Princes Wharf Planning: Pocket History

It’s surprising what you find when you get the inclination to dig into Auckland archives. Like investigating how we ended up with a Hilton Hotel and hundreds of private apartments on Auckland’s publicly owned Princes Wharf and little else for locals. 

This is my story of discovery. I show and tell from my recent journey into the bowels of Auckland planning archives. It is a story that needs to be told so we can learn, reflect and – hopefully – avoid repetition.

Please be patient with my story-telling. I didn’t know what I didn’t know when I started. One set of archives led to another. One step forward two steps backward. Then onward again, but better informed.

This story begins in 2004 when I was elected onto the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) alongside Mike Lee and Sandra Coney. Mainly responsible for public transport funding and environmental protection, the ARC had just been handed control of the Ports of Auckland company and its waterfront land assets, some of which were surplus to Port’s requirements.

The ARC’s thirteen councillors found themselves in the hot seat responsible for the development planning of what was then known as the Western Reclamation, today as Wynyard Quarter, including about 18 hectares of prime waterfront real estate held in public ownership.

Councillors were taken on tiki tours around the Viaduct Basin and out to the end of Princes Wharf where we were shown the meagre provision there for public viewing. Standing outside I felt as if I was intruding on the holidays of the rich and famous sitting comfortably behind plate glass in Hilton’s lap of luxury. 

The months flew by as ARC Councillors considered urban designs and land use proposals for Wynyard Quarter, put them out for public consultation, collected feedback, held stakeholder fora, and came under the media spotlight. The demand for public space, things to do, visitor destinations, character buildings to protect, places to see, marine industry development was huge.

Eventually the ARC and Auckland City Council prepared changes to land use planning documents – how high buildings could be, what was public, what was commercial, what was marine, streetscapes, heritage buildings, transport, what could be moored and where – anything and everything – and these were put out for submissions. In Resource Management Act lingo – the plans were publicly notified.

While all this was happening in 2007 I asked myself this question: if we have to go through all this palaver, jump through so many RMA hoops for the Wynyard Quarter, how come Princes Wharf got developed without so much as a dicky-bird chirping? Construction had started at the end of 1998, well after the RMA was law. So how did the Princes Wharf development get under the radar?

I asked long serving ARC Councillors, and senior staff. But nobody told me. Looking back now I wonder how many could have told me. Perhaps I asked the wrong questions. But I had little time to fret because suddenly Rugby World Cup fever descended on Auckland and Queens Wharf jumped to the top of the ARC’s list of things to worry about. Helter Skelter.

Toward the end of my time on the ARC in 2010 I went into bat with Sandra Coney to protect Queens Wharf’s Shed 10 from demolition. So did Heart of the City and Mayor John Banks to their credit. Pressure for another big cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf and the for demolition of heritage buildings had been huge. My fear was that Auckland would get another Princes Wharf type development.

Since then I've had some time to reflect. About Auckland planning. Time to think about that question again: How did the Princes Wharf development happen?

For a few months in 2013, with twelve years of local government experience and a planning degree behind me, I have been on a mission.

Auckland Library Archives

To kick off my investigation I started with the New Zealand Herald archives which anyone can access over the internet. Keyword: “Princes Wharf”. Hundreds of entries: creating a thriving new heart for the city; café set worrying mariners; city wharf vital to trade; bars hinder sightseers. Stuff like that. But the digital archiving that I could access started in 1999. I needed to go back before that.

Someone suggested I check Auckland Library archives. I’d used my daughter’s library card in the past to get books from Devonport library, but it had lapsed. She’d long left home. So I joined and a strange (for me) new world opened up.

The Auckland library has a heap of digital archives available – to card-carrying-members – over the internet. The New Zealand Card Index is one of these. It began in the 1950’s as a manual card system, closed in 1996, and has since been digitised. It focuses on people, places and organisations, and selectively indexes the NZ Herald and Auckland Star newspapers and something called the Auckland Scrapbook (ASB for short) which was started in 1921.

I’m told that this scrapbook – large, heavy cardboard covers, gold lettering - was kept by the desk of the Auckland City Council Secretary. His or her job included cutting out and pasting in newspaper articles of interest. There are dozens of these Auckland Scrapbooks. And when I searched for “Princes Wharf” a heap of Scrapbook card index entries came up. Including:

·    ASB Aug 1983, Page 242: Auckland Harbour Board. Work has begun on the board's new headquarters building at the base of Princes Wharf - with this development will be the upgrading of the "downtown quayside" by the Auckland City Council
·    ASB Feb 1984, Page 290: Auckland Harbour Board. 8 huge concrete "legs" are part of the base of the $14.2 million Auckland Harbour Bd. headquarters on Princes Wharf
·    ASB Nov 1987, Page 224: Auckland Waterfront. 3-way race for the proposed redevelopment of Princes Wharf was won yesterday by the Mace Development Corporation.

And tantalisingly, this from the Auckland Star:

·    Star, 9 Oct 1987, Front page: Auckland Harbour Board has chosen a $190 million design by Mace Development Corporation incorporating hotel, markets, entertainment centre and a museum for the 63 year-old Princes Wharf site.

But how to see the actual newspaper articles? Over the phone the receptionist at Auckland Library Archives explained I needed to go into the Auckland Library – the archives floor – with my card index references – and they’d show me. She said I should set aside a few hours.

Next day I visited the Central Auckland Research Centre. Level two of the Lorne Street Auckland Library building. Acres of carpet and silence. Kilometres of old volumes and filing cabinets. She asked if I knew about microfilm. No. I was shown where the rolls of film were stored and how to work an old microfilm reader. Talk about exciting.

The picture in the Sun newspaper (10.10.87) showed a stunning development for Princes Wharf, and the article shouted: “..features for the development include:

·    225 bed hotel;
·    maritime museum and commercial marina
·    public steps which will form a grandstand to the harbour
·    entertainment and cultural centre
·    modernised arrival area for cruise ships
·    quayside marketplace, foodhall and variety of restaurants
·    art gallery and cinema
·    carpark…”  

So what happened? Where’s the waterfront grandstand? What about the cultural centre? And the quayside marketplace, art gallery and cinema. What happened to the Harbour Board’s promise of Princes Wharf being transformed into a ‘people place’?

Other library archives gave a partial answer. In its 19th January 1989 issue, the National Business Review (NBR) reports:

“Work on redeveloping Auckland’s Princes Wharf has shifted from overall design to planning for legislative changes needed….   The $275 million project had been reviewed since the original design licence was awarded to Mace a week before the sharemarket crash…”

A crash. Bet that came as a nasty surprise. The report continues:

“…approvals required include maritime planning permission… and an Act of Parliament must be amended to allow construction of commercial property on the wharf...”

Legislation and maritime planning. These would have been spanners in the works. Before going onward from 1989, I need to back-track a little. My curiosity in the rather striking Auckland Harbour Board Headquarters Building had been piqued by the Library archives. Another hunt in the NZ Card Index was called for:

·    ASB, Feb 1980, Page 79:  The Auckland Harbour Board has revealed its design for a $7.7 million quayside office building.
·    NZ Herald, 13 Oct 1982, Page 4: Travelodge NZ Ltd and AMP Society's appeal against Planning Tribunal decision that Auckland Harbour Board's proposed new headquarters on Princes Wharf can go ahead being heard in High Court.
·    ASB, July 1985, Page 29:  Auckland Harbour Board building wins one of the NZ Institute of Architects awards.

Both the NZ Herald and the Auckland Star ran features after AHB released proposals for its new HQ. These included a striking illustration of  “Quayside Project” plans to pedestrianize Quay Street all the way from Queens Wharf to Princes Wharf, and from Shed 10 on Queens Wharf up through Queen Elizabeth Square. (You can see this picture here.)

The Auckland Star article (14.4.1980) reads:

“This is the way the Auckland Harbour Board visualizes the downtown waterfront area developing, including its new building at the corner of Princes wharf and the quayside. The Mediterranean concept, as board chairman Mr Bob Carr, once described it, is aimed at bringing the port to the people…”

So what happened to those plans? Maybe it was just a public con job.

And the Herald report (15.4.1980), headlined: “Harbour Board Feeling Call of the Sea”, states that the first floor of its HQ “is set 36 feet above an open lower story… the open lower floor has been designed to provide public access through to the existing waterfront…”

Man oh man. Look at this building today. The whole underneath has been filled in. Vertical infill. How did that happen? More on that later.  (You can see here for before and now)

So. AHB got their HQ. Cost them around $14 million. Money they didn’t have, so they needed a bank loan. But their really big plan was to develop Princes Wharf real estate. Make serious money.

But it took some detective work to piece this together.

Auckland City Council Archives

I knew I’d have to get immersed in Auckland City Council archives at some point. There’s a sort of meta-data system anyone can access over the net. I tried words like “Wharf” and “Princes” and found a whole lot of references to “Scheme Change 4” of the “Waitemata Harbour Maritime Plan”. By “references” I mean record numbers, dates, file numbers. Stuff like that. No actual documents though.

So I sent an email to the queries address. By return I was advised I needed to show up at the Auckland Council Archives offices. Two stories underground by the Academy Theatre – also in Lorne Street interestingly. Pressed the buzzer. Was let in and told, “this is a pencil and paper only area. Put your things in that locker.”  Heavy. Did as I was told, and was presented with a pile of old manilla folders dated between 1986 and 1989 stuffed with papers about a change of planning controls for Princes Wharf. 

Cutting to the chase: In 1989 Auckland Harbour Board applied to the Waitemata Harbour Planning Authority for changes that would allow commercial development on Princes Wharf. Its application states:

“…It is intended that Mace should be granted a lease to permit the redevelopment and operation of Princes Wharf as a commercially based mixed-use complex of benefit to the citizens of Auckland and visitors to the city. To provide a planning opportunity for that development, the Authority has introduced this Proposed Change to its Scheme…”

The fine print permits most activities known to mankind; allocates wharf space roughly between hotel uses, shops, offices, and public space; permits a maximum height of 62 meters above the deck; and states: “the redevelopment is intended to contain an appropriate and balanced mix of uses which will ensure its commercial viability while facilitating public access and providing for public enjoyment of the wharf…”

Auckland City Council opposed the application. 

In an internal memo (23.3.1989), Council’s Divisional Planner City Development, writes:

“It is extremely important that this Council lodge objection to Proposed Change 4 and pursue this matter with vigour….”

He refers to the “Quayside Project” (mentioned earlier, with Quay Street pedestrianised and Queens Wharf paved. This turns out was a joint plan between Auckland Harbour Board and Auckland City Council) and other joint plans: “the emphasis (of these) is to encourage reuse and refurbishment of existing structures and to encourage greater public use of those spaces…”

Points made in Council’s objection include:

“…at a height of 62 metres, the new building can hardly be construed as a reuse of an existing and obsolete wharf…”
“…’commercial viability’ is a market influence and should not dictate planning decisions which are made in the public interest…”
“…the Scheme Change would permit development of a scale and nature which is not appropriate to this important maritime location… and such development would be permitted without right of public scrutiny or objection…”

I suggest you re-read that last quote – especially the last part of it.

Other documents in the folders show that changes were made to the application, and that AHB’s modified application was granted. Man oh man. Given the strength of those objections from a council planner – what the hell happened?

No detail. Frustrating. I had been given Auckland City Council archives - but only files that were “unrestricted”. I was told that to see “restricted” files I would have to apply to Auckland Council under the Local Government Official Information Act. That might be a mission.

But staff at Auckland Council Archives had a suggestion. They told me that all the Auckland Harbour Board files - with its side of the story – much more detailed - were held by the Auckland Maritime Museum.

Auckland Harbour Board Archives – Maritime Museum

I made an appointment. Asked to see files about the late 1980’s proposed Princes Wharf development, and anything they might have about Scheme Change 4. She told me she’d dig them out and that I should set aside a day.

This was treasure trove. “Pencil and paper” environment but few restrictions. I was led to a large table with piles of folders and boxes. She showed me some of the big A3 documents first explaining, “these are the design submissions for Princes Wharf.” They looked amazing. Nothing like what’s down there today. I got the impression these particular documents had been shown to lots of people before me. Probably architecture students.

“Not sure what’s in these boxes though”, she said, indicating the rest of the documents, “but sounds like you know what you’re looking for.”

 Altogether I was looking at about a thousand pieces of paper, a tiny proportion of the AHB archives, and I didn’t really know where to start, or even what I was looking for. So I decided I’d go through the lot, folder by folder, box by box, page by page, taking pencilled notes of documents of interest. I was a bit put off by the cost of photocopying (high because staff did it for you), but after signing a copyright document I was permitted to use my digital camera to photograph whole pages.

What was most surprising were the blunt letters from Russell McVeagh lawyers providing strategic advice to the AHB chief executive and board of directors every step of the way. Much of it was advice about how to deal with Auckland City Council concerns about the Head Quarters building and Princes Wharf proposals.

Letters from Auckland City Council planning staff make it clear that the Council would not submit against AHB’s proposed HQ plans, on the understanding that AHB would take steps to implement the widely publicised Quayside Project. Travelodge (now the Copthorne Hotel) wasn’t impressed though, wanting to protect hotel window views across Quay Street, so it took the AHB’s plans to the Planning Tribunal Court (the precursor of the Environment Court).

Noted Judge Sheppard dealt with the case and ruled in AHB’s favour, confirming specific conditions of consent in his decision (8.7.1982):

“the (HQ) building to be used solely as the administrative offices of the Auckland Harbour Board and not leased, sub-leased or otherwise let to any other party …”
“the building to be treated by the Board as part of a comprehensive plan for progressive re-use of the Quayside area…”
“the pedestrian plaza areas, landscaping and public amenity provisions… are constructed contemporaneously with the building itself…”

Documents reveal that only four years after the HQ’s construction, port admin staff vacated the building and it was leased to commercial tenants. Another public con.

Back to Princes Wharf – but this time viewed through the lens of AHB’s archives.

AHB’s first step in the development of Princes Wharf was to conduct a design competition. The brief for this reads: “with its proximity to Auckland’s CBD there is considerable cope for an imaginative development plan…  the overall development will need to be commercially viable to attract capital. At the same time and not necessarily in conflict, public activities are seen as an essential feature… preliminary applications are invited from parties seriously interested in the development of Princes Wharf ...”

 Fifteen entries were received by the closing date (31.10.1986). These were culled to a short-list of four which were released to the Auckland public in a well organised media event including a public display of scale models of the winning designs. (The May 1987 issue of Metro Magazine published details and ran a poll on readers’ preferences.)

The public loved what they saw. So did the newspapers. Concept images did a great selling job on the public. A people’s waterfront at last.

Next step for the short-list was another design competition – only this time the entrants were advised: “parties should refine their preliminary development proposals to the stage that they would be prepared to enter into a binding development/lease agreement with the Board… lease would be for 20 years…right of renewal… lease rental basis could be based on value of property….or equity participation….”.

A big reality check. Grand designs were revisited and cut down to size. The Mace Development proposal was chosen – though minutes of AHB Board Meetings show that members were extremely unhappy with the final design – one that was economically feasible – and talked of “walking away from the deal”.

In parallel AHB got on with the serious business of changing the planning rules (summarised above), and New Zealand legislation, to allow commercial development on Princes Wharf.

This was a time when the Lange-led Labour government was hard at work restructuring New Zealand’s economy. Entrepreneurialism and market forces rule.

Auckland Harbour Board was corporatized in 1988 by Act of Parliament. Port assets and operations were handed over to a newly formed company, Ports of Auckland Ltd, (POAL) 100% owned by AHB, but whose shares could be traded on the stock exchange. The purpose of the reform was clearly stated: “The principal objective of every port company shall be to operate as a successful business.”

AHB held onto Princes Wharf for a couple of years. Getting it ready for development, prior to handing it over to POAL to do the business.

In 1989 the Hon Minister Prebble introduced the Princes Wharf Empowering Act into Parliament. Hansard tells us what he said, “to me, one of the most exciting things about the proposal is that for the first time it will open up the wharf to the public of Auckland…..  benefits or proposals intended for Princes Wharf include a new, upgraded international cruise-ship passenger terminal; a waterside plaza with a ceremonial landing---and it is to be hoped that the America's Cup boats will come into there; a low-level pontoon, and a marina promenade; a pedestrian link leading right to downtown; a theatre complex; a maritime museum; and public viewing areas…..”.

Parliament was persuaded to allow Princes Wharf leases to be sold commercially.

Interestingly, AHB files explain how Auckland City Council’s objections to Princes Wharf development proposals were finally overcome. Internal AHB legal advice states: “The City seek to have the Princes Wharf area brought within its planning jurisdiction. This would be a very dangerous concession. At the present moment it is in the maritime planning area and the scheme change is almost at the point of being made operative….  Alternative approaches… provide for the area to be deemed part of the City’s district for the purposes of the Rating Act 1967 only…”

The Council was partly bought off by the promise of rates revenue, and left planning responsibilities alone.

But Council had gone public in the Herald about its concerns, and St Mary’s Bay residents took up the fight. They were concerned about losing their views from a waterfront development that could go as high as 62 metres.

Despite these objections a public hearing signed off the AHB’s Princes Wharf development proposal. However an appeal to the Planning Tribunal was filed by the Auckland Regional Authority (the precursor to the ARC) seeking: “to limit development on the wharf to redevelopment and reuse of the existing buildings; or to permit buildings of no greater height than 25 metres above wharf level…”

A deal that was done out of court (dropping the maximum height from 62 metres to 37 metres) is hinted at by a filed court memorandum: “… clarifying the practicability of achieving a height reduction of the proposed Mace project… by eliminating the 650 seat theatre…. the hotel could be ‘dropped’ to sit immediately above the present deck level… the theatre foyer area which, in the present design, enables internal public access through to the top of the Waitemata Steps would be occupied by the hotel….”

Man oh man. Keep the hotel the same size but lose the theatre and internal public access. Con or sell out? Who knows. St Mary’s Bay residents forced the issue, and the rest of Auckland lost out big time.

By now the development was all over bar the shouting. But then came the crash and the Mace deal disappeared. Nothing happened on Princes Wharf for ten years.

However, unbeknownst to an unsuspecting public the planks for what we see today on Princes Wharf had already been laid by these historic decisions.

Next piece of the jigsaw was the Resource Management Act (RMA). This was enacted in 1991 and required the newly formed Auckland Regional Council (ARC) to prepare Auckland’s Regional Plan Coastal – which would regulate activities on the coast and above the sea (which includes on wharves).

Put simply, under the new RMA regime, any development proposed on Princes Wharf after 1991 would need to comply with Auckland’s Regional Plan Coastal, and if it didn’t, it would need a resource consent.

The RMA came from much the same parentage as the rest of New Zealand’s 1980’s free market reforms, and though it promised much in the way of environmental protection, it was – and still is – silent on human, social, and public needs.

Urban planning was reduced to the assessment of environmental effects.

The ARC could have written its Regional Plan Coastal from scratch. But in common with most NZ Councils it adopted large chunks from the previous planning regime. And by this I mean the Waitemata Harbour Maritme Plan, which – you will remember - had been changed to allow for the Mace development on Princes Wharf.

It has proved difficult for me to get files on this next stage. The Ports of Auckland Ltd have denied me access to their files – even though they are 100% publicly owned. But I have been able to obtain the Property File for Princes Wharf from Auckland Council.

Princes Wharf Property File Archives

A typical residential property file (like for where your house is) might contain a dozen or so entries describing the original subdivision, later subdivisions, and any resource or building consents. The Princes Wharf property file – which I got on CD from Council for $50 – contains around 10,000 planning files for the period since 1991. All nicely scanned and ready to read. But a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack.

What I found has appalled me.

The new ARC Plan Coastal notes that by 1991 the development that had been originally envisaged by Ports of Auckland had not taken place, and contains these words:

“… the upgrading and modernisation of facilities on Princes Wharf could significantly benefit tourism, recreation, and the public amenity values of the waterfront. Any development would need to complement the urban landscape, be in scale with adjacent land-based development, and retain views of the harbour from surrounding locations. A high level of public access would need to be maintained, particularly around the northern end of Princes Wharf…”

Some commitment to public access but little else. And when you get to the rules, ARC’s Plan Coastal states that anything that fits within a building envelope 37 metres high, and runs solid along the wharf, could be built as of right, as a fully complying activity. No notification necessary. Subject to a tiny bit of planning discretion being retained by the ARC so it:

“had control over… the extent to which the design and external appearance of any buildings or structures recognises the city/harbour relationship, the prominent maritime setting of the site, and the public use of the development…”

That was feeble. The ARC showed its woeful understanding of urban planning. Ports of Auckland now had control of the lease to Princes Wharf. With a statutory obligation to be a successful business it must have been laughing. And with a planning regime like that in place, it was only a matter of time before a resource consent application to develop Princes Wharf would be received.

On the 18th June 1997, Ports of Auckland Ltd issued a media release through NZX (Capital Markets) which announced the sale of POAL’s leasehold interests (98 years) in Princes Wharf to Kitchener Group of Companies for $25.752 million.

A few months later the ARC received an application to: “construct alterations to existing buildings contained on Princes Wharf, and to install 52 racking piles to provide additional lateral support for the wharf structure.”

The ARC officer’s report (25.2.1998) notes: “the applicant has designed the proposal to comply with all requirements of the Regional Plan Coastal…. falls for consideration as a controlled activity…. The Manager… determined that the application be processed on a non-notified basis.”

In planning speak “Controlled” is like saying permitted.  And “non-notified” means what it says. No public notification.

That’s why no-one knew about it.

But there was a check. The ARC’s Plan Coastal, required that the developer should obtain a certificate from an independent registered architect. That one person needed to formally certify: “that the design and appearance of the proposed development of Princes Wharf is responsive to the city/harbour relationship, the prominent maritime setting of the site and the public use of the development and its setting…”

So an architect was retained who “worked closely with the developer”. Part of his report signing off the development reads:  “Although the height of the buildings will be greater than those currently existing on the wharf… the additional height proposed will help to achieve a sense of enclosure and definition to the harbour space in front of the Ferry building. The proposed development will act like a ‘constructed headland’… this will assist in restoring a more visually interesting and spatially attractive city waterfront which, as a result of successive harbour reclamations since the founding of the city, has been reduced to a relatively flat, straight edge…”

Which is just a matter of opinion. The expert “certifying report” minimising environmental effects is full of urban design speak that smoothly turns black into white.

Consistent with the purpose of the RMA, consent was granted. Without a hearing and without notification. By now the proposed development no longer included a cinema, theatres, museum, Waitemata Steps, festival shopping arcades. Such public amenities had long gone from this business-friendly proposal.

But it gets worse.

Over the next two years the developer applied for modifications to the original consent. These included: 37 more hotel rooms,  79 more apartments,  increased building heights, a pedestrian bridge, and a new lift. The developer also applied to restrict the public’s “unfettered access” to the end of Princes Wharf, and for six new vertical piles to hold the weight of the building. Parking increased. Restaurants spilled out between the protected colonnades. On and on.

Step by step the public lost out, and private interests took over Princes Wharf.

The same developer now owned the old (new) AHB headquarters building and applied for and obtained consent to fill it in with three new floors of commercial office space, again with the support of the friendly independent architect. Public access underneath and onto Princes Wharf was lost. And unknown additional lease payments were made to Ports of Auckland Ltd.

So that’s how it all happened.

The lesson for future waterfront development is this. Market forces can be relied upon to return profits to private shareholders. But public benefits on Auckland’s waterfront – including access, open spaces, parks, views, peace, seating, toilets, shelter, theatres, museums, galleries – can only be guaranteed when the public interest is rigorously defended and promoted by powerful and determined local government.