Submissions B: Waterfront Plan

Where is the Masterplan? With its emphasis on projects and proposals, and its 3 year planning horizon, the DWP does not pretend to be a Masterplan. However Auckland has been promised a Waterfront Masterplan from the re-organisation of Auckland local government. There appear to be a number of “givens” in the DWP (eg Cruise on Queens, Wynyard Quarter structure plan, Ports expansion plan). No options for these givens are included in the DWP. The risk of assuming these proposals were well planned when the DWP was prepared, is that the learnings from the Rugby World Cup will not be applied. It is submitted that all of these projects need re-assessment in the light of RWC experience.

Submission 2: Ports expansion plan assumptions need to be re-visited, and scenario options developed to enable a formal planning process.

Submissions D: Waterfront Plan

Ports Growth Plans What happens to Auckland’s Port in the next decade or two will have a major influence on the rest of the waterfront. Anticipated effects from an expansion of Ports and import/export shipping include traffic effects (both in the water and on road and rail), view effects, and demand for berthage which could be allocated to other uses – eg cruise ships. The WDA acts for Auckland in respect to the rest of the waterfront and must have a view on what those Port expansion plan effects will be, how they should be managed, and whether they are sufficiently adverse to merit some re-consideration of Port development plans. It is submitted that the DWP fails to properly address this matter, which means that the DWP fails to address the Auckland waterfront in an integrated way. It is submitted that simply incorporating POAL development plans into the DWP is insufficient. Other options need to be investigated. The expansion proposals for Ports assume that another 20 hectares – or thereabouts – of waterfront will be reclaimed for Ports activities. This needs to be put in perspective. For example the proposed headland park will be about 3 hectares. Queens Wharf is about 2.5 hectares. The benefits to Auckland’s visitor economy of a successful public waterfront space need to be weighed against the disbenefits that will arise from a significant port expansion.

Submission 4: Ports plan assumptions need to be re-visited, and regard be had for their impact on Auckland’s local and international visitor economy.

Submissions E: Waterfront Plan

Princes Wharf It appears that Princes Wharf has been omitted from the DWP. Except for its suggested retention as the primary cruise ship terminal in the short term. No project proposals are mentioned in the DWP for Princes Wharf (Pg 10). I am advised that recent surveys by cruise ship operators of passengers who have used Pricnes Wharf facilities are positive (if councillors have not seen this information they should request it). The Cruise Ship industry can make Princes Wharf facilities work to the satisfaction of cruise ship passengers. It is submitted that Princes Wharf needs to continue as Auckland’s Primary Cruise Ship terminal for as long as reasonably possible. It is submitted that various requirements and conditions for the public use of and access to parts of Princes Wharf need to be actively enforced, so that the public vision and aspirations that accompanied the relevant resource consents for the Princes Wharf development are given effect. It is also submitted that options for re-use of the cruise ship terminal facilities - in the event they are vacated by the cruise ship industry - be explored, and that such options should include the activities and uses which were expected from the redevelopment of Princes Wharf.

Submission 5: The Draft Waterfront Plan needs to provide for Princes Wharf. Proposals are required to improve Cruise Ship handling facilities in the short term, and to ensure that the public amenity conditions of Princes Wharf resource consents are given effect.

Submissions G: Waterfront Plan

Successful Place Making at Wynyard Quarter One of the most positive initiatives in the DWP is the reference to :”considered place-making”. Due to a combination of quality planning (arising from the urban design framework process and RMA plan changes), a pause in the development of sites along Jellicoe, the available of budget for public investment – a cluster of public places has been constructed along Jellicoe Street through to Silo Park. The public have loved those places: the artificial grass mound, the children’s playground, the seating, the sense of open-ness, the peace and quiet from commercial hubbub. The DWP features photographs prominently of these accidental successes. Why accidental? Because much of this amenity, these quality public places, suburban park landscapes, are the sites of future highrise development. The DWP is highly misleading because it does not accurately depict how Jellicoe Street will look when it is developed to potential. The images used in the DWP (Pg 31, central pictures) depict the sort of Urban Park landscape approach that is visible now at Qynyard Quarter – including the play area and sitting areas – but which will be lost if planned development occurs. This is one end of Auckland’s “Foreshore Avenue”. It needs to be supported along Jellicoe, across the walking bridge, and into Quay Park to Queens Park. What we now see on and around Jellicoe is the sort of suburban park landscape that Auckland needs, and clearly loves already, and should be be retained. I recognise that the revenue from planned development is part of the budgetting process, so it is not just a simple matter of rezoning some of that land as urban park (though that is required). I submit that experience to date with Wynyard, including RWC experience, merits a plan change for the northern precinct of Wynyard Quarter - including the headland park. This would allow further development potential on that land, to compensate for some loss of development potential on and around Jellicoe. It would also be an opportunity for planning necessary for Te Papa North (for example), which could be integrated with a cruise ship terminal on Wynyard Wharf.

Submission 8: That necessary planning be undertaken into Wynyard Quarter development options which will allow the urban park amenity now evident along Jellicoe Street (including the playground, grass mounded area, other sitting areas, paved open space areas), to be retained, by reducing proposed development intensity in the vicinity, and by reviewing development options on the tankfarm area.

Submissions H: Waterfront Plan

RMA Plan Change for Queens Wharf Prior to the redevelopment of Wynyard Quarter two major plan changes were prepared, notified, heard and adopted. These plan changes to the Regional Plan Coastal and Auckland City Council’s Isthmus Plan allowed development options to be considered and provided for in those plans, while also ensuring that various other matters were appropriately provided for (including such matters as heritage and character buildings, public open space provision and amenity, view corridors, urban design, conflicts between public access and commercial activities, transport restrictions). No such planning has been carried out for Queens Wharf which continues to be zoned for “Port Activities”. That zoning, combined with the Rugby World Cup Empowering Act, afforded authorities considerable latitude in doing what they wanted on Queens Wharf. Many of those new activities are a change of use from what has historically occurred on what was a working wharf. It is submitted that among other things, view corridors from the end of Queens Wharf, need protection under the RMA from the effects of development on Queens Wharf and in other parts of Waitemata Harbour. It is my submission that WDA needs to prepare and notify a plan change to the Regional Plan Coastal in regard to Queens Wharf

Progressive Incorporation of Maritime Heritage into Wynyard Quarter I note with satisfaction the mention of the preservation of the Vos and Brijs boat yard and slipways (Pg 21). I note also the mention of the heritage yacht and waka basin on Wynyard Point. However no time frame or proposal is indicated in the DWP for any project involving Vos and Brijs infrastructure. I note that the timeframe for the commencement of the heritage yacht and waka basin is sometime between 6 and 10 years from now. I am concerned that this not a strong commitment to heritage and culture in this area. This may be in line with the stated goal of the DWP (Pg 21) which is that the waterfront is “…a place where we can express our cultural heritage and history, and celebrate our great achievements…”. As it stands the stated goal does not provide the direction and concreteness that I think is needed. In my view the waterfront needs to be a place: “…which incorporates Auckland’s cultural heritage and history, and which provides a home for the display and use of representative examples….”. I am aware that there are many heritage craft that can be brought into the heart of Wynyard Quarter now and which merit dedicated berthage in Silo Park and other sections of wharf space. The reason that space needs to be dedicated is to facilitate the provision of wharf side interpretation signage and education displays, and to allow this amenity to be permanently incorporated into the proposed heritage trail (which needs to be a specific proposal by the way). Heritage incorporation needs to be permanent – not temporary. It is to be structurally included, built in, not an add-on, to Wynyard Quarter. As it stands the DWP appears to put a very low priority (10 years before anything happens) on provision of heritage boat and waka display on water. I submit that a progressive approach to maritime heritage is necessary, (as recommended for cruise and ports). An interim measure would be to allocate berth space for these craft and for interpretation and for inclusion in the heritage trail, in the protected and enclosed waters just west of Silo Park. This would provide a home her maritime heritage now, incorporate it properly now, and buuld its presence into the heritage trail. I am generally concerned that the DWP does not have concrete proposals that give effect to the vision of: “celebrating our sea-loving pacific culture…”. The turnout of Auckland’s Samoan and Tongan population to the waterfront during the Rugby World Cup – there because Samoan and Tongan teams were in the tournament – should cause some reflection on the part of the WDA, and more specific inclusion in the Waterfront Plan. It is further submitted that the Vos and Brijs initiative needs to be accorded the status of “proposal” under the DWP, and be progressively implemented, starting as soon as possible. Old buildings need attention and planning sooner – not later.

Submission 9: Wynyard Quarter provision for maritime heritage and culture needs more direction to ensure the waterfront: “…incorporates Auckland’s cultural heritage and history, and provides a home for the display and use of representative examples….”

Submission 10: Wynyard Quarter proposals need to provide for a progressive approach to maritime heritage (one which starts now), including the allocation of berthing space now in the Silo Harbour enclosed area to heritage boats and the provision of land side interpretation signage there and related amenity and that this attraction be built into the heritage trail.

Submission 11: An explicit proposal is required which provides places and spaces for representation and cultural displays of Maori and Pacific Island maritime activities and traditions. This proposal needs to be progressive and to start now.

Submission 12: An explicit proposal is required relating to adaptive re-use of Vos and Brijs site and buildings.

Slow Movement Zone along waterfront supported The DWP divides movement along and around the waterfont into 3 categories (movement diagram – Pg13): fast, medium, slow. This is supported. However it is apparent that the DWP proposal for an effective public transport service across Te Whero Bridge – or in that alignment – conflicts with the slow movement objective. To be useful and justifiable as a public transport service – a modern tram would need to carry at least 5,000 people/hour – this service could not provided at a “slow” speed. The tourist attraction Wynyard Loop idea is not a model that can be expanded to provide an effective public transport service connecting Britomart with Wynyard Quarter. It is submitted that the present direct bus service corridor is the one that will need to be followed by a tram service. The present Marine Event Central Plaza, pedestrian bridge, Te Whero, Quay Street promenade corridor needs to be protected from motorised traffic of any sort, and be dedicated for walking, buggies, casual cycling.

Submission 13: The public passenger transport link to Britomart should be along Fanshaw Street, not across Te Whero Island.

Marsden Wharf We have beaten the French in this Rugby World Cup. New Zealand’s relationship with France makes for very interesting history. This is a significant opportunity for Auckland that has not been highlighted so far. Already Auckland is a showcase of French cuisine and French restaurants flourish. We saw how many French citizens came to New Zealand for the Rugby World Cup. Marsden was the site of an extraordinary piece of international political skullduggery. The French are generally appalled at what their leaders did here in New Zealand. In a sense it is Auckland’s physical place to remember its global stance on nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific, and the lengths we as a country were prepared to go to stop it. With Greenpeace. It needs a place in the DWP.

Submission 14: Marsden Wharf presents a cultural and economic opportunity which needs protection and recognition in the Waterfront Plan.