TV3 News Story
Row over Queen's Wharf sheds heats up 29-Apr 12:43
By Emma Brannam
(This text is from the TV3 News Story. You can see a link and see the video clip, and inside the sheds, at the end of this...)
The row over two cargo sheds on Auckland's Queen's Wharf is escalating with the Auckland City Council backing heritage supporters who want to protect them. Last week the Government and the Auckland Regional Council revealed plans to demolish the sheds – making way for the Rugby World Cup's ‘party central’.
There are only two sheds remaining on Queen’s Wharf – rundown and unloved on a stretch of windswept, empty waterfront. Its owners, the Government and Auckland Regional Council, want to demolish them to make way for a Rugby World Cup temporary party venue.
The response: "It's an arrogant disregard for our industrial heritage," says Mayor John Banks.
The Auckland mayor has issued an 11th hour plea to save the sheds and is recommitting $26 million to help keep them.
"In Auckland, we've turned so much of our heritage into firewood and we've replaced it with crass third world development," he says. He's even pulled out an old plan for Queen’s Wharf which would see the eastern shed rejuvenated.
The ARC says it’s an election stunt.
But there's more to this stoush then politics – many believe the buildings are of real historical importance.
“There’s been a lot of associations with the wharf – this was once Queen's Street Wharf; it was the main point of entry and exit for people into Auckland,” says Antony Matthews, a heritage campaigner.
“They’re strong, they’re well built, if we’re not careful our grandchildren won’t see these materials – ever,” says Adam Mercer of the Auckland Architect Association.
These buildings are pretty ugly – but it’s what is on the inside that could be important, especially shed 10.
The Save Queen's Wharf campaign has gone online – a Facebook page and a petition.
There's even a dissenter in Auckland Regional Council’s ranks.
“If these wharfs were owned privately, the sheds would be protected like there’s no tomorrow,” says Joel Cayford of the ARC.
“Just because they are owned publicly, and because some people want a cruise ship terminal, that’s why they’re up for demolition.”
The ARC chairman declined to be interviewed but in a written statement told 3 News that it's working with the historic places trust on retaining as much of the wharf's heritage elements and its sheds as possible. But if it sticks to its current plans, the sheds will be bowled, in the centenary year of their construction.
Here's the TV3 News Story link:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Row-over-Queens-Wharf-sheds-heats-up/tabid/309/articleID/153384/Default.aspx
Showing posts with label Save our Sheds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Save our Sheds. Show all posts
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Save Our Iconic Sheds
 New Zealand loves its sheds. Corrugated iron ones especially. This rail shed is an iconic part of the Otago Rail Trail - one of New Zealand's tourism success stories. |
 They make great paintings. Iconic paintings and images. Recalling our history and our attachment to it. Grahame Sydney painted this one. |
 And all over New Zealand, when the old shed gets a bit too tired, because the galvanize has failed and there's not been any paint around, you can always replace it with another one. But the old one remains. A memory. |
 So let's paint our sheds red for the time being and enjoy them for a while. At least till after the rugby world cup in 2011. That's if you like barn red as a colour... |
 Or green if you feel like the Wedderburn touch. Maybe a bit lurid. But fun all the same... |
 Or red and green. Should never be seen... |
|
Go down there on Sunday. This Sunday the 25th April. The sheds are open to view on Queens Wharf from 1:00pm to 5:00pm or so, and it's party time down there. Acts, theatre, food, fun. Bring the family. Make your claim to these iconic New Zealand sheds. |
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Save Our Shed - Campaign
Can you help? Do you want to?
It is extraordinary that the Historic Places Trust has so completely and utterly capitulated on the Queens Wharf sheds. It is unclear from its statement whether it is even interested in going ahead with the heritage assessment it recommended the ARC to carry out in a letter dated 15th April. I wonder what happened between Friday and Tuesday?
No matter, as mentioned elsewhere in these blogs, a very robust heritage assessment has already been carried out for ARC and Auckland City Council by Matthews & Matthews Architects. That has credibility and detail.
The planning scenario we seem to be looking at is this:
.....ARC is co-owner and regulator. It administers the Regional Plan Coastal which includes the zonings relating to port activities. One of these covers Queens Wharf. I understand that if the activity that is to go there - or be undertaken there - is a permitted use according to that plan then very little in the way of consenting stands between the ARC and bowling the sheds and outting up the tent. Because there is no protection over the sheds they can be bowled. A bit like the Masonic Hotel across the water at Devonport....
So what else is there to consider?
Well it seems to me that the ARC has duties in terms of the RMA that are wider than simple compliance with a plan - be it the Regional Plan Coastal which has not been updated since the transfer of Queens Wharf into ARC's ownership. Thin ice is what is being skated on here. There is already talk of judicial review proceedings. But maybe a Declaratory Judgement is needed first. One that tests what ARC's duties are in respect of Queens Wharf, and in terms of the planning process that should unfold now.
I suggest this because I get the sense Govt and ARC want to just go ahead and do their worst without due process. Get away with minimum.
What might be best practice?
Did you know - for example - that Sea + City is doing some work now on North Wharf? It has been preparing the wharf structure, and is building some new structures alongside the net shed, and is managing the stormwater from the area etc. Today at ARC, we were advised, as a formaility, that Sea + City had applied for resource consents relating to: public seats on the wharf; stormwater drainage from the wharf; and other matters. I asked a question about this, and was advised that Sea + City were keen to do the "right thing" when it came to consents for these works. It recognised - for example - that public seating on the wharf was not a permitted activity - in the relevant zone. So that is why it applied for consent.
It also applied for consent to allow promenading! But ARC officers advised that was not necessary. This was a fully notified consent. Sea + City did the right thing.
But I reckon ARC is running a mile from notification. Can of worms. Too much public interest. How can we avoid public scrutiny....
I mention this, because it raises issues about what the permitted activity status is on Queens Wharf. This seems to be still "port activities" of some sort - and not things like public seating, or presumably bars and cafes and party time. That is most likely why the powers that be keep emphasising that what they want to build is a "cruise ship terminal" and why the references to "party central" and partying and related activities are being down-played.
All those people. All that drinking. All that pedestrian traffic. All that noise and fun. All those generated effects that normal business es would be required to have carefully crafted conditions of consent sorted out through a notified planning process.
Because the port zoning does not provide for these activities.
If you were a private operator you'd be required to get a consent for any activity that was not provided for in the plan. And while I'm on the topic, what do you think happens to the stormwater from Queens Wharf and the buildings there? Not sure.... neither am I. But it's the ARC that consents those direct discharges into the harbour, and they need to comply.
Another item cropped up on the council agenda today. It related to works being carried out on the wharf at Cornwallis - an ARC regeional park fronting the Manukau Harbour. The works required are pretty minimal, but they are not provided for explicitly in the plan. The report councillors received receommended: "...to avoid a perceived conflict of interest, as the ARC is the applicant, it is recommended that an independent commissioner be appointed to review and make decisions...."
I think that what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander.
I think the ARC is making itself vulnerable to a legal challenge in respect to its compliance with its general duties under the Act.
Is there anyone out there who agrees, and would like to assist further?
It is extraordinary that the Historic Places Trust has so completely and utterly capitulated on the Queens Wharf sheds. It is unclear from its statement whether it is even interested in going ahead with the heritage assessment it recommended the ARC to carry out in a letter dated 15th April. I wonder what happened between Friday and Tuesday?
No matter, as mentioned elsewhere in these blogs, a very robust heritage assessment has already been carried out for ARC and Auckland City Council by Matthews & Matthews Architects. That has credibility and detail.
The planning scenario we seem to be looking at is this:
.....ARC is co-owner and regulator. It administers the Regional Plan Coastal which includes the zonings relating to port activities. One of these covers Queens Wharf. I understand that if the activity that is to go there - or be undertaken there - is a permitted use according to that plan then very little in the way of consenting stands between the ARC and bowling the sheds and outting up the tent. Because there is no protection over the sheds they can be bowled. A bit like the Masonic Hotel across the water at Devonport....
So what else is there to consider?
Well it seems to me that the ARC has duties in terms of the RMA that are wider than simple compliance with a plan - be it the Regional Plan Coastal which has not been updated since the transfer of Queens Wharf into ARC's ownership. Thin ice is what is being skated on here. There is already talk of judicial review proceedings. But maybe a Declaratory Judgement is needed first. One that tests what ARC's duties are in respect of Queens Wharf, and in terms of the planning process that should unfold now.
I suggest this because I get the sense Govt and ARC want to just go ahead and do their worst without due process. Get away with minimum.
What might be best practice?
Did you know - for example - that Sea + City is doing some work now on North Wharf? It has been preparing the wharf structure, and is building some new structures alongside the net shed, and is managing the stormwater from the area etc. Today at ARC, we were advised, as a formaility, that Sea + City had applied for resource consents relating to: public seats on the wharf; stormwater drainage from the wharf; and other matters. I asked a question about this, and was advised that Sea + City were keen to do the "right thing" when it came to consents for these works. It recognised - for example - that public seating on the wharf was not a permitted activity - in the relevant zone. So that is why it applied for consent.
It also applied for consent to allow promenading! But ARC officers advised that was not necessary. This was a fully notified consent. Sea + City did the right thing.
But I reckon ARC is running a mile from notification. Can of worms. Too much public interest. How can we avoid public scrutiny....
I mention this, because it raises issues about what the permitted activity status is on Queens Wharf. This seems to be still "port activities" of some sort - and not things like public seating, or presumably bars and cafes and party time. That is most likely why the powers that be keep emphasising that what they want to build is a "cruise ship terminal" and why the references to "party central" and partying and related activities are being down-played.
All those people. All that drinking. All that pedestrian traffic. All that noise and fun. All those generated effects that normal business es would be required to have carefully crafted conditions of consent sorted out through a notified planning process.
Because the port zoning does not provide for these activities.
If you were a private operator you'd be required to get a consent for any activity that was not provided for in the plan. And while I'm on the topic, what do you think happens to the stormwater from Queens Wharf and the buildings there? Not sure.... neither am I. But it's the ARC that consents those direct discharges into the harbour, and they need to comply.
Another item cropped up on the council agenda today. It related to works being carried out on the wharf at Cornwallis - an ARC regeional park fronting the Manukau Harbour. The works required are pretty minimal, but they are not provided for explicitly in the plan. The report councillors received receommended: "...to avoid a perceived conflict of interest, as the ARC is the applicant, it is recommended that an independent commissioner be appointed to review and make decisions...."
I think that what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander.
I think the ARC is making itself vulnerable to a legal challenge in respect to its compliance with its general duties under the Act.
Is there anyone out there who agrees, and would like to assist further?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Showing posts with label Save our Sheds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Save our Sheds. Show all posts
Sunday, May 2, 2010
TV3 Cameras See Inside Queens Wharf Sheds
TV3 News Story
Row over Queen's Wharf sheds heats up 29-Apr 12:43
By Emma Brannam
(This text is from the TV3 News Story. You can see a link and see the video clip, and inside the sheds, at the end of this...)
The row over two cargo sheds on Auckland's Queen's Wharf is escalating with the Auckland City Council backing heritage supporters who want to protect them. Last week the Government and the Auckland Regional Council revealed plans to demolish the sheds – making way for the Rugby World Cup's ‘party central’.
There are only two sheds remaining on Queen’s Wharf – rundown and unloved on a stretch of windswept, empty waterfront. Its owners, the Government and Auckland Regional Council, want to demolish them to make way for a Rugby World Cup temporary party venue.
The response: "It's an arrogant disregard for our industrial heritage," says Mayor John Banks.
The Auckland mayor has issued an 11th hour plea to save the sheds and is recommitting $26 million to help keep them.
"In Auckland, we've turned so much of our heritage into firewood and we've replaced it with crass third world development," he says. He's even pulled out an old plan for Queen’s Wharf which would see the eastern shed rejuvenated.
The ARC says it’s an election stunt.
But there's more to this stoush then politics – many believe the buildings are of real historical importance.
“There’s been a lot of associations with the wharf – this was once Queen's Street Wharf; it was the main point of entry and exit for people into Auckland,” says Antony Matthews, a heritage campaigner.
“They’re strong, they’re well built, if we’re not careful our grandchildren won’t see these materials – ever,” says Adam Mercer of the Auckland Architect Association.
These buildings are pretty ugly – but it’s what is on the inside that could be important, especially shed 10.
The Save Queen's Wharf campaign has gone online – a Facebook page and a petition.
There's even a dissenter in Auckland Regional Council’s ranks.
“If these wharfs were owned privately, the sheds would be protected like there’s no tomorrow,” says Joel Cayford of the ARC.
“Just because they are owned publicly, and because some people want a cruise ship terminal, that’s why they’re up for demolition.”
The ARC chairman declined to be interviewed but in a written statement told 3 News that it's working with the historic places trust on retaining as much of the wharf's heritage elements and its sheds as possible. But if it sticks to its current plans, the sheds will be bowled, in the centenary year of their construction.
Here's the TV3 News Story link:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Row-over-Queens-Wharf-sheds-heats-up/tabid/309/articleID/153384/Default.aspx
Row over Queen's Wharf sheds heats up 29-Apr 12:43
By Emma Brannam
(This text is from the TV3 News Story. You can see a link and see the video clip, and inside the sheds, at the end of this...)
The row over two cargo sheds on Auckland's Queen's Wharf is escalating with the Auckland City Council backing heritage supporters who want to protect them. Last week the Government and the Auckland Regional Council revealed plans to demolish the sheds – making way for the Rugby World Cup's ‘party central’.
There are only two sheds remaining on Queen’s Wharf – rundown and unloved on a stretch of windswept, empty waterfront. Its owners, the Government and Auckland Regional Council, want to demolish them to make way for a Rugby World Cup temporary party venue.
The response: "It's an arrogant disregard for our industrial heritage," says Mayor John Banks.
The Auckland mayor has issued an 11th hour plea to save the sheds and is recommitting $26 million to help keep them.
"In Auckland, we've turned so much of our heritage into firewood and we've replaced it with crass third world development," he says. He's even pulled out an old plan for Queen’s Wharf which would see the eastern shed rejuvenated.
The ARC says it’s an election stunt.
But there's more to this stoush then politics – many believe the buildings are of real historical importance.
“There’s been a lot of associations with the wharf – this was once Queen's Street Wharf; it was the main point of entry and exit for people into Auckland,” says Antony Matthews, a heritage campaigner.
“They’re strong, they’re well built, if we’re not careful our grandchildren won’t see these materials – ever,” says Adam Mercer of the Auckland Architect Association.
These buildings are pretty ugly – but it’s what is on the inside that could be important, especially shed 10.
The Save Queen's Wharf campaign has gone online – a Facebook page and a petition.
There's even a dissenter in Auckland Regional Council’s ranks.
“If these wharfs were owned privately, the sheds would be protected like there’s no tomorrow,” says Joel Cayford of the ARC.
“Just because they are owned publicly, and because some people want a cruise ship terminal, that’s why they’re up for demolition.”
The ARC chairman declined to be interviewed but in a written statement told 3 News that it's working with the historic places trust on retaining as much of the wharf's heritage elements and its sheds as possible. But if it sticks to its current plans, the sheds will be bowled, in the centenary year of their construction.
Here's the TV3 News Story link:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Row-over-Queens-Wharf-sheds-heats-up/tabid/309/articleID/153384/Default.aspx
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Save Our Iconic Sheds
| New Zealand loves its sheds. Corrugated iron ones especially. This rail shed is an iconic part of the Otago Rail Trail - one of New Zealand's tourism success stories. |
| They make great paintings. Iconic paintings and images. Recalling our history and our attachment to it. Grahame Sydney painted this one. |
| And all over New Zealand, when the old shed gets a bit too tired, because the galvanize has failed and there's not been any paint around, you can always replace it with another one. But the old one remains. A memory. |
| So let's paint our sheds red for the time being and enjoy them for a while. At least till after the rugby world cup in 2011. That's if you like barn red as a colour... |
| Or green if you feel like the Wedderburn touch. Maybe a bit lurid. But fun all the same... |
| Or red and green. Should never be seen... |
|
Go down there on Sunday. This Sunday the 25th April. The sheds are open to view on Queens Wharf from 1:00pm to 5:00pm or so, and it's party time down there. Acts, theatre, food, fun. Bring the family. Make your claim to these iconic New Zealand sheds. |
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Save Our Shed - Campaign
Can you help? Do you want to?
It is extraordinary that the Historic Places Trust has so completely and utterly capitulated on the Queens Wharf sheds. It is unclear from its statement whether it is even interested in going ahead with the heritage assessment it recommended the ARC to carry out in a letter dated 15th April. I wonder what happened between Friday and Tuesday?
No matter, as mentioned elsewhere in these blogs, a very robust heritage assessment has already been carried out for ARC and Auckland City Council by Matthews & Matthews Architects. That has credibility and detail.
The planning scenario we seem to be looking at is this:
.....ARC is co-owner and regulator. It administers the Regional Plan Coastal which includes the zonings relating to port activities. One of these covers Queens Wharf. I understand that if the activity that is to go there - or be undertaken there - is a permitted use according to that plan then very little in the way of consenting stands between the ARC and bowling the sheds and outting up the tent. Because there is no protection over the sheds they can be bowled. A bit like the Masonic Hotel across the water at Devonport....
So what else is there to consider?
Well it seems to me that the ARC has duties in terms of the RMA that are wider than simple compliance with a plan - be it the Regional Plan Coastal which has not been updated since the transfer of Queens Wharf into ARC's ownership. Thin ice is what is being skated on here. There is already talk of judicial review proceedings. But maybe a Declaratory Judgement is needed first. One that tests what ARC's duties are in respect of Queens Wharf, and in terms of the planning process that should unfold now.
I suggest this because I get the sense Govt and ARC want to just go ahead and do their worst without due process. Get away with minimum.
What might be best practice?
Did you know - for example - that Sea + City is doing some work now on North Wharf? It has been preparing the wharf structure, and is building some new structures alongside the net shed, and is managing the stormwater from the area etc. Today at ARC, we were advised, as a formaility, that Sea + City had applied for resource consents relating to: public seats on the wharf; stormwater drainage from the wharf; and other matters. I asked a question about this, and was advised that Sea + City were keen to do the "right thing" when it came to consents for these works. It recognised - for example - that public seating on the wharf was not a permitted activity - in the relevant zone. So that is why it applied for consent.
It also applied for consent to allow promenading! But ARC officers advised that was not necessary. This was a fully notified consent. Sea + City did the right thing.
But I reckon ARC is running a mile from notification. Can of worms. Too much public interest. How can we avoid public scrutiny....
I mention this, because it raises issues about what the permitted activity status is on Queens Wharf. This seems to be still "port activities" of some sort - and not things like public seating, or presumably bars and cafes and party time. That is most likely why the powers that be keep emphasising that what they want to build is a "cruise ship terminal" and why the references to "party central" and partying and related activities are being down-played.
All those people. All that drinking. All that pedestrian traffic. All that noise and fun. All those generated effects that normal business es would be required to have carefully crafted conditions of consent sorted out through a notified planning process.
Because the port zoning does not provide for these activities.
If you were a private operator you'd be required to get a consent for any activity that was not provided for in the plan. And while I'm on the topic, what do you think happens to the stormwater from Queens Wharf and the buildings there? Not sure.... neither am I. But it's the ARC that consents those direct discharges into the harbour, and they need to comply.
Another item cropped up on the council agenda today. It related to works being carried out on the wharf at Cornwallis - an ARC regeional park fronting the Manukau Harbour. The works required are pretty minimal, but they are not provided for explicitly in the plan. The report councillors received receommended: "...to avoid a perceived conflict of interest, as the ARC is the applicant, it is recommended that an independent commissioner be appointed to review and make decisions...."
I think that what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander.
I think the ARC is making itself vulnerable to a legal challenge in respect to its compliance with its general duties under the Act.
Is there anyone out there who agrees, and would like to assist further?
It is extraordinary that the Historic Places Trust has so completely and utterly capitulated on the Queens Wharf sheds. It is unclear from its statement whether it is even interested in going ahead with the heritage assessment it recommended the ARC to carry out in a letter dated 15th April. I wonder what happened between Friday and Tuesday?
No matter, as mentioned elsewhere in these blogs, a very robust heritage assessment has already been carried out for ARC and Auckland City Council by Matthews & Matthews Architects. That has credibility and detail.
The planning scenario we seem to be looking at is this:
.....ARC is co-owner and regulator. It administers the Regional Plan Coastal which includes the zonings relating to port activities. One of these covers Queens Wharf. I understand that if the activity that is to go there - or be undertaken there - is a permitted use according to that plan then very little in the way of consenting stands between the ARC and bowling the sheds and outting up the tent. Because there is no protection over the sheds they can be bowled. A bit like the Masonic Hotel across the water at Devonport....
So what else is there to consider?
Well it seems to me that the ARC has duties in terms of the RMA that are wider than simple compliance with a plan - be it the Regional Plan Coastal which has not been updated since the transfer of Queens Wharf into ARC's ownership. Thin ice is what is being skated on here. There is already talk of judicial review proceedings. But maybe a Declaratory Judgement is needed first. One that tests what ARC's duties are in respect of Queens Wharf, and in terms of the planning process that should unfold now.
I suggest this because I get the sense Govt and ARC want to just go ahead and do their worst without due process. Get away with minimum.
What might be best practice?
Did you know - for example - that Sea + City is doing some work now on North Wharf? It has been preparing the wharf structure, and is building some new structures alongside the net shed, and is managing the stormwater from the area etc. Today at ARC, we were advised, as a formaility, that Sea + City had applied for resource consents relating to: public seats on the wharf; stormwater drainage from the wharf; and other matters. I asked a question about this, and was advised that Sea + City were keen to do the "right thing" when it came to consents for these works. It recognised - for example - that public seating on the wharf was not a permitted activity - in the relevant zone. So that is why it applied for consent.
It also applied for consent to allow promenading! But ARC officers advised that was not necessary. This was a fully notified consent. Sea + City did the right thing.
But I reckon ARC is running a mile from notification. Can of worms. Too much public interest. How can we avoid public scrutiny....
I mention this, because it raises issues about what the permitted activity status is on Queens Wharf. This seems to be still "port activities" of some sort - and not things like public seating, or presumably bars and cafes and party time. That is most likely why the powers that be keep emphasising that what they want to build is a "cruise ship terminal" and why the references to "party central" and partying and related activities are being down-played.
All those people. All that drinking. All that pedestrian traffic. All that noise and fun. All those generated effects that normal business es would be required to have carefully crafted conditions of consent sorted out through a notified planning process.
Because the port zoning does not provide for these activities.
If you were a private operator you'd be required to get a consent for any activity that was not provided for in the plan. And while I'm on the topic, what do you think happens to the stormwater from Queens Wharf and the buildings there? Not sure.... neither am I. But it's the ARC that consents those direct discharges into the harbour, and they need to comply.
Another item cropped up on the council agenda today. It related to works being carried out on the wharf at Cornwallis - an ARC regeional park fronting the Manukau Harbour. The works required are pretty minimal, but they are not provided for explicitly in the plan. The report councillors received receommended: "...to avoid a perceived conflict of interest, as the ARC is the applicant, it is recommended that an independent commissioner be appointed to review and make decisions...."
I think that what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander.
I think the ARC is making itself vulnerable to a legal challenge in respect to its compliance with its general duties under the Act.
Is there anyone out there who agrees, and would like to assist further?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
