part of the historic harbour

area included in the List (HNZ List ref 7158).

Plan.Heritage Ltd. has been engaged by Panuku to undertake an independent assessment of the

proposed modifications to the wharf regarding historic heritage, and to identify any potential

elements of heritage interest that might inform the proposal.

This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) report assesses the potential for historic heritage effects

that may arise as a result of the proposed modifications to Queens Wharf. The report considers

the potential for adverse, beneficial, temporary and permanent effects, and offers

recommendations. It considers the relevant objectives, policies, and assessment criteria of the

Auckland Council Auckland Unitary Operative in Part (AUPOP).

This assessment has been prepared for the Applicant by Plan.Heritage Ltd, to accompany the

resource consent application to the proposed modifications to Queens Wharf as set out above, and

should not be relied upon for any other purpose.

Plan.Heritage

5 | P a g e


Summary of Heritage Impact Assessment

The proposal will result in some minor modifications to a Category B Scheduled historic heritage

place – Queens Wharf, and some changes to its setting. The wharf is also listed with Heritage New

Zealand as part of a historic harbour area. These modifications include:

A gangway connection to the central northern terminus of the wharf

The gangway will serve two mooring dolphins in the CMA which are not within the historic

heritage overlay, but form part of the setting of Queens Wharf

Seven new mooring bollards to the southeast corner of the wharf;

New timber fenders to the eastern edge of the wharf

The effects of the proposal to modify Queens Wharf to accommodate extra-large cruise ships:

are considered to be ‘minor’ in terms of adverse effects to the historic heritage values for

which the wharf is recognised and included in AUPOP schedule of historic heritage

(Schedule 14.1);

are considered acceptable in the wider context of surrounding historic heritage places, as

there will no direct impact or significant effects to their historic setting (such as impacts on

wharf related activities and views);

are directly and strongly beneficial to the historic heritage values of Queens Wharf, as it

enables the historic function of the wharf to be retained for the long-term;

includes indirect beneficial effects for numerous historic heritage places within central

Auckland, as the ability to disembark substantial numbers of visitors to these places is likely

to enhance associated economic benefits, use and enjoyment; and,

should not present any constraint to the application on historic heritage grounds and can

be supported by the AUPOP Historic Heritage Overlay objectives and policies.

Plan.Heritage

6 | P a g e


Figure 1. Site location (arrowed), property boundary (outlined in red) and Queens Wharf (outlined in blue) (source: Auckland Council GIS viewer)

Plan.Heritage

7 | P a g e


Material reviewed and previous meetings

The following material has been reviewed in the production of this HIA:

Queens Wharf Dolphin Structure Visual Impact & Public Access Considerations Design

Study Boffa Miskell July 2018 (draft)

Natural Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects Assessment Graphic Supplement

Boffa Miskell July 2018 (draft)

Queens Wharf Cruise Ship Berth: AEE - Engineering Aspects Preliminary Design Report by

Beca April 2018

Queens Wharf Cruise Ship Berth: Preliminary Design Report by Beca April 2018

Historic Heritage Submission for Council-Owned Land prepared by Auckland Council

Heritage Unit as part of the PAUP submissions for Topic 032 Schedule of historic heritage

places (Walker M, 2015)

Queens Wharf Historic Heritage Assessment by Matthews and Matthews 2009

Auckland Council Cultural Heritage Inventory (CHI)

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga List report for Queens Wharf by Martin Jones 2013

(HNZ List)

Additional research into site development through analysis of historical photography and

maps (Auckland Council GIS viewer, Auckland Libraries Heritage Images Online; Alexander

Turnbull Library, ArchSite)

Land Information New Zealand historical deposited maps and plans

Other sources are indicated in the references section of this report.

Special information requirements

This report has been prepared in accordance with the relevant historic heritage provisions of the

AUPOP for special information requirements (AUPOP Historic Heritage Overlay D17.9).

HISTORIC HERITAGE VALUES

Queens Wharf, 85-89 Quay Street, Central Auckland

Queens Wharf is included as a Category B historic heritage place in the AUPOP schedule of historic

heritage (Schedule 14.1, AUPOP ID 2735). Queens Wharf is recognised for its historical (A), social

(B), knowledge (D), technological (E) physical attributes (F) and context (H) values (Figure 2). The

historic heritage overlay ‘extent of place’ is shown in Figure 3 and includes the entire built

structure of the wharf.

The primary feature identified in the schedule is the “substructure and deck (including shed

platforms), Shed G (now known as Shed 10), ferry shelter, electricity substation building, railway

tracks, crane rails, weighbridge” (AUPOP Schedule 14.1). The exclusions identified are “1.

Fendering 2. Cast iron bollards 3. Any works associated with repair and maintenance to ensure the

integrity of the wharf structure for port purposes. The repair and maintenance methodology for

piles includes the removal of defective concrete either by mechanical means or hydro-demolition,

Plan.Heritage

8 | P a g e


replacement of corroded reinforcement, coating of reinforcement and reinstatement with new

concrete either by spraying or recasting with concrete or mortar”.

There are no additional rules for archaeological features or sites. It is not identified as a place of

Maori interest or significance.

The Queens Wharf is also included as a Category 1 place on the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere

Taonga (HNZ) National Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero (HNZ List ref 9500) and forms part of the

historic harbour area listed by HNZ (HNZ List ref 7158).

Plan.Heritage

9 | P a g e


Summary Statement of Significance

The following statement was provided in support of including Queens Wharf in Schedule 14.1 –

Schedule of Historic Heritage in the Auckland Unitary Plan:

‘Queens Wharf has considerable regional historical significance in its association with the

development of trade and commerce in Auckland, at a time when shipping was the main

connection with the rest of the world. Associated with the Auckland Harbour Board (AHB), the

early twentieth century wharf rebuild and port development, reflects the importance of the wharf

to the development of Auckland. Also associated with the development of the commuter ferries

established in Auckland in the late decades of the nineteenth century, the wharf has continued

operating in the same capacity since its earliest formation. Queen’s Wharf is linked to important

moments in New Zealand history, including the Waterfront strikes of 1913 and 1951 and the

influenza epidemic in 1918 and has been the site of many ceremonial and social occasions since its

inception.’

‘Queen’s Wharf has moderate regional significance regarding knowledge and technological

significance as an example of early reinforced concrete construction and its connections with the

pioneering Ferro-Concrete Company of Australasia and R.F.Moore, the chief engineer. A more

intact and finer example of the FerroConcrete Company and Moore’s work is the Grafton Bridge.

‘Designed by AHB engineer W.H Hamer, as part of his redesign of the Port of Auckland, the wharf

has considerable local significance for its physical attributes. The wharf originally incorporated four

large cargo sheds, one of which remains. Shed 10 is believed to be the only one to survive on

Auckland’s Harbour, and its rarity is an important aspect of the wharf’s significance. Other

elements of the wharf such as the early bollards, the railway tracks, the remnants of the

weighbridge, the wharf substructure, the original ferry shelter, and the outline of the three shed

platforms that have been removed are all considerably local significant features, providing

information on how the wharf once operated.’

‘Viewed from the harbour or as a continuation of the main street of the city, Queen’s Wharf, with

the prominence of Shed 10, is a well-known Auckland landmark. The wharf has considerable

regional aesthetic and contextual significance. As part of the wider historical context of the port

and the city, Queens Wharf was designed as one of the key elements in the overall 1904 plan to

redesign the port. In its location at the base of Queen Street, the wharf forms part of a group of

significant historic structures built around the same time including the former Chief Post Office, the

Endeans Building, the Ferry Building and the Queens Wharf Gates.’

Figure 2. Summary statement of significance provided in the submission for inclusion to the PAUP Schedule 14.1: Schedule of Historic Heritage, prepared by Auckland Council (source: Walker M 2015)

Plan.Heritage

10 | P a g e


Identified historic heritage places within the vicinity

Within a 250m radius of Queens Wharf, there are 11 places of historic heritage interest recorded

on the Auckland Council Cultural Heritage Inventory (CHI), including the subject site. Locations are

shown in Figure 3. Table 1 below gives the summary details of each site. Heritage places within or

partly within the subject site, are highlighted grey.

Table 1. Places of historic interest within 250m radius of subject site

Chi

ref

NZAA

ref

AUPOP

Id

HNZ

ref

Name Category Site type

2550 - 2769 4597 Endeans Building Historic structure

Building - commercial

517 - 2735 9500 Queen Street Wharf |

Queens Wharf

Maritime site Wharf

557 - - 7158 Central Wharf | Captain

Cook Wharf

Maritime site Wharf

789 - - - Eclair Maritime site Shipwreck

1025 - - 7158 Admiralty Steps Maritime site Landing |

historic structure

16792 - 2769 9500 Queens Wharf Sheds |

Queens Wharf Cargo Sheds | Shed 10 | Shed 11

Historic

structure

Historic

structure | sheds

17516 - 2018 670 Launch Shelters | Western

Launch Shelter | Eastern and Western Public

Shelters | Wharf Pavilions

Maritime site Building -

commercial

18882 - 2018 670 Launch Shelters (Former) Historic structure

Building | heritage area

304 - 1915 632 Auckland Harbour Board

Fence | Queens Wharf Gates and Fence | Ports of

Auckland Gates And Fence | Red Gates | Queens

Wharf Gates

Historic

structure

Structure

(historic) | fence

2544 - 2018 670 Public Shelters (Former) | Launch Shelters | Eastern

Launch Shelter | Eastern

and Western Public Shelters | Wharf Pavilions

Historic structure

Building - commercial

332 - 2016 102 Ferry Building | The Ferry Building | Queens Ferry

Building | The Auckland

Ferry Building

Historic structure

Building - ferry

Plan.Heritage

11 | P a g e


Auckland Council GIS Viewer (2018) with

search radius 250m on centre (red circle).

Nearby CHI places are shown as yellow dots

Heritage New Zealand List Search (2018)

Queens Wharf is identified as a listed place

Auckland Council AUP viewer 2018

Figure 3. Planning controls and identified historic heritage places

Plan.Heritage

12 | P a g e


SITE AND CONTEXT

General location and topography

Queens Wharf is located at 85-89 Quay Street, Auckland, extending North/North East into

Auckland’s Waitematā Harbour and aligned with the Queen Street axis. Formerly Auckland’s

topography was a sequence of bays, divided by coastal headlands/ points. Queens Wharf and the

adjacent ferry wharves were constructed between 1907 and 1913, following reclamation of

Commercial Bay (Figure 4).

Queens Wharf extends into the CMA and is situated almost entirely below the Mean High-Water

Mark, which runs up to the harbour edge revetments. It is approximately 375m long and

approximately 86m wide. Although linear in shape, the wharf is asymmetrical and tapers in on the

western side to accommodate the ferry terminal built in 1907.

Figure 4. Plan showing the 1841 foreshore line and the progressive reclamations of Auckland’s foreshore made between 1841 and 1898 (source: Sir George Grey Special Collections, Auckland Libraries, 4-8477)

Plan.Heritage

13 | P a g e


Brief historical background

Detailed histories are contained in a number of studies on the waterfront and Queens Wharf,

including chronologies of historical development; historic maps, plans and images. This is not

repeated here, and a list of sources is included in the reference section for further information (see

Salmond Reed 2011 and Matthews & Matthews 2009, which this text is derived from).

The central waterfront area was highly valued by early Māori. The Waitematā harbour contained

extensive shellfish and birds, while fertile soils of the volcanic fields were cultivated as well. The

harbours (including the Waitemata and Manukau), had various portages and were the centre of an

extensive water-based transport network. The Auckland isthmus had many settlements, including

the fortified volcanic cones and supported one of the most concentrated Māori populations in New

Zealand.

Following the arrival of colonists in the 1840s, the natural landscape was hugely modified.1 The

points were cut down, such as Te Rerenga Oraiti pa, later known as Point Britomart. The bays

were infilled to provide wharves, such as Commercial Bay at the foot of Queen Street, which was

formerly a wide beach area with mudflats used by early settlers to transport goods from ship to

shore. Commercial Bay was reclaimed, beginning with the formation of Fore Street (now Fort

Street) completed in 1850 and continued with the first Queen Street wharf in 1852. The port grew

rapidly, reaching Quay Street by the 1880s. Fill from the cutting down of Point Britomart (c. 1876

– 1886) was used as fill for reclamations in the bays. The streams (such as the Waihorotiu of

Queen Street valley) were piped underground and the construction of New Zealand’s largest city

began.

The wharf as it exists today represents the third iteration of a wharf structure erected in this

location since the first Queen Street wharf in 1852, which was further inland, prior to the full

extent of reclamations. The previous (second) Queen Street wharf was located in the same site as

the present-day Queens Wharf. It was built to be much broader to allow for the location of goods

sheds, as part of the 1904 masterplan for the Port of Auckland prepared by the Auckland Harbour

Board engineer W.H. Hamer. The existing reinforced concrete Queens Wharf was built in stages

starting around 1907 (Figure 5, Figure 6). It was constructed to provide berthage on the east and

west sides for shipping, storage areas for cargo, road access through the centre for trucks and

delivery vehicles and railway access along the Quay Street sides. It originally had a street-like

pattern with five sheds, arranged in two rows and a central ‘street’ between them. The railway

tracks enabled loading to and from the railway carriages, which ran along Quay Street. Originally

an entrance way to the wharf was provided by the wharf and Customs building with a turreted

tower, in the south western area.

1 See for example the 1841 Felton Mathews plan, the Auckland Harbour Board reclamation plans and 1904 Hamer plan.

Plan.Heritage

14 | P a g e


Figure 5. Plan of Queens Wharf and Sheds (source: Matthews & Matthews 2009: 12)

Figure 6. 1907 historic image of Queens Wharf under construction (source: 1907 Sir George Grey Special Collections, Auckland Libraries, 1-W1427)

Plan.Heritage

15 | P a g e


Prevailing character

Queens Wharf is a ‘finger wharf’ which is centrally located within the early 20th century harbour

environment that forms the waterfront along the whole of the Auckland City Central Business

District (CBD). The wharf is constructed of an early 20th century reinforced concrete (called ‘Ferro-

Concrete’) and is one of several such wharves built at this time. Queens Wharf retains a strong

harbour-side character and maintains its function as a working wharf, although primarily as a

passenger wharf, for local ferry routes and also for berthing cruise liners during their operating

season. Other vessels occasionally moor alongside the wharf (for example, ‘tall ships’). The ferry

terminal is contained as a separate element to the wharf, and the remainder of the wharf is also

used for events and public space/recreational activities.

Queens Wharf is essentially divided into six activity zones (Figure 7), with a number of structures

defining each zone:

1. Southwest corner – Ferry Terminal (built in 1907) including the original ferry passenger

shelter and ‘Eastern’ Ferry Tee, 2004 passenger gantries, walkway shelter, pontoons, and

Ferry building extensions

2. Western edge – ‘The Cloud’ events venue, built for the 2011 Rugby World Cup, and located

on the platform for the former ‘Shed 11’ (removed to storage to make room for the Cloud)

3. Northern edge – promenade/recreational fishing/public art venue (‘the Lighthouse’, recently

constructed)

4. Eastern edge – ‘Shed 10’ built in 1909-1910 and adapted in 2012 as a ferry terminal and

events venue (Cruise off-season), and travelling gantry

5. South-eastern edge – Queens Wharf ‘village’ (temporary modern container village with

food/retail outlets)

6. Southern interface with Quay Street (including the Harbour Board cast iron Auckland

Harbour Board Fence built between 1912 and 1925) and central spine – public

transport/vehicle access

Plan.Heritage

16 | P a g e


1. Looking South towards the Ferry Terminal, SW

quadrant

2. Western edge, looking North past the west

elevation of the Cloud.

3. Northern terminus, with ‘The lighthouse’

sculpture under construction right of frame, looking

East

4. Eastern edge with Shed 10 and enclosed

area for Ferry cruise terminal, looking South

5. South-eastern edge – Queens Wharf ‘village’,

looking East

6. Southern interface with Quay Street and

central vehicle access, looking South East

Figure 7. Prevailing character

Plan.Heritage

17 | P a g e


Key historic heritage views and setting

The spatial context within which Queens Wharf is experienced was observed to understand its

setting. The AUPOP Historic Heritage Overlay provides a specific definition of setting as it relates to

a historic heritage place (D17.1).2

As one would expect, Queens Wharf is strongly experienced from the harbour and adjacent

wharfs, as well as the surrounding streetscape on parts of Lower Queen Street and Quay Street.

The strongest relationship with other historic heritage places within the setting of Queens Wharf is

between Shed 10, the Ferry Building, Ferry Tees, Wharf Ferry Shelters and the Auckland Harbour

Board Fence. These relationships are important in establishing the historical and contextual values

of Queens Wharf, as a focus of Auckland’s maritime activity. Views from the wharf also contribute

to its heritage value, in particular the views across Waitematā Harbour and up the Queen Street

valley. It is this setting which is focused on in assessing the potential impact of the proposal to the

historic heritage values of Queens Wharf.

A series of photographs taken to and from Queens Wharf in different locations is shown in Figure

8 and Figure 9 by way of example. As well as static views, the kinetic experience of moving around

the wharf and on the harbour was considered, as this also reflects how the historic heritage place

will be experienced by the majority of the general public travelling to and from the wharf.

Key views towards Queens Wharf are considered to be from vessels in the harbour, Princes Wharf,

Quay Street, the Ferry Building and Ferry Tees, Lower Queen Street (including the Endeans

Building) and Devonport (North Shore). Other views towards the wharf also exist but are probably

less significant in terms of the nature of public access and numbers of viewers. Views from the

wharf are important for establishing Queens Wharf waterfront and central location, in particular

the views across Waitematā Harbour and up Queen Street valley. Together these views strengthen

the identified historic, context and social heritage values associated with the traditional activity of

Queens Wharf.

There is a protected sight line in the AUPOP (sight line 20; Appendix 7.1), which has a viewing

point from the footpath at the bottom of Lower Queen Street (once the location for a fountain in

the former Queen Elizabeth Square). It looks towards the Auckland Harbour Board Fence, port,

harbour and boats berthed at the wharf. However, the sight line is offset to the north east and the

proposal will not be within this view (Appendix 1).

It should also be noted that a separate visual landscape values assessment has been prepared for

the application by Boffa Miskell (Boffa Miskell 2018). This HIA report takes a different approach, as

it is centred on the assessment of impact to historic heritage values. This is more focused on the

views and experiences that provide greater information to the viewer about the historic nature of

the wharf and its relationship with surrounding historic heritage places. The two reports should

therefore be seen as complementary to one another and read together.

2 Setting of a historic heritage place “The setting of a historic heritage place includes elements of the surrounding

context beyond the identified extent of place within which a historic heritage place is experienced. The setting of a

historic heritage place includes the sea, sky, land, structures, features, backdrop, skyline and views to and from the

place. It can also include landscapes, townscapes, streetscapes and relationships with other historic heritage places

which contribute to the value of the place.”

Plan.Heritage

18 | P a g e


Figure 8. Plan showing location of photographs taken to illustrate views to and from Queens Wharf in Figure 9

Plan.Heritage

19 | P a g e


View 1 – looking E towards Queens Wharf from Princes Wharf

View 2 – looking NE towards Queens Wharf from Quay Street harbour edge opposite 131 Quay Street

Plan.Heritage

20 | P a g e


View 3 – Southeast corner of Queens Wharf, looking NE towards area for new bollards

View 4 – southeast corner of Queens Wharf, looking SE showing area of primary feature (rail tracks)

Plan.Heritage

21 | P a g e


View 5 – looking N towards the northern wharf terminus

View 6 – northern terminus of wharf, looking NW towards the harbour

Plan.Heritage

22 | P a g e


View 7 – looking directly N from the northern wharf terminus

View 8 – looking NE from the northern wharf terminus, towards the harbour and Captain Cook Wharf

Plan.Heritage

23 | P a g e


View 9 – Looking N towards Shed 10 showing the eastern wharf edge

Kinetic experience 1 – travelling N towards the northern terminus down the central spine

Kinetic experience 2 – travelling N on Ferry towards Devonport, looking N and E

Kinetic experience 2 – travelling N on Ferry towards Devonport, looking S

Plan.Heritage

24 | P a g e


View 10 – looking SW towards Auckland City from Queens Parade, Devonport

Figure 9. Key views and experiences

Plan.Heritage

25 | P a g e


Historic Heritage Features

Queens Wharf is a reinforced concrete structure comprising concrete beams spanning between

closely spaced driven reinforced concrete piles. Reinforced concrete cross braces and diagonals

provide structural stability. The slab depth and beams vary in thickness, the latter being 200mm

under the railway access and 150mm under the sheds (Matthews & Matthews 2009). The surface

is largely flat, except where four raised areas indicate the former location of wharf warehouses.

The central roadway was constructed at a lower level to allow vehicles to load off the raised floor

level of the sheds and was originally constructed in asphalt.

Queens Wharf originally contained five sheds and a building that housed the wharf police. One

shed (now referred to as ‘Shed 10’) survives in situ (built in late 1909 – 1910) and the others that

were previously arranged in two rows, with a central ‘street’ between them have been removed.

The railway tracks that still survive were aligned to enable loading to and from the railway

carriages, which ran along Quay Street.

As outlined above, the primary feature identified in the AUPOP schedule is the “Substructure and

deck (including shed platforms), Shed G (now known as Shed 10), ferry shelter, electricity

substation building, railway tracks, crane rails, weighbridge” (AUPOP 14.1).

The following historic heritage features of interest and one primary feature (railway tracks) are

within the proposed area of works (Figure 10):

The northern wharf terminus sea stairs

The surviving original cast-iron bollard, and gantry arm, adjacent to the sea stairs

The historic rail tracks to the south-eastern corner of the wharf

Results of site and context analysis

In summary: The setting of the majority of historic heritage sites in the vicinity will not be noticeably

affected by the proposal;

The most significant sightline along the wharf is towards the harbour and back towards the

city looking up the Queen Street valley. This south-facing view (as an extension of Queen

Street) is the most significant in relation to the setting of nearby historic heritage places

and views in the southerly direction along this central axis will not be affected by the

proposal;

Views out towards the harbour from the northern terminus of the historic heritage places

will be affected and this is discussed further in the assessment of effects;

The identified primary historic heritage features of Queens Wharf will largely be unaffected,

except possibly a small section of historic rail tracks to the south-eastern corner of the

wharf;

The sea stairs at the northern terminus are proposed to be retained; and are not physically

affected below the deck level; and,

Additional historic heritage features of interest and the surviving original cast-iron bollard,

and gantry arm, adjacent to the sea stairs. These factors will not be physically affected by

the proposal.

Plan.Heritage

26 | P a g e


Rail tracks in the southeast corner of the wharf

Sea Stairs at the northern terminus (partially obscured by grate)

Original cast-iron bollard (centre) and gantry arm (retrofitted to take a modern navigation lantern)

Figure 10. Historic heritage features within the proposed area of works

Plan.Heritage

27 | P a g e


THE PROPOSAL

Summary of activities

The Applicant seeks to construct two new octagonal mooring platforms (dolphins) located 49m

and 82m from the northern edge of Queens Wharf at their centres. The dolphins will consist of a

reinforced concrete deck supported by six to eight 1.8m diameter steel cased reinforced concrete

piles, socketed 10m into the Waitemata sandstone rock strata. The diameter of the dolphins will

be 15m (Figure 12; Appendix 2). The mooring dolphins will hold eight 150 tonne bollards, a

mooring capstan and a navigation pole. The concrete piles will be sleeved with external timber

fenders to match those currently employed on the main wharf (Figure 12).

The dolphins will be serviced by a gangway located centrally at the northern terminus of the wharf

and arranged along the centre line of the dolphins. The principal reason for this is that the service

gangway is required for operational health and safety reasons. Access to the mooring dolphins will

be provided by four to five spans up to 21m of 1.7m wide x 0.8m deep reinforced concrete access

gangways. A retractable gangway is proposed to prevent public access to the dolphin structures

themselves. The gangways will be supported on 1200mm diameter steel cased reinforced concrete

piles capped with a precast concrete capping beam. Consideration has been given to minimising

the visual impact of the gangway leading to the dolphin. For this reason, a reinforced concrete

gangway structure is preferred over a more visually intrusive steel truss structure.

At the northeast corner of the wharf a new fender cluster will be installed to match the existing

fenders located on the eastern wharf edge. A fender system has been provided to protect the

wharf from damage and help absorb kinetic energy of a berthing vessel. It is intended that the

fender cluster design will match the existing fender clusters located at chainages 130m, 170m,

215m and 250m.

To accommodate extra-large cruise ships , seven 150 tonne bollards will be provided adjacent to

the seaward face of the southern end of Queens Wharf. The existing bollards in this area will be

removed. it is proposed to install seven additional 600mm diameter bored piles through the

existing wharf deck, directly beneath the position of each of the new bollards to accommodate

uplift loads. To allow installation of the piles a small area of the existing deck will be excavated

using hydro-excavation for each pile (approximately 1500mm by 1500mm), between the

transverse beams. The small areas of the existing deck broken out to accommodate the pile

installations will be reinstated by drilling connection bars into the sides of the adjacent beams and

then casting a thicker (approximately 600mm) reinforced section of slab (inclusive of bollard hold

down bolts) above the new pile (Figure 13).

The anticipated effects of the proposal on the scheduled historic heritage Queens Wharf (Schedule

14.1, AUPOP ID 2735) are outlined in the following section.

Plan.Heritage

28 | P a g e


Figure 11. Proposed Modifications to Queens Wharf, showing 1 – Dolphin Extension; 2 – New fender

cluster to east breastwork; 3 – new mooring bollards to southeast of wharf (source: Beca 2018)

3

1

2

Plan.Heritage

29 | P a g e


Figure 12. Design proposal for the dolphin structure [1] and fender details at [2]

Plan.Heritage

30 | P a g e


Plan location of new mooring bollards

Figure 13. Detail of design for new mooring bollards at [3]

Plan.Heritage

31 | P a g e


Figure 14. Approximate locations for new bollards highlighted in red (not accurately scaled)

Plan.Heritage

32 | P a g e


Figure 15. Proposed Gangway connection to northern wharf terminus

Plan.Heritage

33 | P a g e


ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON HISTORIC HERITAGE VALUES

This section of the report assesses the information provided by the applicant and considers the

nature of effects on historic heritage values that may arise from this proposal. The assessment

considers how the beneficial effects on historic heritage will be enhanced and any adverse effects

will be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Physical Effects

Generally, there is potential for accidental damage to occur during construction activities to the

substructure, Shed 10, and other primary features. Protection measures can be put in place

through the development of a construction management plan to avoid or mitigate this risk. This

will also apply to temporary nuisance such as dust or noise that may affect the historic heritage

place, as well as neighbouring historic heritage places including the Auckland Harbour Board Fence

and the Ferry Building.

There will be some minor physical impact to the north-eastern edge of the Queens Wharf

substructure (a primary feature), where the new tensioning wires will be affixed to support the

new fender cluster (Figure 12). This is considered acceptable because the fender cluster will

protect the primary heritage feature of the wharf itself from greater potential impacts causing by

ship mooring. The new fender has been designed to match the existing ones on the eastern edge,

so there will be minimal visual impact also. It is noted that fenders are excluded from the Schedule

generally and can be erected as a permitted activity.

There will be a minor physical impact to the south-eastern corner of the substructure where seven

new bollards are proposed, as part of the substructure will need to be removed to locate new piles

for the bollards. Concrete superstructure will be broken out in 3m2 areas using hydrodemolition,

which will remove concrete but leave any steel framing in situ. Potentially this may also impact on

a small section of railway in each of these locations, which is identified as a primary feature of the

historic heritage place (Figure 13; Figure 14). As with any steel framing the rail tracks will remain

in situ during the hydrodemolition process, and concrete slab infilled once bollards are in place.

The method of demolition of the substructure in this location is considered appropriate, and hydro

demolition as a technique for repair and maintenance of the superstructure is also noted as an

exclusion in the Schedule.

On completion of works the rail tracks would still be visible, their continuous line uninterrupted and

clearly understood. The presence of the new bollard(s) does not interfere with the understanding

of the rail tacks, but rather demonstrates that the rails are related to a previous use of the wharf,

and one which is not contemporary with the bollards. More specific details can be determined

through detailed design and included in the construction management plan to ensure adverse

effects on primary features are avoided or further mitigated if necessary.

There will be a minor physical impact to the northern terminus of the wharf through the drilling of

connections and bolting of the new gangway connection to the main superstructure (Figure 15). It

is proposed to remove the existing grill structure which is currently fixed above the stairs, including

modern tubular section railings which detract from the heritage structure. It is then proposed that

Plan.Heritage

34 | P a g e


a metal grill system similar to, but slightly larger than the existing one, is fixed above the sea stairs

at this location, so that the gangway can be reached at grade, while the sea stairs remain visible

through the gangway. This will be similar to the existing situation, and steel supports for the grill

will be connected to the main superstructure with stainless steel anchor bolts. Maintenance access

to the stairs will be maintained through inclusion of hinged elements to the grill plate. The historic

gantry arm and railing bollard will remain in situ.

Effects on Setting

The visual assessments prepared by Boffa Miskell demonstrate that there will be an effect on the

setting of the Queens Wharf, and to a much lesser extent any nearby historic heritage places, as a

result of the construction of the dolphin structures and gangway. While there will be an obvious

change, the design of the dolphins and the gangway structure has been carefully considered to

respond to the "functional and working aesthetic" of the wharf. It is anticipated that this new

structure will be an obvious change but one which is readily assimilated into the harbour context.

The proposed gangway has been designed to reduce the visual intrusion of this feature when

viewing the wharf from the harbour, and when looking out from the wharf edge. Additionally, the

design of the gangway (with its retractable "gap") will avoid the need for any high gated security

structures which would further interrupt sightlines looking out from the wharf at the northern

edge.

In this regard, the adverse effects of the proposal in terms of the historic heritage setting of the

wharf are considered to be minor, and effects to the setting of neighbouring historic heritage

places are assessed as negligible adverse. From far distances, such as the North Shore and views

from Devonport, the low profile of the structure means that it will be subsumed within the general

view of the harbour edge. This includes night-time views where the focus of the view will be on

the general mass of the Auckland CBD behind.

Indirect effects

The mid- to long-term operational use of Queens Wharf for its primary function as a place for

berthing of vessels, will be significantly enhanced by the proposed alterations. It is commonly

recognised that the best way to maintain the historic heritage values of a place, and in particular

for a specialised activity, is for that primary function to continue (. In maintaining an operational

use as working wharf, the historic, social and context values associated with the historic heritage

place will be maintained and enhanced. This indirect effect is considered to be highly beneficial to

the historical, social, technological and context values of Queens Wharf.

In the wider context, the ability of Queens Wharf to accommodate extra-large cruise ships

discharging as many as 6000 visitors provides significant opportunity for increased visitor numbers

and patronage of numerous publicly accessible historic heritage places in central Auckland. This

will potentially support commercial and retail opportunities that may be located in historic heritage

buildings and maintain their usefulness into the future. This is considered to be a minor to

moderate beneficial effect of the proposal.

Plan.Heritage

35 | P a g e


Overall Effects

It is estimated that less than 1% of the overall area or volume of the primary feature will be

physically impacted by the proposed works. Potential accidental damage that may occur during

construction can be avoided and mitigated through appropriate management of such works.

While there may be some minor adverse effects on historic heritage values with regard to the

setting of Queens Wharf, these are largely limited to very minor physical impacts and an obvious,

but not inappropriate, change to the setting of the wharf. This change is considered to be entirely

acceptable from a historic heritage perspective. This is especially the case given the significant

beneficial opportunity to maintain and enhance the historical function of the historic heritage place

as a wharf, and to support visitation to other historic heritage places in the Auckland CBD.

Plan.Heritage

36 | P a g e


RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 REQUIREMENTS

Section 6 of the RMA recognises as matters of national importance: ‘the relationship of Māori and

their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waāhi tapu, and other taonga’

(S6(e)); and ‘the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and

development’ (S6(f)).

All persons exercising functions and powers under the RMA are required under Section 6 to

recognise and provide for these matters of national importance when ‘managing the use,

development and protection of natural and physical resources’. Historic heritage sites are

resources that should be sustainably managed by ‘avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse

effects of activities on the environment’ (Section 5(2)(c)).

The following statutory documents are considered relevant to this application and have been

assessed against the proposal. The Regional Policy Statement (RPS), Regional Coastal Plan (RCP)

and District Plan (DP) provisions of the AUPOP are considered. Overall, the proposal complies with

the relevant historic heritage objectives, policies and relevant criteria for assessment in these

plans. The following section discusses this in detail.

Auckland Council Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (AUPOP) 2016

The provisions relating to Historic Heritage have been in legal effect since the notification of the

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) in September 2013, and the Decisions version of the PAUP

was notified on 19 August 2016. The AUPOP was notified in November 2016, and there are no

appeals identified in relation to the subject site.

The AUPOP Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and Historic Heritage Overlay contain the following

objectives which are relevant to the proposal:

AUPOP B5.2.1 Regional Policy Statement: Built Heritage and Character – Objectives

Objectives

(1) Significant historic heritage places are identified and protected from inappropriate subdivision,

use and development.

(2) Significant historic heritage places are used appropriately and their protection, management

and conservation are encouraged, including retention, maintenance and adaptation.

Comment

The proposal meets these regional objectives through appropriate adaptation which does not

affect the greater part of the existing scheduled historic heritage place or its primary features. The

historic heritage values of Queens Wharf are maintained and enhanced through a continued use

which is optimal in terms of compatibility with the original function of the place.

Plan.Heritage

37 | P a g e


AUPOP B5.2.2. Regional Policy Statement – Policies

Protection of scheduled significant historic heritage places

(6) Avoid significant adverse effects on the primary features of significant historic heritage places

which have outstanding significance well beyond their immediate environs including:

(a) the total or substantial demolition or destruction of any of the primary features of such

places;

(b) the relocation or removal of any of the primary features of such places away from their

original site and context.

Comment

There will be some minor physical impacts to the wharf itself arising from the proposal, which may

also affect small portions of the rail tracks (identified as a primary feature) where new bollards are

proposed in the southeast corner of the wharf, but any effects will be of a very minor nature in

relation to the overall site.

Total or substantial demolition of heritage fabric is avoided, and the wharf structure remains on its

original site. There is the potential for damage to occur during construction activities, and this can

be appropriately controlled through a construction management plan, which provides for the

protection of primary features during construction.

(7) Avoid where practicable significant adverse effects on significant historic heritage places.

Where significant adverse effects cannot be avoided, they should be remedied or mitigated so that

they no longer constitute a significant adverse effect.

Comment

There are no significant adverse effects arising to the historic heritage values of Queens Wharf as

a result of the proposal.

AUPOP Section D17.2 – Historic Heritage Overlay Objectives [rcp/dp]

Objectives

(1) The protection, maintenance, restoration and conservation of scheduled historic heritage

places is supported and enabled.

(2) Scheduled historic heritage places are protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and

development, including inappropriate modification, relocation, demolition or destruction.

(3) Appropriate subdivision, use and development, including adaptation of scheduled historic

heritage places, is enabled.

Comment

The proposal involves minimal impact on the fabric of historic heritage value. Ongoing

maintenance and conservation of the place will be supported through its continued use as a wharf.

The site is not being subdivided, and the proposed use is the most compatible use in relation to

the reasons for which the wharf has been scheduled.

Plan.Heritage

38 | P a g e


AUPOP Section D17.3. Policies [rcp/dp]

Maintenance and repair

(1) Encourage and enable maintenance and repair appropriate to scheduled historic heritage

places where it is:

(a) based upon a clear understanding of the heritage values of the place; and

(b) undertaken in accordance with good practice conservation principles and methods.

Comment

The significance for Queens Wharf is clearly understood and well-documented. The proposal will

not impede long-term maintenance and repair and the strengthening required for new bollards is

kept to a minimum, which is in line with general conservation principles such as those set out in

the ICOMOS NZ Charter 2010.

Use and development, including adaptation

(3) Enable the use, development and adaptation of scheduled historic heritage places where:

(a) it will not result in adverse effects on the significance of the place;

(b) it will contribute to the ongoing maintenance and enhancement of the historic heritage

values of the place;

(c) it is in accordance with good practice conservation principles and methods;

(d) it will not result in cumulative adverse effects on the historic heritage values of the

place;

(e) it will support the long-term viability, retention or ongoing use of the place; and

(f) it will not lead to significant adverse effects on the surrounding area.

Comment

As above, new structures such as the gangway, mooring bollards and fenders will "touch lightly" to

the wharf, enabling its original construction to be fully appreciated. While there is an obvious

change to the setting of Queens Wharf, it is appropriate with regard to historic heritage values.

The proposal avoids significant adverse effects to historic heritage values and reflects good

conservation practice through minimal impact design. Cumulative adverse effects are avoided.

The low profile of the new dolphin structures and gangway avoids significant impact to the setting

of the wharf, and to other historic heritage places in the vicinity of Queens Wharf. Additionally, as

can be seen through the site and context analysis, the proposal will not lead to significant adverse

historic heritage effects on the surrounding area generally, including nearby historic heritage sites

or places of interest. The opportunity for public to access the gangway when the infrastructure is

not in operational use provides a new viewing opportunity to step out over the water and look

back towards Queens Wharf itself. This will have a positive effect on the historic heritage values of

Queens Wharf.

In addition, the proposal strongly supports the ongoing use of Queens Wharf and this will maintain

and enhance its historic heritage values – it will remain a central focus to the heart of the city. the

use of the wharf for the berthing of ships relates to its primary purpose as a working wharf.

Originally the wharf principally handled produce, but the disembarking and embarking of

passengers is both appropriate and viable, which supports the ongoing use and long term viability

of the place.

Plan.Heritage

39 | P a g e


(4) Enable the use of scheduled historic heritage places, whether or not the use is otherwise

provided for in the zone, where it does not detract from the heritage values of the place and will

not otherwise have significant adverse effects.

Comment

As above, the ongoing use of the place for wharf activities is highly appropriate in retaining historic

heritage values. Additionally, throughout its history, Queens Wharf has been publicly accessible

and used for recreational purposes. These activities include (from as early as the 19th-century)

promenading, passive recreation (people-watching), fishing and public gathering for sporting and

other public events. More recently the wharf is a venue for exhibitions, recreational and

commercial events and retail activities. The proposal supports this and continues a historic

tradition of visitation that is associated with the wharf.

(7) Require the assessment of the effects for proposed works to scheduled historic heritage places,

including where one or more places are affected, to address all the effects on:

(g) the heritage values of the place/s;

(h) the significance of the place; and,

(i) the setting and the relationship between places.

Comment

This assessment meets the requirements of this policy.

Modifications, restoration and new buildings within historic heritage places

(8) Maintain or enhance historic heritage values by ensuring that modifications to, or restoration

of, scheduled historic heritage places, and new buildings within scheduled historic heritage places:

(j) minimise the loss of fabric that contributes to the heritage values and level of

significance of the place;

(k) do not compromise the ability to interpret the place and the relationship to other

heritage places;

(l) complement the form, fabric and setting which contributes to, or is associated with, the

heritage values of the place;

(m) retain and integrate with the heritage values of the place;

(n) avoid significant adverse effects, including from loss, destruction or subdivision that

would reduce or destroy the heritage values of the place; and

(o) avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the heritage values of the place.

Comment

The loss of fabric is limited to discrete areas of substructure to be removed for new piles and

strengthening. Some existing bollards may require removal, and these could be relocated within

the wharf itself, as has occurred elsewhere. There may be some minor impacts on rail tracks which

could be further avoided or mitigated through detailed design.

The proposal is in keeping with the wharf history and current use and will not affect the legibility

of this history. There is no loss of ability to interpret the heritage values of the wharf, and the

converse of this is that more visitors will be able to immediately appreciate the wharf when

embarking or disembarking.

Plan.Heritage

40 | P a g e


The functional nature of the design integrates effectively with the aesthetic of the wharf. The

design of the dolphins is directly influenced by the nature of the existing wharf. Materials, scale

and massing are all appropriate.

There will be a slight change to the setting in which other historic heritage places may be

experienced, such the Ferry Building, but this is minimal, and the changes are likely to be

assimilated very rapidly in the general consciousness. The relationship to other historic heritage

places in the vicinity is unaffected. The historic and context values of the wharf will be enhanced

through its continued operational use.

(9) Enable modifications to, or restoration of, scheduled historic heritage places, and new buildings

within scheduled historic heritage places where the proposal:

(a) will not result in adverse effects on the significance of the place;

(b) will contribute to the ongoing maintenance and enhancement of the historic heritage

values of the place;

(c) is in accordance with good practice conservation principles and methods;

(d) will not result in cumulative adverse effects on the historic heritage values of the place;

and

(e) will contribute to the long-term viability, retention or ongoing functional use of the place.

Comment

The proposal will significantly enhance the historical, social and context values of the historic

heritage place as it will remain in use as a working wharf, which is its primary purpose. This will be

done with minimal impact to significant heritage features. The approach to design of alterations

has been led by an appreciation of the wharf structure and is consistent with ICOMOS NZ

conservation principles for adaptation and use. The methods proposed for minimising impact are

appropriate and if necessary designs can be further refined through conditions of consent.

Furthermore, increased capacity for visitors is likely to have an indirect beneficial effect on

neighbouring historic heritage places located in the CBD.

(10) Support modifications to, or restoration of, scheduled historic heritage places that will do any

of the following:

(a) recover or reveal heritage values of the place;

(b) remove features or additions that compromise the heritage values of the place; or

(c) secure the long-term viability and retention of the place.

Comment

The proposed alterations will slightly obscure some aspects of the wharf structure where new

fenders are located, but this is not considered significant. Overall the long-term viability of the

wharf as a working structure will be secured.

(11) Provide for modifications to, or restoration of, parts of buildings or structures where this is

necessary for the purposes of adaptation, repair or seismic strengthening, either in its own right or

as part of any modifications.

Plan.Heritage

41 | P a g e


Comment

The proposed modifications are appropriate for the continuing use of the wharf. The proposed

modifications to the substructure for new mooring bollards are necessary to provide sufficient

capacity to withstand tension forces generated by moored cruise ships of the scale anticipated.

Demolition or destruction

(13) Avoid the total or substantial demolition or destruction of features (including buildings,

structures or archaeological sites) within scheduled historic heritage places where it will result in

adverse effects (including cumulative adverse effects) on the overall significance of the scheduled

historic heritage place to the extent that the place would no longer meet the significance

thresholds for the category it has been scheduled.

Comment

No significant features will be substantially or totally demolished as a result of the proposal. Some

bollards may require removal, but these could be relocated within the wharf itself. There may be

some minor impacts to other areas of fabric, which will be negligible in relation to the overall scale

of the wharf.

(14) Avoid the total or substantial demolition or destruction of:

(d) the primary features of Category A* and Category B scheduled historic heritage places;

Comment

The proposal does not affect the primary features or fabric of the Category B historic heritage

place to the extent that substantial demolition is triggered, or that the place would be removed

from the schedule as a result of the proposal. The proposal would maintain and enhance, rather

than detract from, the values for which Queens Wharf is scheduled.

(15) Enable the total or substantial demolition or destruction of features (including buildings,

structures or archaeological sites) where:

a) it is established that the feature detracts from the heritage values of a scheduled

historic heritage place;

b) the feature is identified as a non-contributing feature within a scheduled Historic

Heritage Area; or

c) the feature is identified as an exclusion in Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic

Heritage.

Comment

No identified heritage features are proposed to be destroyed as a result of the proposal. Timber

fenders and cast-iron bollards are identified as an exclusion in Schedule 14.1.

Relocation

(19) Avoid the permanent relocation of features of scheduled historic heritage places unless:

a) it is necessary to allow for significant public benefit that could not otherwise be achieved;

and

b) the significant public benefit outweighs the value of retaining the feature in its present

location.

Plan.Heritage

42 | P a g e


Comment

There will be no relocation of primary features as a result of the proposed alterations. Some

existing cast-iron bollards may require removal but can be relocated within the wharf structure.

Temporary activities

(21) Provide for signs associated with temporary activities within scheduled historic heritage places

where any adverse effects on the heritage values of the place are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Comment

Signage and other temporary activities can be appropriately controlled through a construction

management plan to be agreed with the relevant designated heritage authorities.

(22) Provide for freestanding displays, exhibits and temporary structures within scheduled historic

heritage places where any adverse effects on the heritage values of the place are avoided,

remedied or mitigated.

Comment

As above. There will be a need to ensure appropriate provisions for the transportation and

handling of materials on the wharf, and control of construction activities, to avoid damage.

AUPOP Chapter F2 – General Coastal Marine Zone

The following objectives and policies also apply with regard to historic heritage in the general

marine zone.

F2.5.2. Disturbance of the Foreshore and Seabed Objectives [rcp]

(1) Use and development in the coastal marine area that has only short-term and minor impacts

on the foreshore and seabed is enabled.

(2) Activities that have long-term impacts or involve more than a minor level of disturbance avoid,

remedy or mitigate adverse effects on natural character, ecological values, coastal processes,

historic heritage and Mana Whenua values.

Comment

As discussed above, the design of the proposal is considered appropriate when assessing effects

on historic heritage values. There will be no significant adverse effects on historic heritage values

and instead there will be significant beneficial effects.

F2.5.3 Policies

(3) Provide for the disturbance of the foreshore or seabed that is necessary to protect, maintain or

enhance historic heritage or Mana Whenua values, geological, ecological or habitat values, or for

public access or research, where this is consistent with maintaining the values of the area.

Comment

It is proposed that new bollards to the southeast end of the wharf will be supported individually on

their own piles, to reduce the potential stress being transferred to the wharf structure. This will

require some disturbance of the seabed, but one which is necessary to protect the historic heritage

values associated with the main substructure of the wharf.

Plan.Heritage

43 | P a g e


(4) Limit the area of foreshore and seabed disturbance to the extent practicable and for the works

to be done at a time of day or year, that will avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on all of

the following:

(f) historic heritage and Mana Whenua values.

Comment

The nature of the historic heritage place is such that it is likely to be unaffected by seasonal

processes.

(7) Require where practicable visible disturbance of the foreshore or seabed to be remedied or

restored upon completion of works to be in keeping with the natural character and visual amenity

of the area that has been disturbed.

Comment

The method of construction proposed will limit any short-term environmental disturbance that may

detract from the amenity of the historic heritage place and avoid disturbance to sites of potential

historic interest that may be located on the seabed (e.g. shipwrecks).

F2.16.2 Structures Objectives [rcp]

Objectives

(1) Structures are generally limited to those that have a functional need to be located in the

coastal marine area, or those that have an operational need and that cannot be practicably located

outside of the coastal marine area.

(2) Structures provide for public access and multiple uses where practicable, other than those

restricted by location or functional requirements.

(3) Structures are appropriately located and designed to minimise adverse effects on the

ecological, natural character, landscape, natural features, historic heritage and Mana Whenua

values of the coastal marine area, and avoid to the extent practicable the risk of being adversely

affected by coastal hazards.

(4) Structures are provided in appropriate locations to enable Māori cultural activities and

customary use.

Comment

Objective (3) is achieved through the simple and functional design of the dolphins and gangway,

which strongly reflect the physical attributes of Queens Wharf. Additionally there is the opportunity

for the public to access the gangway when the structure is not in operational use.

F2.16.3 Policies [rcp]

Efficient use of coastal space

(5) Enable the extension or alteration of existing structures in locations where they will:

(a) not have significant adverse effects on other uses and values;

Comment

As discussed in the assessment of Historic heritage overlay objectives and policies, there will be no

significant adverse effects on historic heritage as result of this proposal. This proposal meets the

policies relating to efficient use of coastal space. Use of the historic heritage place for this purpose

Plan.Heritage

44 | P a g e


is considered highly sustainable in relation to the embodied carbon and material used in the

structure, which has been in place for over 100 years.

Ensuring structures are appropriately located and designed

(6) Require structures to be located to avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or

mitigate other adverse effects on the values of areas identified as:

(b) D17 Historic Heritage Overlay;

Comment

Refer to the assessment of Historic Heritage Objectives and Policies above.

(11) Require buildings in the coastal marine area to be of a scale, location and design that is

appropriate to its context.

Comment

The proposed dolphin structures have been thoughtfully designed to respond to the harbour edge

context, and to the design of the existing wharf. The design has been kept deliberately low-profile

in terms of the use of handrails and other elements such as lighting.

Plan.Heritage

45 | P a g e


HERITAGE NEW ZEALAND POUHERE TAONGA ACT 2014 REQUIREMENTS

In addition to any requirements under the RMA, the HNZPTA protects all archaeological sites

whether recorded or not, and they may not be damaged or destroyed unless an Authority to

modify an archaeological site has been issued by Heritage NZ (Section 42). An archaeological site

is defined by the HNZPTA Section 6 as follows:

archaeological site means, subject to section 42(3), –

(a) any place in New Zealand, including any building or structure (or part of a building or

structure) that –

(i) was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900 or is the site of the wreck

of any vessel where the wreck occurred before 1900; and

(ii) provides or may provide, through investigation by archaeological methods, evidence

relating to the history of New Zealand; and

(b) includes a site for which a declaration is made under section 43(1)

Additionally, a place post-dating 1900 (including the site of a wreck that occurred after 1900) that

could provide ‘significant evidence relating to the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand’

can be declared by Heritage NZ to be an archaeological site through a gazetting process.

It is noted that Queens Wharf was constructed after 1900 and does not fall under the definition of

an archaeological site provided by HNZPTA. However, it is included in the New Zealand Heritage

List/Rārangi Kōrero and as such Heritage New Zealand (HNZ) are identified as an affected party

under the provisions of the RMA. Consultation therefore has been undertaken with the HNZ

Northern office (principal contact: Robin Byron), and support as an affected party has been

sought.

The likelihood of affecting unrecorded archaeological sites as a result of the proposed works is

considered very low. Historical reports mention the ‘Éclair’, which was a cutter shipwrecked in

1866 in a wild storm that damaged and wrecked several vessels at anchor in the harbour. The

recorded location of the wreck as described in contemporary newspaper reports accessed from the

‘Papers Past’ website places the vessel at what was then ‘the Middle T’ of the previous wharf

structure and describes it as having ‘gone to pieces’ with only the mast left whole and held to the

wharf via its rigging. It is considered highly unlikely that remains of this vessel survive to an extent

that they might be significantly impacted upon by the proposed works.

Plan.Heritage

46 | P a g e


CONCLUSIONS

Panuku propose to undertake alterations and additions to a scheduled historic heritage place,

Queens Wharf, 85-89 Quay Street, Auckland Central. Queens Wharf is also included on the New

Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero, and HNZ is identified as an affected party under the

provisions of the RMA.

The proposed works will result in some limited physical impacts to the overall structure of the

wharf, the adverse effects of which are considered to be minor. There will also be a perceptible

change in the setting of the wharf at the northern terminus, due to the construction of the new

dolphin structures and gangway. In relation to the setting of the historic heritage place, there will

be a minor adverse effect on views looking out from the northern terminus of the wharf. However,

the nature of these structures, in terms of both function and design, is considered appropriate with

regard to historic heritage values, and does not otherwise detract from any of the values for which

the wharf is scheduled. The opportunity to access the gangway when not in operational use also

provides mitigation for this. Overall the adverse effect to any aesthetic values associated with the

wharf and nearby historic heritage places are considered negligible.

Enabling the continuing operation of Queens Wharf as a cruise ship terminal will significantly

maintain and enhance its historical, social and contextual values as it will allow the primary

function of the wharf to be retained. The efficient use of the historic heritage place for this

purpose is considered highly sustainable in relation to the embodied carbon and material used in

the structure, which has been in place for over 100 years.

Indirectly the opportunity afforded to commercial and retail businesses operating from nearby

historic heritage places through the arrival of visitors by cruise ships may enhance and support the

appreciation and economic viability of these places.

Overall, the adverse effects on the proposal are considered to be minor, where they relate to

historic heritage values of Queens Wharf, and negligible where they relate to the setting of nearby

historic heritage places. This includes effects on the physical values of the wharf, and to its

aesthetic, historic and context values. The beneficial effects on historic heritage values of Queens

Wharf, in particular on context values and social values, are considered to be significant. This is

because the ability of the place to maintain its use as a working wharf is integral to its historic, and

primary use.

Given that the adverse effects of the proposal on historic heritage values are considered to be

minor, and the beneficial effects are significant, there should be no impediment to approval of

resource consent on historic heritage grounds.

Plan.Heritage

47 | P a g e


Recommendations

That detailed design drawings for the new bollards to the southeast corner of the wharf,

and the connection of the gangway to the northern terminus, shall be provided, prior to

construction, for certification from the Auckland Council, with input from the Auckland

Council Heritage Unit as appropriate;

That detailed design drawings referred to above should also be provided to Heritage New

Zealand prior to construction for information as an affected party;

Provision is made for relocation of any existing cast-iron bollards of heritage interest or

other features such as sections of rail track that may be impacted upon to be relocated

within the extent of place of Queens Wharf; and,

That a construction management plan is required as a condition of consent, which clearly

outlines the methods for avoiding damage to Queens Wharf and its primary features during

construction, and any mitigation actions should damage occur.

John Brown

Plan.Heritage Ltd.

[email protected]

02102973641

mailto:[email protected]

Plan.Heritage

48 | P a g e


REFERENCES

Beca 2018 Queens Wharf Cruise Ship Berth: AEE - Engineering Aspects Preliminary Design Report

August 2018

Boffa Miskell 2018. Queens Wharf Dolphin Structure Visual Impact & Public Access Considerations

Design Study August 2018

Matthews and Matthews, 2009. ‘Queens Wharf and Sheds, Historic Heritage Assessment. Prepared

for Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council.

Jones M, 2010. ‘New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga. Report for a historic place:

Queens Wharf, Auckland’.

Salmond Reed Architects Ltd. 2012. Queens Wharf Interior Demolition Photographic record during

interior demolition October 2012

Salmond Reed Architects Ltd. 2011. The Auckland Waterfront Heritage Study. Prepared for

Waterfront Auckland.

Walker M, 2015. Historic Heritage Submission for Council-Owned Land prepared by Auckland

Council Heritage Unit as part of the PAUP submissions for Topic 032 Schedule of historic heritage

places

Internet Resources

Land Information New Zealand historical deposited maps and plans

Papers Past:

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DSC18660402.2.16?query=Eclair%20storm

For a report on the gale of 1866 which wrecked the cutter Éclair in the ‘Southern Cross 2 April

1866’

Alexander Turnbull Library:

https://natlib.govt.nz/collections/a-z/alexander-turnbull-library-collections

Auckland Council Cultural Heritage Inventory:

https://chi.net.nz/

ArchSite New Zealand Archaeological Database:

http://www.archsite.org.nz/

Auckland Libraries Heritage Images Online:

http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/dbtw-wpd/heritageimages/

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DSC18660402.2.16?query=Eclair%20storm

https://natlib.govt.nz/collections/a-z/alexander-turnbull-library-collections

https://chi.net.nz/

http://www.archsite.org.nz/

http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/dbtw-wpd/heritageimages/

Plan.Heritage

49 | P a g e


APPENDIX ONE: SIGHT LINE 20 (PAUP APPENDIX 9)

Figure 20: Sight line 20

Figure 20a

Figure 20b

http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Images/September%202013%20version/Appendices/City%20Centre/Sight%20lines/CC%20Sightlines%2020%202013-03-04.pdf

Plan.Heritage

50 | P a g e


APPENDIX TWO: PLANS AND ELEVATIONS

Dolphin Gangway Plan and Elevation

Plan.Heritage

51 | P a g e


Fender Cluster Details

Mooring Bollards location plan and pile details

Plan.Heritage

52 | P a g e


Proposed connection to Dolphin Gangway

queens wharf 85-89 quay street, auckland …...a gangway connection to the central northern terminus...

Documents