This is how Princes Wharf looked in its days as a working wharf.How it got developed, and the way it has been developed, is a sobering case study of Auckland Waterfront Planning. So interesting in fact that I've decided to put some serious time into it, and dig into archives.
This post gives a little taste. I was an Auckland Regional Councillor from 2004 until 2010 - the period of history when the Western Reclamation (sometimes known as Wynyard Quarter/Tank Farm) transferred from Ports of Auckland to Auckland Regional Council ownership - and Queens Wharf. Councillors had the new (for many of them) task of getting to grips with this new challenge. Part of that meant we went on site visits to previous waterfront development projects. For example Princes Wharf and the Viaduct Basin.
The more I saw of Princes Wharf - public excluded - poor public realm - the more I was perplexed about how it had happened. In fact I was a North Shore City Councillor (from 1998 to 2004), when the Princes Wharf redevelopment began. The more I thought about it, the more I wondered how such a large development on the waterfront could happen with so little public fuss....
While I was on ARC I asked various Councillors who had been around when Princes Wharf redevelopment started, how it had happened. I was aware that ARC had planning jurisdiction over Princes Wharf - because it is within the coastal environment (not on land).There was a little buzz of interest from the media when Cllr Paul Walbran went to the end and sat in a public area to demonstrate that the rather constrained viewing area was indeed public, but given the level of public interest there has been in Queens Wharf and in Wynyard Quarter, I could not understand what had happened at Princes Wharf. How it been permitted without a whimper? Why had it been such a non-event?
A few weeks ago I obtained under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, the Auckland Regional Council planning report relating to the permits and consents needed by PW Investments Ltd (subsidiary of Kitchener Group) to build what we see on Princes Wharf today.
It appears, in an ARC report dated 25 February 1998, that PW Investments Ltd applied for: "approval to construct additions and alterations to existing buildings located on Princes Wharf and to strengthen the wharf structure by the addition of support piles being part of a comprehensive redevelopment of Princes Wharf....."
The report notes that: "the wharf structure is owned by Ports of Auckland Ltd. Ports of Auckland Ltd have subleased to the applicant part of the wharf platform and space above the wharf platform for 98 years."
ARC Planning Assessment
In its assessment of the application, the ARC report states: "... the applicant has designed the proposal to comply with all requirements of the Transitional Regional Coastal Plan (TRCP) and the Proposed Regional Plan Coastal (PRPC).... overall the applications falls for consideration as a controlled activity...."
This was because TRCP states that "complying activities and structures are listed as permitted activities and require no coastal permit" while the PRPC states that: "addition, alteration, or placement of existing structures are to be considered as controlled activity..."
And: "with respect to installation of additional wharf strengthening piles, reconstruction of Princes Wharf is listed as a permitted activity under the TRCP, and as a controlled activity under the PRPC..."
Those of you who know about planning speak, will appreciate that for planners, permitted and controlled activities are at the lowest level of control. More strictly regulated activities are limited discretionary, discretionary, non-complying, prohibited....
In other words, because of the wording of the application, ARC officers were persuaded that the Hilton Hotel and etc application could be considered "an alteration of existing buildings" and "strengthening of the wharf" it was simply a controlled - even a permitted - activity. However I understand that the new piling had little to do with strengthening the wharf, and much more to do with supporting the weight of the 4, 6 and 8 storey concrete buildings.
Notification
It is common knowledge that the RMA requires that development applications with adverse effects must be notified. So that the public, or affected neighbours can understand what is intended and make submissions. So what happened here?
The ARC report quotes Rule 27.5.2 of the PRPC which appears to relate specifically to Princes Wharf and states: "...an application for a resource consent will be considered without notification.... subject to the written approval of the Auckland City Council..."
Apparently there was regular liaison "on matters of process" between ARC and Auckland City Council officers "during consideration of the application".
The ARC report notes: "on the receipt of the written approval of the Auckland City Council, it was determined that no special circumstances justifying notification of the application existed." and "The ARC Manager, Coastal Resources accordingly exercised his delegation in respect of section 94(1) of the RMA and determined that the application be processed on a non-notified basis."
Interestingly, the report notes that: "Ports of Auckland Ltd has advised by letter dated 15 December 1997 that as owner of the wharf and lessor of wharf buildings and space to the applicant they consider themselves to be an affected party.... and advised that it has no objection to the application, and that it has no requirement the application be notified..."
Man oh man. Are we surprised by that? Of course not. Ports of Auckland stood to make a tidy capital sum from the developer, but only if the developer could build what it wanted. Asking for the application to be notified would invite unwanted attention from the public.
Conclusion
So now I understand why there was so little public debate. The public was not invited to consider the matter. The ARC was persuaded it did not need to notify the application. necessary permits and consents were granted and signed off by officers behind closed doors.
No comments:
Post a Comment