queens wharf 85-89 quay street, auckland …...a gangway connection to the central northern terminus...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
www.planheritage.co.nz
021 02973641
Plan.Heritage
3 | P a g e
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
View 10 – looking SW towards Auckland City from Queens Parade, Devonport
Figure 9. Key views and experiences
Plan.Heritage
25 | P a g e
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
Figure 12. Design proposal for the dolphin structure [1] and fender details at [2]
Plan.Heritage
30 | P a g e
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
Plan location of new mooring bollards
Figure 13. Detail of design for new mooring bollards at [3]
Plan.Heritage
31 | P a g e
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
Figure 14. Approximate locations for new bollards highlighted in red (not accurately scaled)
Plan.Heritage
32 | P a g e
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
Figure 15. Proposed Gangway connection to northern wharf terminus
Plan.Heritage
33 | P a g e
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
(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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
(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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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.
02102973641
Plan.Heritage
48 | P a g e
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
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/
Plan.Heritage
49 | P a g e
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
APPENDIX ONE: SIGHT LINE 20 (PAUP APPENDIX 9)
Figure 20: Sight line 20
Figure 20a
Figure 20b
Plan.Heritage
50 | P a g e
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
APPENDIX TWO: PLANS AND ELEVATIONS
Dolphin Gangway Plan and Elevation
Plan.Heritage
51 | P a g e
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
Fender Cluster Details
Mooring Bollards location plan and pile details
Plan.Heritage
52 | P a g e
Plan.Heritage Report: Proposed modifications to Queens Wharf, Auckland. Heritage Impact Assessment August 2018
Proposed connection to Dolphin Gangway