Queens Wharf is a Category 1 Historic Place

Queens Wharf is a Category 1 Historic Place

If you look closely at this picture of Queens Wharf you will notice something: that Shed 11 is still there and hasn't been demolished to make way for the Rugby World Cup Party Central structure.

This picture is on Heritage New Zealand's website and heads up its description of a recent entry entitled Queens Wharf, Quay Street, Auckland.

Queens Wharf, "includes part of the land described as Pt Lot 37 DP 131568, North Auckland Land District, and the buildings and structures known as the Queens Wharf thereon, and their fittings and fixtures" is, since December 2010, a Category 1 Historic Place. This is a recent addition to the Historic Places list which, as a matter of interest, also includes the Quay Street Historic Area (described in the listing as: "This area extends along the south side of the original settlement of Quay St East (the area east of Britomart Pl was extended and handed over to the Auckland City Council in 1914.)"). The Quay Street area was added to the Historic Places list in 1994 as a "Historic Area" and is referred to in relevant Town Planning documents.

However the Queens Wharf Category 1 Historic Places status is not referred to for example in the Operative Plan (The Auckland Regional Plan Coastal). This is likely because no plan change has occurred to incorporate the new historic place since it was listed. (Unlike Wynyard Quarter for example, where two plan changes were promulgated which have ensured character buildings and suchlike are provided for in relevant Town Planning documents.)

I was an ARC councillor at the time the debate over Queens Wharf was raging between 2008 and 2010. Many will recall the debate over whether the Sheds should be demolished or not. Shed 11 was eventually demolished but Shed 10 remained and has been adaptively renovated consistent with its heritage status.

One of the key documents that was commissioned during this debate was a Heritage Assessment of Queens Wharf and the Sheds which was conducted by Matthews and Matthews. You can download it here.

At the time I was mainly interested in what it had to say about the Sheds. But a confidential ARC report written around the time Councillors were deciding on arrangements with Ports of Auckland Ltd in respect of Queens Wharf (POAL wanted rights retained to berth ships on the long sides of Queens Wharf - but not the end - which was to be kept free for public access and enjoyment) noted that the Heritage Assessment report made a number of specific recommendations about the wharf, in particular that views of the Harbour from Queens Wharf had heritage status.

Specifically the Matthews and Matthews Heritage Assessment report, which is dated about August 2009, recommends:

In relation to the aesthetic values the place contributes to sensory perception through the formal qualities of its composition and setting to the site, locality, district and region: “Views from the along the centre of Queens Wharf back to Queen Street and towards the Waitemata harbour are important.” And in relation to its landmark quality, Matthews and Matthews advise: “Queens Wharf occupies a prominent position when approaching Auckland and the ferry terminals from the harbour.” (Assessment, Pgs 32,33)

The text goes on to describe the landmark significance of Queens Wharf, its structures, and relationship with the Ferry Building. It mentions other old wharves and notes its relationship with the Britomart area.

Clearly, the Matthews and Matthews report was one of the significant influences when the Historic Places Trust investigated Queens Wharf and made its decision to list Queens Wharf as a Category One Historic Place in December 2010 just a couple of months after the SuperCity was established.

I note that the planning reports and officer assessments of the Ports of Auckland Ltd proposed B2 and B3 wharf extensions do consider the visual effects on Quay Street - in accordance with the Auckland Regional Plan Coastal provisions.

But there is no mention of the Historic Places Trust being treated as an affected person who should be notified because the B3 extension in particular would partly obscure this historic landmark when viewed from the sea. Nor is there any mention of the fact that having a Category One Historic Place adjacent to the proposed POAL development might conceivably constitute a"special circumstance" triggering the need to notify the applications and receive submissions.

Is this another public policy that was conveniently forgotten during amalgamation and was not on the desktop when planning reports were written? If we can't rely on our Council to protect the public interest in looking after and respecting historic places, who can we trust?

ENDS

© Scoop Media