Past Campaigns

2018- 20

No Dolphins, Queen’s Wharf

- Objections to a proposed 90 m extension to Queens Wharf for mooring structures

Auckland Council and its development arm, Eke Panuku, were proposing a 90 m long extension to Queens Wharf, with two large 15 x 15 m concrete mooring structures euphemistically called “Dolphins”, as a ‘temporary’ 35-year option to fit oversized 360 m long cruise ships that only visit a few days each year
The proposed 90 m extension of Queens Wharf with two concrete “dolphins” and gangways would have been into the busiest and most publicly significant part of the Waitemata Harbour. Queens Wharf was purchased by Auckland Council and the Government to be Auckland’s premier waterfront space, connecting the city with the harbour. The proposal was not aligned with these long-term waterfront planning objectives. Instead, the scale of transport and servicing would have increased the industrialisation of Queens Wharf for overseas operated cruise ship corporations, further reducing the amenity value of the “People’s Wharf” for Aucklanders. We argued that the proposal was unnecessary, expensive and shortsighted, and would remove a sizeable tract of the Waitemata Harbour from public use. The Cruise industry agreed with us, saying that they wanted a ‘quality’-driven waterfront experience for tourists and Aucklanders alike.

During Environment Court mediation, we were joined by the Cruise Industry and Ngāti Whatua Ōrakei representatives. The Urban Auckland Chair met with the Mayor and managed to arrange a deferral of proceedings and the Mayor’s backing of a Council-led initiative to bring all parties around the table to canvas options available. These three meetings between parties and the Ports of Auckland representatives were most useful in discussing the long-term use of Bledisloe Wharf as a large cruise ship facility. Queens Wharf could continue as a berth for the smaller 260 m long ships.

In December 2019, the Resource Consents for the Dolphins were withdrawn by Eke Panuku.
We continue to call for the continued development of Queens Wharf as Auckland’s premier waterfront space – ‘the People’s park’- the gateway to the harbour for the people of Auckland.
In our campaign we were joined by:
Stop Stealing Our Harbour, NZ Historic Places Trust, Civic Trust, Auckland Architectural Association, City Centre Residents Group, Parnell Residents Group, Devonport Heritage.
Our Legal Campaign was joined, as 2274 parties, by;
Cruise Lines Association, NZ Cruise Association, ISS-McKay Ltd Shipping, Ngāto Whatua Ōrakei Whai Maia, Parnell Community, , Devonport Heritage, Regional Tourism NZ, Tourism Industry Aotearoa, RNZ Yacht Squadron, Ponsonby Cruising Club, Westhaven Marinas Users Association.
This campaign cost UA over $80,000 in legal fees to fight poor processes at Auckland Council.

2017- 18

America’s Cup 2020 Bases, Wynyard Quarter

- Objections to a proposed 220 metre long wharf extension off Halsey Street,

- Lobbying for the long-term legacy of the America’s Cup for Auckland was the removal of the tanks from Wynyard Wharf.

Auckland Council through its agency, Eke Panuku Developments, was proposing a 220 metre long extension to Halsey Street wharf, 75 metres out into the harbour to house 8 America’s Cup Syndicate bases, plus provide berthage for superyachts.

  • The proposed wharf extension and associated 15 m high sheds, would block the views of the harbour from the Viaduct Basin.
  • The long term legacy of the America’s Cup 2020 should be the removal of the storage tanks from Wynyard Wharf to allow for the yachting bases to fit in with the longer term plans for Wynyard Point.

We argued that the proposal was unnecessary, expensive and shortsighted, and would remove a sizeable tract of the Waitemata Harbour from public use. The Cruise industry agreed with us, saying that they wanted a ‘quality’-driven waterfront experience for tourists and Aucklanders alike.

We made submissions to the Auckland Council Development Committee of alternative scenarios.

We produced drawings and made models  of alternatives which we presented to the Minister of the Environment and America’s Cup, the Right Honourable David Parker, showing the effects of the proposals. We argued that the proposal would bring heavy traffic and service vehicles right at the heart of the Wynyard Quarter Pedestrian spine. This was inappropriate urban design and went against the Precinct’s own urban design Master Plan.

The Minister of the Environment then made two important moves. He secured the removal of the tanks, something Eke Panuku had been arguing couldn’t be done. He also told Eke Panuku that the cost of using the Waitemata could not be valued as zero on the Cost Benefit Analysis, recognising the importance of environmental and cultural factors. 

The end result was that the tanks were removed to allow the syndicates bases to be established and a smaller scale wharf extension was added to Halsey Wharf to make a base for the Challengers. 

In December 2019, the Resource Consents for the Dolphins were withdrawn by Eke Panuku.
We continue to call for the continued development of Queens Wharf as Auckland’s premier waterfront space – ‘the People’s park’- the gateway to the harbour for the people of Auckland.
In our campaign we were joined by:
Stop Stealing Our Harbour, NZ Historic Places Trust, Civic Trust, Auckland Architectural Association, City Centre Residents Group, Parnell Residents Group, Devonport Heritage.
Our Legal Campaign was joined, as 2274 parties, by;
Cruise Lines Association, NZ Cruise Association, ISS-McKay Ltd Shipping, Ngāto Whatua Ōrakei Whai Maia, Parnell Community, , Devonport Heritage, Regional Tourism NZ, Tourism Industry Aotearoa, RNZ Yacht Squadron, Ponsonby Cruising Club, Westhaven Marinas Users Association.
This campaign cost UA over $80,000 in legal fees to fight poor processes at Auckland Council.

Our concentrated lobbying work paid off, and we hope it continues with the America’s Cup base space being left in perpetuity for events.

We conducted this campaign with Stop Stealing Our Harbour and were joined by Viaduct Harbour Holdings Ltd, in meetings with the Mayor. The support of the new Minister of the Environment was crucial.

2017

Rymans Healthcare Village, Ngataringa Bay

Ryman Healthcare proposed a new healthcare and retirement home ‘village’ in Ngataringa Bay, intensifying use on land that was previously Navy housing.
While we are pro-intensification, this project was one of the first developments in Auckland to get a go-ahead under the Special Housing Areas (SHA), allowing a high level of intensification. We considered it fell short in terms of urban design, design quality and opportunities for different ways of housing for the elderly. We saw this as a test case for ensuring quality was evident in the design of SHA intensification submissions. However, it was public space and its proposed incorporation into the private domain concerned us in 2017. The Commercial Bay Retail podium design is based on Melbourne’s laneways, a network of smaller, connecting “streets and alleys”, which is understandable in a block development of this size. Our concern was that the major cross street on the Britomart axis connecting QE Sq to Albert Street and the western bus connection was too narrow at 5 metres. We also wanted to see a widening of QE Sq at its northern end to acknowledge the Ferry Building and the opening to the waterfront.
We joined Devonport Peninsula Society in challenging Ryman Healthcare in the Environment Court. We challenged the Commissioners’ Report, arguing that Ryman’s design didn’t take into account the wider neighbourhood context, despite calling itself a village. Also, it didn’t address the local street and had inappropriate building heights and layout. In mediation with Rymans we presented alternative scenarios that not only improved the urban design, lowered building height and addressed the street, but also enhanced the capacity of the scheme. Quality continues to be an issue that is hard to reinforce in built outcomes. Engagement of good design professionals and genuine consultation with stakeholders is a first step. Rymans had their own in-house designer who was an engineer. Whether they changed their modus operandi after Ngataringa should be investigated.

2017

QE Square and Commercial Bay

The redevelopment of Queen Elizabeth Square and the new Commercial Bay block development by Precinct Properties was long overdue investment in downtown Auckland. Our concern was that the public space being proposed be of sufficient size and quality.
The Downtown block development in the 1960’s was formed with the closure of Little Queen Street. The public space area that was Little Queen St was added to the Queen Street side of the development to form Queen Elizabeth Square (QE Sq), a new car-less plaza at the bottom of Queen Street outside the Old Central Post Office. Original Auckland Architecture Association members, including David Mitchell, Nigel and Marshall Cook, had protested the formation of this space, arguing that the 18-storey Air New Zealand House on its northern side would create a shady wind-swept place. They lost but would be proved correct; the Square’s western side never worked and poplars are better in paddocks than downtown plazas. However, it was public space and its proposed incorporation into the private domain concerned us in 2017. The Commercial Bay Retail podium design is based on Melbourne’s laneways, a network of smaller, connecting “streets and alleys”, which is understandable in a block development of this size. Our concern was that the major cross street on the Britomart axis connecting QE Sq to Albert Street and the western bus connection was too narrow at 5 metres. We also wanted to see a widening of QE Sq at its northern end to acknowledge the Ferry Building and the opening to the waterfront.
We joined the Auckland Architectural Association in taking this to the Environment Court. The developers were instructed to widen the cross street from 5 to 6 metres. We lost on the widening of the Square at the northern end. The space, now Komititanga Plaza, reinforces the street edge of Queen Street and is still under construction. The end result is still to be seen. The $20 million that the Council ‘sold’ the QE Sq public space for was put into the waterfront spaces in front of Commercial Bay. It highlights for us the on-going need to lobby for quality public and civic space in our cities as more and more people live in or find the city a desirable place to visit.  Komititanga Plaza and the upgrading of Queen Street also highlights the increasing importance of Queens Wharf on our ‘civic axis’ and we will continue to lobby for its inclusion as quality public space in our city. The space, now Komititanga Plaza reinforces the street edge of Queen Street. The area is still under construction but once works are finished, it promises to be a high quality public pedestrian plaza that connects Queen Street to the harbour edge.

2015-16

Ports Future Study

Since the beginning of the Supercity in 2012, we had been asking Auckland Council for a study on the long-term implications of the Ports of Auckland’s place in our city that looked at not just economic factors, but also environmental, social and cultural issues on our city and harbour. Anyone living near the Port was aware of the noise and pollution emitted from ships, plus the increasing number of trucks on inner city roads as freight, from containers to cars to cement, was loaded in and out. Along with Auckland, the Port’s task was growing. What we wanted to know was what were the longer-term plans?
Because it had never been done before.

The High Court Victory meant that Mayor Len Brown agreed that Auckland Council would conduct this ground-breaking study. Urban Auckland helped draft up the conditions of the study – that it be representative of stakeholders from around the table – PoAL, shipping, business, employers and manufacturers, economists, mana whenua, environmental groups, community groups and urban design community (Urban Auckland). Sixteen people formed the Consensus Working Group, under the facilitator appointed by Auckland Council. Ernst Young (now EY) was engaged to do the study on the implications and issues relating to the port and report back to the CWG.

The Ports Future Study  http://www.portfuturestudy.co.nz/  was the outcome of that. 

It was acknowledged that in time, 25- 30 years was settled on, the Port would have to shift as its capacity and supporting infrastructure would be no longer able to cope. It was also acknowledged that, as Auckland’s central city population grew, PoAL’s social licence to occupy its current position could also expire. A number of ‘triggers’ for that were identified. It was recommended that the Government  implement an Upper North Island Supply Chain or future freight task Study  and that future location/s for a port be established before options were restricted.

Stop Stealing Our Harbour was formed and became an active supporter of the issue, engaging public media and organising protests.

2014-15

Ports of Auckland extensions to Bledisloe Wharf

Just before Christmas, December 2014, Ports of Auckland applied for two 98 m long wharf extensions, one each side of Bledisloe Wharf, citing that ships were getting longer. Wharfs were an allowed activity under planning rules but the implied longer term goal was to fill in between the wharves, effectively reclaiming more of the harbour by 100 metres.

Previously Ports of Auckland had assumed they had a right to claim as much of the harbour as they felt fit. The biggest item on their balance sheet was ‘land’ that they created and against which they could borrow money to develop more land. Their ‘social licence’ to operate had never been challenged. By taking legal action challenging the Bledisloe Wharf Resource Consents, Urban Auckland effectively took the first stand against Ports of Auckland operating a growing industrial estate in the centre of our city and harbour.

We organised a series of public protests, under the banner “Stop Stealing Our Harbour”. A separate organisation grew out of that to take over the public campaign while Urban Auckland went on to concentrate on the legal case being mounted for the High Court. The case was built around the challenge that the two applications had been looked at separately and effects were deemed less than minor when it was clear in PoAL plans that the cumulative long-term effect of the two wharfs was definitely less than minor. The Judge ruled in our favour.

Many, many Aucklanders who came out to protest in their boats, on the wharfs and on the streets.
After nearly a century of being denied access to our city waterfront, Aucklanders were getting frustrated with PoAL’s high-handed attitude. They were starting to appreciate just what a taonga their harbour, the Waitemata, is and that parking cars and containers on land beside it was no longer acceptable.

This campaign cost $250,000 in legal fees to fight for our waterfront. We were awarded costs, and many people, including our lawyers ….. donated time and money, but it also took an enormous amount of our time.