Structures in the Coastal Marine Area and Significant Historic - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Structures in the Coastal Marine Area and Significant Historic Heritage Values

• Consent processing case studies

Gwenyth Stewart Resource Management Consultant for GWRC

Objective O34

• Significant historic heritage values are

protected from inappropriate modification, use and development. What is considered to be appropriate modification, use and development?

Modification and Development

Policy 46: managing adverse effects on sites with significant historic heritage value Policy 47: Appropriate demolition

Use of heritage structures

• Policies contained in section 4.10.1

and 4.10.2 relate to the use of structures.

Consenting case studies

Examples:

• Addition to Ferry Wharf which is not contained within the form
• f the wharf structure resulting in non-compliance with R168

condition (e) consent required under R169.

• Repair and maintenance activities to Rona Bay where altered

components are not original or similar – non compliance with R168 condition (g) consent required under R169.

• Removal of structures from Clyde Quay Wharf (cradle, piles

and rails) (Removal of structures or parts of structures) triggers consent as a discretionary activity under rule R172.

Case study addition to Ferry Wharf

• Ferry wharf is located in Lambton

harbour and is listed is Schedule E2

• Consent required under Rule R169

(restricted discretionary)

Proposal

• Removal of existing structures on the

site (utility shed, port-a-com and shipping container)

• Placement of a new structure on the

wharf 22.1m² and 4.1m high onto the wharf on the location of an existing concrete pad.

Key aspects of the application

• Existing structures could be removed without

affecting the heritage fabric of the wharf.

• The new addition to the structure makes good

use of an existing raised concrete pad (not

• riginal heritage fabric) as such the addition

could be placed without damaging the heritage fabric of the wharf.

• The design of the new addition is sympathetic

in form to the previously existing passenger shelter (formally located on the site) and the existing Ferry Building.

Existing

Proposed

Assessment Against Key Objectives and Policies

P46: Managing adverse effects on sites with Historic heritage

• Historic heritage values will not be lost, damaged or destroyed as

the heritage fabric of the wharf was not affected due to the use of an existing raised concrete pad– compliant with (a)

• The proposed building is appropriately sized to fit into the existing

environment and the effect of its placement is reversible as the addition to the structure can be removed without damaging the heritage fabric of the wharf – compliant with (b)

• The proposal is consistent with the maritime vernacular of the

existing wharf and Ferry Building - compliant with (c)

• Removal of existing structures which were not in keeping with the

heritage values of the area and replacement with a structure which reflects the architectural style of the time and in keeping with the Ferry Terminal, Ferry Wharf , and other maritime buildings of that era helps to restore the heritage aesthetic of the area – compliant with (d), (f), (g) and (h)

Use of the structure P132: Functional need and efficient use

• Proposal considered consistent with P132 as the building was for use

by the Maritime Polices for Maritime Police activities as such it had a function need and operational requirement to operate from within the coastal marine area.

P142: Lambton Harbour Area

• Proposal was considered consistent with P142 as it recognises the

historic heritage character, development and associations of the area and does not detract from amenity (P142 (c) & (d)); provides for social benefits to Wellington City and the wider Region though providing sufficient facilities for the Maritime Police which is an essential public service and was not considered to be inconsistent with any of the other provisions of P142.

Proposal Consistent with O34 ?

Proposal considered to be consistent with P46 (modification and development). Proposal considered to be consistent with P132 and P142 (use). As such, it was considered that the significant historic heritage values of the structures had been protected from inappropriate modification, use and development.

Alteration to Rona Bay Wharf

• Rona Bay Wharf is located in, Rona Bay, Eastbourne
• Listed in Schedule E2
• Consent required under rule R169 as non compliance with

R168 (f)

Altered Components

• Bitumen deck to be replaced with concrete.
• new reinforced concrete edge beam all the way round the

wharf head that replaces an existing hardwood timber element.

• Piles that need to be replaced will be cut back to good

material replaced with recycled timber pile spliced and/ or sleeved on to the existing sound base.

• Existing braces, beams and bollards will be left in place where

possible or replaced with reused hardwood elements

• The existing stairs previously removed for safety reasons will

be replaced with new stairs built from new hardwood (similar previous material), to comply with current Building Code requirements.

Strategy for the remedial works to retain heritage values

• Reuse existing hardwood materials where possible;
• Reuse surplus materials from the demolished Pt Howard

wharf where possible;

• If recycled hardwood is not available, use new hardwood

where sustainable (financially and environmentally) material can be sourced, otherwise use treated timber that has been “cured” for some time to prevent treatment residue entering the sea;

• Make the wharf safer and so that it complies with current

appropriate Building Code requirements;

• Introduce new materials only where they have been shown to

provide better longevity and considerably reduced whole of life costs so that keeping the wharf is financially sustainable for the community; and

• Avoid any changes that will have more than minor visual

impact

Assessment against O34 and P46

Does the proposal protect the historic heritage values from inappropriate modification, use and development in accordance with O34? Assessment under R46

• Wharf is significantly deteriorated which is resulting in the gradual loss of its heritage fabric, aesthetic and

recreational value. The proposal will ensure that the remaining sound heritage fabric is protected. The form

• f the structure will be similar to existing and any changes were considered to be low magnitude in the
• pinion of the applicants heritage architect and GWRC expert review – assessed as compliant with (a), (b)

and (d).

• No interconnections and linkages between sites were considered to be significantly altered or lost and no

adjacent historic heritage values were considered to be affected as a result of the proposed works – assessed as compliant with (c) and (f).

• Changes were considered to be minor and necessary if the Wharf is to continue to provide for the

recreational and aesthetic values for which it holds significant value. The maintenance and repair work was guided by an over arching strategy to ensure that the result was cohesive and in keeping with the current heritage aesthetic (i.e. the work was not ad hoc). As such, it was considered that any cumulative effects were no more than minor- assessed as compliant with (h).

Removal of structures from Clyde Quay Boat Harbour

• Clyde Quay Harbour, Wellington
• Listed in Schedule E1
• Consent required as a discretionary

activity under rule R172

Proposal

• Remove the two wooden piles which

hold the guide rail.

• Remove the four wooden piles located

further seaward.

• Work to be conducted in association

with the removal of Coene Shed and slipways cradle and guide rails (consent applied for from WCC)

Rule R172 removal, demolition of structure or parts of structures

Policy 47 – demolition is inappropriate except where the structure is: a) Is substantially damaged by fire or natural hazard, and/or b) Poses a significant risk to human safety, and c) It is not reasonably practicable to repair it

Reasons given for removal

• Investigation undertaken by a dive team found the piles to be

structurally unsound (application stated that in some cases divers could wobble the piles).

• The subject site (including the piles) needs significant maintenance

and repair works or total replacement if they are to be functional.

• Function of the piles is redundant as the slipway is in disrepair and

will not be replaced.

• Currently access to the water around the piles is not encouraged as it

is not safe.

• Removal of the piles will allow greater access to the CMA which is

impeded due to health and safety concerns .

Does this meet Policy 47?

a) Is substantially damaged by fire or natural hazard, and/or b) Poses a significant risk to human safety, and c) It is not reasonably practicable to repair it

P46: How does the removal of the piles

affect the value of Clyde Quay Boat marina as a whole?

a) significant historic heritage values are not lost, damaged or destroyed, and b) effects are of a low magnitude or scale, or effects are reversible, and c) interconnections and linkages between sites are not significantly altered or lost, and d) previous damage to significant historic heritage values is remedied

• r mitigated where relevant, and

e) previous changes that have significant historic heritage value in their

• wn right are respected and retained, and

f) adjacent significant historic heritage values are unlikely to be adversely affected, and g) unique or special materials and/or craftsmanship are retained, and h) the activities do not lead to cumulative adverse effects on historic heritage.

Application was placed on hold under section 92 requiring:

• An assessment to the historic heritage values of Clyde Quay

Wharf undertaken by a suitably qualified person.

• Evidence that the structure pose a risk to public health and

safety.

• Cost benefit analyses of maintaining the piles and the

associated slipway vs removing them i.e. is it reasonably practicable to undertake repairs.

Issues

• “Significant values” listed in the

Schedule E are not necessary the values referred to in Policy P46.