Attachment 1.2 2023 139 AEE WRS validators.pdf

Assessment of Environmental
Effects – validators
Wellington Railway Station Platforms
June 2021

IAN BOWMAN
Architect and conservator

Contents
1  Introduction ..................................................................................... 3
1.1  Commission ....................................................................................................... 3
1.2  Limitations ......................................................................................................... 3
1.3  Framework for this HIA ..................................................................................... 3
2  Statutory recognition and heritage values ............................................ 5
2.1  Heritage listings .................................................................................................. 5
2.2  Heritage values of the platforms .......................................................................... 6
2.3  Heritage values of the railway station .................................................................. 8
3  Proposal description, objectives, alternatives ....................................... 9
3.1  Project Objectives .............................................................................................. 9
3.2  Proposal ............................................................................................................. 9
3.3  Validator Post Design ......................................................................................... 9
3.4  Wellington Station Validator Installation .......................................................... 10
3.5  Alternatives considered ..................................................................................... 11
4  Assessment criteria .......................................................................... 13
4.1  Section 176A Outline Plan , Resource Management Act 1991 ......................... 13
4.2  Wellington City District Plan (WCDP) ............................................................ 13
4.3  Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) .......................................... 13
5  Assessment of impacts ..................................................................... 15
5.1  WCDP criteria ................................................................................................. 15
5.2  HNZPT Heritage Guidance Sheet 16 Assessing Impacts on the Surroundings associated
with Historic Heritage, 2007 ......................................................................................... 17
5.3  Evaluation of impact ........................................................................................ 18
6  Conclusions and mitigation ............................................................. 19
6.1  Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 19
6.2  Mitigation measures ......................................................................................... 19
Appendix 1 .......................................................................................... 20
Assessment of values and effects ................................................................................. 20
Grading of heritage values ......................................................................................... 20
Magnitude of effect ................................................................................................... 20
Significance of effect ................................................................................................. 21
Appendix 2 .......................................................................................... 23
Wellington City District Plan Appendix P Conditions ............................................... 23
Appendix 3 .......................................................................................... 24
Heritage values of the railway station ......................................................................... 24

2
Heritage Impact Assessment • Validators, Wellington Railway Station

1
Introduction
1.1
Commission
This heritage impacts assessment (HIA) of the installation of six validators was
commissioned by Peter Wells, Project Manager, Metlink on 22 April 2021.
1.2
Limitations
The assessment is based on the following documentation:
•
Interact Architects, WRS Ticketing Validator Project, Ground Floor platform
2&3, Wellington Railway Station, Building Consent Issue – Rev- 0, April
2021, sheets A-G.01, G.02, G.03;
•
Stantec, Wellington Station Validator Assessment, Prepared for Greater
Wellington Reginal Council, March 2021;
•
photos taken by Laura Kellaway, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga
(NZHPT);
•
four photo montages of four validators;
•
drawing by Colin Robson, 9/11/2020, Snapper Metlink Rectangular Column
Act Top;
•
Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wellington Railway Station – Validator
Plan – Stage 2, undated
1.3
Framework for this HIA
The objective of an HIA is to evaluate the potential impacts a proposed development
may have on the heritage values of a listed building. The following national and
international best practice guides have been considered for preparing this heritage
impact assessment.
•
ICOMOS, Guidance on Heritage Impacts Assessments for Cultural World Heritage
Properties, ICOMOS, January 2011 (ICOMOS Guide)
•
Buhring C., and Bowman I., Guide to assessing historic heritage effects for state
highway projects, NZTA, March 2015 (NZTA Guide)
•
City of Toronto, Heritage Impact Assessment Terms Of Reference, 2010 (Toronto
HIA)
•
The Highways Agency, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government
LLywodraethg Cynulliad Cymru, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, HA
285/07, Volume 11 Environmental Assessment, Section 3 “Cultural
Heritage”. See appendix 1.
•
Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage
Protection, Guideline Heritage Preparing a heritage impact statement, October
2015 (Queensland Guide).
Based on these guides, the following framework is used for this AEE.
•
statutory recognition and heritage values;
•
proposal description and reasons for the development;

3

•
alternatives explored;
•
regulatory assessment criteria;
•
best practice assessment criteria;
•
an assessment of the impacts using best practice criteria; and
•
mitigation options with means of implementation.

4
Heritage Impact Assessment • Validators, Wellington Railway Station

2  Statutory recognition and heritage
values
2.1
Heritage listings
Wellington City District Plan Chapter 21 Appendix Heritage List Buildings1
Street
Number  Building and date of construction
Map
Symbol
Ref
Ref
Bunny

Wellington Railway Station 1933-37 (The three street
17
44
Street
facades, including the Thorndon Quay addition, the
main concourse, the roof line without the air-
conditioning units, the plaques in the office entrance, the
Social Hall, the platforms, including all canopies)
Wellington City District Plan Designations\Tables-Schedule of Designations2
Desig  Map ref  Desig
Building & date of
Legal
Comments/conditions
no
title
construction
description
and gazette
R4
17&18
Railway
Wellington
Part Lot DP 10
For condition refer to
purposes
Railway Station
550
Appendix P (see
appendix 2)
R5
15, 18,
Railway
North Island Main
Railway land
Includes tunnels and
21, 22,
purposes
Trunk Railway.
pursuant to
bridges
24, 26,
Starting at the
various
30 &
Wellington
proclamations,
31
Railway Station,
gazettes, &
through
statutory
Kaiwharawhara,
ownership
through number 1
& 2 tunnels
emerging at
Glenside, Tawa and
Northwards and
including the
Waiarapa line from
Kaiwharawhara to
the city boundary at
Horokiwi.


1 https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-council/plans-policies-and-bylaws/district-
plan/volume01/files/v1chap21list.pdf?la=en&hash=A9A9EFA75DF19F3EC7D31A0BBEE00CE02AE5
4DFA
2 https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-council/plans-policies-and-bylaws/district-
plan/volume01/files/v1chap24sch.pdf?la=en&hash=324EEE5140AD9FC0C7CC26F53D4933FB1753F
683

5

HNZPT Register
Name
Address
List
Entry type
Category
number
Wellington
Bunny Street, Waterloo Quay And
1452
Historic
1
Railway Station
Featherston Street, Wellington
Place
2.2
Heritage values of the platforms3
Criteria
Values
Description
Ranking of
significance
Physical
Archaeological
“No archaeological sites have been recorded within
Not assessed
values
information
the footprint of the current railway station; as the
building’s construction pre-dates 1900AD it is not
archaeological itself.  However, sites have been
recorded in the vicinity of the railway station”4
Mary O’Keeffe has determined that, following the
construction of the railway station, nothing pre-1900
is likely to exist.

Architecture
The platforms are well-designed, functional elements
High, national
critical to the operation of the Wellington Railway
Station and are integral with “the most important
railway station in New Zealand”, providing areas for
embarking and disembarking from trains.  The
architecture of the canopies is simple and utilitarian
and was described in the opening of the station as
having a “simple and airy dignity” and “attained
efficiency without ugliness”.
Gray Young has demonstrated an effective use of the
architectural device of contrasting spatial experiences
in the design of the station. There is a dramatic
sequential transition from the practical, unadorned,
small-scale platform space to the elegant, soaring,
complex spaces of the interior and then to the
expansive, dignified, civic space outside.
The use of curved railway irons to support the
canopies was a common design since at least 1906 and
the architects have successfully interpreted this historic
typology.

Technology and
The use of railway irons to support the canopies
Moderate,
engineering
maintains a technology common in the Troup era
local
stations. Similarly the use of concrete line platforms
was known from at least 1880 in New Zealand.

3 Bowman, Ian, Heritage Assessment, Platforms, Wellington Railway Station, March 2021
4 Mary O’Keeffe, Heritage Solutions Archaeological desktop assessment: installation of validator posts at
Wellington Railway Station, 14 March 2012
6
Heritage Impact Assessment • Validators, Wellington Railway Station

Criteria
Values
Description
Ranking of
significance

Scientific
Based on current research, it is unlikely that the
Low, local
platforms contribute scientific information about the
history of the region.

Rarity
The platforms at the Wellington Railway Station are
High, national
unique in New Zealand in having multiple platforms
serving more than two railway tracks. It is one of two
original stations of the four major cities in New
Zealand to be retained and the only one of these to
have maintained all original platforms..

Representative
The concrete lined platforms are of a representative
High, regional
design as is the use of railway irons for the canopy
structure.

Integrity
The platform form, alignment, and canopy structure are
High, local
original however, the roofing materials and timber
structure of the canopies is recent, while the concrete
edging to the platforms has been cut back.  The
platform adjoining the concourse has been extended
into the tracks while additional metal stanchions have
been installed through the platform roofs to support
electrical cables and a walkway above.

Context or group   The immediate context of the platforms is the
High, national
Wellington Railway Station complex comprising the
station building, platforms, tracks, the landscaped
entry from bunny Street and the Social Hall.  The
complex is considered as having national significance.
The wider context includes the stadium with raised
concourses to the north and the underpass and bus
interchange to the east.
Historic
People
The building and platforms are associated with the
High, local
Values
New Zealand Railways Department, which played a
significant role in the early and subsequent
development of the New Zealand economy.   The
platforms and station building are also associated with
architectural firm, Gray Young, Morton and Young
and builders, Fletcher Construction Co. Ltd.

Events
The platforms are associated with mundane events such
Low, local,
as daily commuting from within the region and
high national
occasional travel further afield as well as national events
such as providing the location for the Michael Joseph
Savage funeral cortege.

Patterns
The station platforms have been modified to a minor
High, regional

7

Criteria
Values
Description
Ranking of
significance
extent over time but remain essentially unchanged
demonstrating the success of the original design and the
current high demand for regular railway commuting
from as far away as Palmerston North. It is likely that
this demand will increase. It appears that Wellington is
unique in New Zealand to have built and retained a
large inner city railway hub.
Cultural

Values

Public esteem
Public esteem for the platforms is unknown, however
Unknown
as an essential elements within a nationally recognised
landmark building and as a railway station where
passengers begin or end their commute from
Wellington, it will be known by many.

Commemorative
There are no known people commemorated on the
Unknown
platforms, however many Railways Department staff
are commemorated in the war memorials in the office
entry to the east.

Education
Given the high levels of significance in architectural,
High, national
representative, rarity, integrity, context, and patterns,
the platforms have significant educational values.
Summary statement of heritage significance
The Wellington Railway Station platforms have high national significance as essential
functional elements in the nationally significant Wellington Railway Station. The
platforms are nationally unique having been designed with and retaining multiple
railway platforms that are still in use.
The platforms, as the station in general, are associated with the station architects,
Gray Young, Morton and Young, the station builders, Fletcher Construction, and
the owner, the New Zealand Railways Department.
The architect has demonstrated considerable design skill in creating a series of
moving, sequential, spatial experiences between the platforms and the exterior of the
building.
The structural design of the canopy has heritage values in the use of curved railway
irons maintaining a railway tradition established at the turn of the century, although
using a butterfly design rather than a gable.
2.3
Heritage values of the railway station
The impacts on the railway station building, excluding the platforms are negligible.
However for completeness the heritage values of the railway station itself is included
in appendix 3.

8
Heritage Impact Assessment • Validators, Wellington Railway Station

3 Proposal description, objectives,
alternatives5
3.1
Project Objectives
To confirm viability of deploying an Electronic Ticketing solution onto the rail network,
through an iterative program of piloting and testing of Snapper on a limited part of the
network during 2021.
•
should enhance Metlink preparedness and resilience to operate in a COVID-
19 environment by reducing requirement to collect cash fares
•
should contribute to Metlink readiness for future transition to the NTS.
•
should be customer centric, simple and flexible, and does not deter customers
from using public transport
•
should enhance Metlink service provision by strengthening ability to collect fares
and improve quality and extent of patronage data
•
should be implemented within existing budgets
In particular, it has been recognised, that the upcoming implementation of the National
Ticketing Solution (NTS) will be a very significant transition process, and by carrying
out a limited scale pilot of electronic ticketing on rail, there is the ability to develop
knowledge and systems in advance.
3.2
Proposal
It is proposed to trial Snapper on Rail on the Johnsonville Line, by installing validators
at stations in order to allow customers with Snapper cards to pay for the rail journey by
tagging on and off, at the platform based validators, at the start and end of their
journeys.
During the Pilot phase, the ability to use Snapper will be in addition to the existing
paper based ticketing arrangements operated by Transdev. Fares charged when using
Snapper will be equivalent to the cost of single journeys paid for with a 10 trip ticket.
Wellington Station will require to have validator posts installed to support the
Johnsonville Line Pilot and allow passengers to tag on and off at the start and end of
their journeys.
This will be a significant behavioural change for rail passengers, who are used to moving
through Wellington Railway Station without any form of ticket check or validation.
As such, one aspect of the project is to understand how and where validator posts should
be deployed in the station in order to allow passengers to tag on and off at the station
with minimum inconvenience to their journeys.
3.3
Validator Post Design
Snapper is the existing ticketing system supplier to Metlink for all of the bus networks
and would be the supplier for the pilot of electronic ticketing on rail.
Snapper’s technology partner (TMoney) do not have an off the shelf post design, so
Snapper have partnered with HTS to develop a design for a validator post that will

5 Description from Peter Wells emailed to Ian Bowman 23 May 2021

9

meet with the technology and customer use requirements. The design of the post
should:-
•
enable the mounting of the Snapper Validator and Cradle units securely;
•
be physically suitable for installation in outdoor environments and resistant to
damage;
•
make identification and location of the posts, and the validation point, easy for
customers;
•
meet accessibility design standards;
•
support ease of maintenance and servicing.
As the Pilot will only require a limited number of validator posts to be procured and
installed (around 35), it is not practical to develop more than one design of prototype
validator post at this time. However the learnings from the pilot deployment will then
be used to inform design and selection of validator posts under a full network roll out of
National Ticketing Solution in the future.
3.4
Wellington Station Validator Installation
For the purposes of the trial, GWRC are proposing that six validator posts are
deployed in the Platform apron area at the end of platform 2, 3 & 4. The location is
on the natural walking pathway to and from platforms 1 & 2, which are the ones most
commonly used for Johnsonville line services, and follows the natural alignment of the
platform buffer stops.
Following site inspections by GWRC’s preferred platform works contractor, the
locations have been confirmed as being close to an existing in platform duct, which can
be used to provide power and data cabling with only minimal trenching work.
Modelling of the impact of the validator posts on passenger flows was commissioned
with Stantec, who utilised a Legion model, to determine crowding levels resulting from
the use of validators by Johnsonville Line customers.
The modelling by Stantec, assumed a worst case scenario, whereby 100% of passengers
on the Johnsonville Line used Snapper during the am peak period. This situation is
very unlikely to occur during the Pilot. Despite this, the average journey time from
platform 1 to exit the station was only increased by 15 seconds.

10
Heritage Impact Assessment • Validators, Wellington Railway Station

3.5
Alternatives considered
Validator posts have been identified as the most appropriate solution for passengers to be
able tap on and tap off to validate their fares for the rail journey. Potential alternatives
to this could be
•
Onboard validation – this is generally not recommended for metro and rail
services, as it can leads to crowding and delays at the doors when in station.
•
Barrier Gates – most major metro terminal stations use barrier gate
arrangements to control the flow of customers on and off the platforms. This is
not considered to be a good solution for the Pilot situation on a limited part of
the network, would be intrusive to passenger flows, require additional staffing
and be inflexible in the event trains need to arrive and depart from other
platforms.
Preliminary discussions with stakeholders involved in the stewardship of Wellington
Railway Station identified that Validator Post locations in the concourse area, booking
hall or in front of the station, could have detrimental impacts to the heritage fabric of the
building and should be avoided. As a result, solutions on the platform apron (are
between platforms and the concourse) have been focused on.
Three principle locations were investigated and modelled by Stantec.
•
Option A – three validator posts at the end of platform two. This location was
found to create severe crowding and unacceptable passenger impacts
•
Option B & C – With four or six validators arranged in a line on the apron.
Both offered acceptable levels of performance, but option C (with more posts)
offered best performance of all options considered.
•
Option D – four validators arranged in the centre of platforms 1 & 2. This
option performed reasonably well, but was inflexible if trains called at
alternative platforms so was discounted.
Option C was selected as the preferred option, as offered the best performance, with
minimal impact to passengers on Johnsonville or other lines. It also better reflects the
level of availability passengers would experience at the outer stations on the line which
have lower customer usage, but relatively high ratios of validators available to use.
3.6
Installation Requirements
Engineers have reviewed the design of the proposed validator posts and
proposed a footing design of reinforced concrete, 750mm square and to a depth of
600mm. The footings will be finished flush with the exiting platform level.
An archaeological desktop assessment, has concluded that it is very unlikely that any
archaeological materials would be located within the area where the footings would be
prepared.
Power and data cabling will be required to be connected to the validator, this will be
provided by short trenches from an existing in platform duct that closely follows the
proposed alignment of the validators.
The work to install the footings will likely take place 8-12 weeks prior to the proposed
Go Live date in mid November. Validator post installation would likely take pace
around 3-4 weeks prior to the go live, with the posts being hooded until required.

11

3.7
Pilot Duration and Follow on
The Pilot is initially proposed to operate for up to around 15 months (end December
22). At the end of the Pilot period, it is intended that the system would be
transitioned to the new National Ticketing Solution. At this time, the validators
would be replaced with updated validator posts, compatible with the selected national
solution. This work would be subject to new discussions with the stakeholders involved
with the stewardship of the railway station and subsequent new consent applications.
In the event that the Pilot is terminated early, or that the NTS solution is not yet
available. Then the Snapper validator posts would be removed, and the area made
good by re-sealing over the footings to match with the surrounding apron areas and
return the area to its original state. Cable access points may be left flush with access
covers in place if appropriate.

12
Heritage Impact Assessment • Validators, Wellington Railway Station

4  Assessment criteria
4.1  Section 176A Outline Plan , Resource Management Act
1991
(3)
An outline plan must show—
(a)
the height, shape, and bulk of the public work, project, or work; and
(b)
the location on the site of the public work, project, or work; and
(c)
the likely finished contour of the site; and
(d)
the vehicular access, circulation, and the provision for parking; and
(e)
the landscaping proposed; and
(f)
any other matters to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects on the
environment.
In order to consider (3) (f), the following assessment criteria are used.
4.2  Wellington City District Plan (WCDP)
Given that the application is for an Outline Plan, there are no specific WCDP
assessment criteria.  However several of the assessment criteria for Discretionary
Activities (Restricted) provide a useful guide. These comprise:
21A.2.1.3
The extent to which the work significantly detracts from the values for
which the building or object was listed.
21A.2.1.5
• respects the scale of the original building or object. The Council
seeks to ensure new work is not visually dominant, particularly where
rooftop additions are proposed.

• avoids the loss of historic fabric and the destruction of significant
materials and craftsmanship.

• respects the historic or other values for which the building was listed.
4.3  Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT)
An appropriate guide for assessing the installation of validators is HNZPT Heritage
Guidance Sheet 16 Assessing Impacts on the Surroundings associated with Historic Heritage,
2007.
The relevant criteria from the guide comprise:
a
The proposed activity should not visually dominate or distract from the
qualities of the heritage place.
b
The proposed activity should provide for adequate visual catchments,
corridors or sightlines to the heritage item.
c
Any new building should not affect the character and setting of the historic
building.
d
the height, location and proportions of any new building should be
compatible with the existing historic environment, with heights and
proportions reflective of the predominant height and proportions of adjacent
buildings.

13

e
The size, orientation, scale, massing, density, modulation, and shape of the
new building or addition should be compatible with the existing historic
building(s). These elements should relate to surrounding buildings.  
f
Any new building or addition should adopt materials and colours that relate
to and use as reference points, the materials, colour and details of adjacent
buildings and the surrounding areas.  
g
The architectural style should be compatible with the historic design and
should not imitate, replicate or mimic surrounding historical styles.

14
Heritage Impact Assessment • Validators, Wellington Railway Station

5  Assessment of impacts
5.1  WCDP criteria
Criteria
Relevant
Description of change
Magnitude of
value
effect on all
platforms
21A.2.1.3
Architecture
The will be no change to the platform
Minor
canopies, however there will be a visual
change to the “simple and airy dignity” of
the southern end of platforms 2, 3, 4 and 5
with the installation of the temporary
validators.  The design of the validators
comprises 1280 mm (between waits and
chest high) high by 350 wide by
approximately 300 deep, cranked posts at
between 1500 mm and 3000 mm centres.
These are a little higher than other elements
on the platform such as the seating and,
while they will not be a solid barrier they
will be more visible as they will be located
across the platform.
The validators are at an angle to the main
station building but generally aligned with
the south end of the platforms. While angled
connection with the ends of the platforms
can be appreciated on drawings, it is less
obvious on site as the platforms are staggered,
rather than in a continuous line.
There will be additional queuing time on
weekdays of 15 seconds between 7.45 am
and 8.00 am from the current situation
without validators for the 15 month trial
period.
The colours of the validators are those of
Metlink which will contrast with the colours
of the painted elements on the platform,
which are dark browns.  In addition Metlink
are currently updating all signage so that it is
consistent with the traditional colour pallet of
the station which are dark browns and
bronze.  The Trax bar and café colours are
not consistent with the traditional colours of
the station, however.  The yellow non-slip
surface around the validators matches that on
the edges of the platforms.

15

Criteria
Relevant
Description of change
Magnitude of
value
effect on all
platforms

Technology and
There will be no change to the canopies nor
No change
engineering
the concrete lining to the platforms

Rarity
There will be no change to the uniqueness
No change
nor rarity of the platforms.

Representative
There will be no change to the concrete
No change
lined platforms.

Integrity
The integrity of the platforms will be
No change
temporarily reduced the addition of the
validators.

Context or
There will be no impact on the group of
No change
group
buildings associated with the railway station.

People
There will be no impact on the people
No change
historically associated with the platforms.

Events
There will be no impact on events
No change
historically associated with the platforms.

Patterns
The validators demonstrates the current
No change
pattern of increasing demand for rail
passenger use in Wellington.

Public esteem
The slight increase in queuing times may
Negligible
have the potential to impact public esteem
for the platforms, with a slight delay in
exiting the station.

Commemorative
There will be no change to the
No change
commemorative values of the platforms.

Education
The proposal will not affect the education
No change
values of the platforms.
21A.2.1.5
Scale
The scale of the validators is insignificant in
Negligible
comparison with the platforms and canopies

Loss of historic
There will be no loss of historic fabric with
Negligible
fabric
the installation of the validators given that
the surface material is not historic fabric and
their material in which the footings will be
installed is not significant.  Services will be
laid in existing underground ducts.
16
Heritage Impact Assessment • Validators, Wellington Railway Station

Criteria
Relevant
Description of change
Magnitude of
value
effect on all
platforms

Respects values
See above

5.2  HNZPT Heritage Guidance Sheet 16 Assessing Impacts on
the Surroundings associated with Historic Heritage, 2007
Clause
Description and assessment of effect
Magnitude
of effects
a, no visual
The scale and number of validators will not visually dominate
Minor
dominance or
the platforms, however, as described above there may be
distraction
visual impacts on the impression of openness at the southern
from qualities
end of platforms 2, 3, 4 and 5.  The bright yellow non-slip
of heritage
surface matches that elsewhere on the platforms and will
place
create minimal additional distraction.
b, appropriate
Given the size and location of the validators there will be
Negligible
visual
little if any visual impact on significant catchments, corridors
catchments,
or sightlines.
corridors or
sightlines
c, effect on
The immediate setting of the platforms will not change.
Minor
character and
However there will be a slight change in the character of
setting
platforms southern end of  2, 3, 4 and 5 from being open and
largely unobstructed accessways from trains to the station,
with the validators creating a small but permeable barrier that
will create short, temporary queues to the exit.
d,
The existing historic environment comprises the platforms
Negligible
compatibility
and the railway station building. There will be no impact on
with the
the exterior or interior of the railway station but there will be
existing
a slight, temporary, visual impact on the southern end of
environment
platforms 2, 3, 4 and 5.
e,
A definition of compatible is “capable of existing together in
Minor
compatibility
harmony”.
of new and
The proposed validators are at an angle generally aligned with
old
the southern ends of the platforms, however the platforms are
stepped rather than a continuous line. Thevalidators are small
in relationship to the platforms and canopies, however they
will provide a slight barrier to egress from the platforms and
their cranked form is not consistent with other elements on
the platforms.
f, adoption of
As discussed above, the colours are not consistent with the
Minor
colours and
palette of colours used in the remainder of the railway station,

17

Clause
Description and assessment of effect
Magnitude
of effects
materials that
however the use of metal for the construction of the
relate to those
validators is not inconsistent with the platform canopies and
of adjacent
furniture such as seating and rubbish bins.
buildings
5.3 Evaluation of impact
Appendix 1 describes a methodology for evaluation of effects. Based on this
methodology the following are the assessed effects on building heritage:
Value of the building
Magnitude of impacts
Significance of impacts
The Railway Station, including
The highest magnitude of
Based on the matrix in
the platforms have a HNZPT
proposed validators to the south
Appendix 1 the magnitude of
category 1 listing and it is listed
of platforms 2, 3, 4 and 5 is
impact is assessed as
on the WCDP. This equates to
assessed as minor.
moderate/slight
a rating of high heritage values,
based on the ICOMOS Guide.

18
Heritage Impact Assessment • Validators, Wellington Railway Station

6 Conclusions and mitigation
6.1
Conclusions
The magnitude of impacts of the temporary installation of six validators at the
southern end of platforms 2, 3, 4 and 5 are assessed as being between no change and
minor. The significance of impacts to the platforms are assessed as being between
slight to moderate from both visual and physical impacts and are direct. However,
as the installation is a trial, the impact will be temporary for the duration of the trial
and the installation is reversible.
6.2
Mitigation measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the
installation:
•
modify the design of the validators to a smaller, less bulky design and one that
could have back-to-back validators to reduce the number of future
installations required;
•
modify the colours to be consistent with the historic colour scheme that is
currently being applied to signage;
•
align the validators with the wall of the railway station rather than the
proposed diagonal alignment proposed;
•
confirm the length of the trial after which the validators will be removed.

Ian Bowman
8 June 2021

19

Appendix 1
Assessment of values and effects
Grading of heritage values
Based on the ICOMOS Guide, the relative importance of built heritage is graded as
follows:
Value
Descriptors
Very high
Very high importance and rarity, international scale,
category 1 HNZ listing
High
High importance and rarity, national scale, category 1 HNZ
listing
Medium
High or medium importance, regional scale, category 1 or 2
HNZ listing or equivalent local authority listing
Low
Low or medium importance and rarity, local scale, not
HNZ listed, local authority listing
Negligible
Very low importance and rarity, local scale, not listed
Magnitude of effect
The ICOMOS Guide recommends ranking the magnitude of the impact or effect
(also called the degree of change) as follows:
•
Major
•
Moderate
•
Minor
•
Negligible
•
No change
The approach used to assess significance of impact/effect is determined by two
variables; the value of the receptor, as described below, and the magnitude of change
upon the receptor. The consideration of value and magnitude takes into account the
severity of the impact of the project, together with the vulnerability of the receptor
to change. The table below summarises the possible types of change and their
magnitude6.
Effects can be direct and indirect; cumulative, temporary and permanent, reversible or
irreversible, visual, physical, social and cultural, even economic.


6 UK Highways Agency, HA 208/07
20
Heritage Impact Assessment • Validators, Wellington Railway Station

Possible effects could include changes to use, access, views, topography, structures,
vegetation, sound environment, approaches and context. The effect on the heritage
resource has been ranked without regard to its level of significance.
Significance of effect
The matrix below illustrates that combining the magnitude of impact/effect (before
mitigation) and the heritage significance of the heritage resource will determine the
extent of impacts of the project. Mitigation measures however influence the
evaluation of effect. Where the matrix suggests more than one likely outcome, for
instance moderate/slight, professional judgement has been used in conjunction with
the descriptors in the following table to arrive at an appropriate result.
The scale of possible effects is:
•
Very large (beneficial or adverse)
•
Large (beneficial or adverse)
•
Moderate (beneficial or adverse)
•
Slight (beneficial or adverse)
•
Neutral

21

The Magnitude of Impact shows the potential effect of the project on the heritage
item or setting without mitigation.
In general if the effects on all heritage resources were adverse the overall impact
would be the highest impact. Conversely if the effects were all beneficial, the
average level of benefit would be selected, rather than the greatest, as assessments
should be conservative.

22
Heritage Impact Assessment • Validators, Wellington Railway Station

Appendix 2
Wellington City District Plan Appendix P Conditions
The following condition shall apply to the designation of the Wellington
Railway Station (designation R4) in the Wellington District Plan:
(i)  Nothing in this designation authorises the demolition or partial demolition
of the following parts of the Wellington Railway Station:
•
the 3 streets facades including the Thorndon Quay addition • the main
concourse
•
the roofline without air-conditioning units
•
the plaques at the office entrance
which are heritage features. Any such proposal shall require Tranz Rail to
either obtain any necessary resource consent or to seek the alteration of this
designation by the removal of this condition. For the avoidance of doubt, this
condition does not cover repairs or maintenance, or additions or alterations,
or any other activity requiring an outline plan under section 176A.
(ii)  Prior to the preparation of any proposal to undertake any additions or
alterations to the identified heritage features of the Wellington Railway
Station building, Tranz Rail shall meet with the NZ Historic Places Trust to
discuss the proposal.
(iii)  Tranz Rail shall provide any subsequent plan(s) of any additions or
alterations, as specified above, for comment by the NZ Historic Places Trust
within 15 working days. In the event that there are any points raised by the
NZ Historic Places Trust, Tranz Rail shall arrange to meet with the Trust to
discuss the points raised.
(iv)  Tranz Rail shall provide a copy of any application for outline plan
approved in respect of the identified heritage features of the Wellington
Railway Station building to the NZ Historic Places Trust at the same time it
is lodged with the Council. The Trust will then forward its comments on the
proposal to the Council within 5 working days.

23

Appendix 3
Heritage values of the railway station
The summaries of heritage values is taken from the WCC on-line heritage
inventory7.
Aesthetic value
Cultural value
The Wellington Railway Station has significant architectural values. The
design is bold and influenced by the world’s great railway stations, possessing a
generous forecourt and sweeping driveways leading to the impressive
colonnade. The internal spaces, particularly the booking hall, are a
continuation of this tradition. It is a fine example of one the city’s leading
architectural firms Gray Young, Morton, and Young. It has been recognised
as one of the best 20th century buildings in New Zealand for its architectural
qualities.
The Railway station is associated with a number of historically important
events including the focal-point of the funeral cortege for Prime Minister
Michael Joseph Savage, as a casualty clearing station in the aftermath of the
Wahine disaster, and as part of the home-front defence system during World
War Two.
This building has immense townscape value; it defines the Waterloo Quay,
Featherston, and Bunny Street area. It is a landmark building that is used by,
and seen by, thousands of commuters daily.
Group
With the Old Government Buildings, Waterloo Hotel and Shed 21, it forms a
small precinct of heritage buildings in the Waterloo Quay/Bunny
Street/Featherston Street area.
Townscape
This building has immense townscape value; it defines the Waterloo Quay,
Featherston, and Bunny Street area. It is a landmark building that is used by,
and seen by, thousands of commuters daily.
Historic value
Association
The Railway station is associated with a number of historically important
events including the focal-point of the funeral cortege for Prime Minister
Michael Joseph Savage, as a casualty clearing station in the aftermath of
the Wahine disaster, and as part of the home-front defence system during
World War Two.
This building has a range of historic associations that give it significant value.
It is a fine example of one the city’s leading architectural firms Gray Young,
Morton, and Young. It was designed as the main Railway Station and Offices
for the Railways Department and was the culmination of 65 years of railway

7 https://www.wellingtoncityheritage.org.nz/buildings/1-150/44-wellington-railway-station?q=
24
Heritage Impact Assessment • Validators, Wellington Railway Station

development in Wellington.
Scientific value
Technological
This building has technical value for the innovation of its construction. It was
designed using the latest technology utilising steel framing and reinforced
concrete and bricks to withstand earthquakes. At the time it was constructed
it was one of the largest buildings in New Zealand and its size, scale, and
construction on reclaimed land provided a significant building challenge that
was overcome by the architects and engineers.
Social value
Identity Sense Of Place Continuity
This building is a focus of community identity as it is a major landmark
building for the city of Wellington. The retention of this building has helped
to promote a sense of continuity in Wellington with its history. As a major
development for the Railways Department in the 1930s, it also contributes to
a sense of continuity for the presence of the railways in Wellington.
Public Esteem
This building is held in high community esteem. It has significant heritage
values for the people of Wellington.
Sentiment Connection
This building is a focus of community sentiment and connection – it is a
public space that is still in use.
Symbolic Commemorative Traditional Spiritual
This building has traditional values for the community of commuters who use
it daily. It has been in continuous use as a station since its construction.
Level of Cultural Heritage Significance
Authentic
This building has authenticity and integrity as it retains significant original
materials. Modifications and additions have been carried out in mostly
harmonious ways.
Rare
This building is of outstanding heritage significance for its architectural,
historical, townscape, technical, public education and esteem, values.
Representative
This building is an excellent example of the work of Gray Young, Morton,
and Young designed in the Neo-Classical Revival style with Beaux Arts
influenced interiors. It is also influenced by Modernism and Art Deco,
making this building a good representative of New Zealand interpretations of
these architectural forms.
Importance
This is a nationally important building for its architectural, historical,

25

townscape, technical, public education and esteem, values.

26
Heritage Impact Assessment • Validators, Wellington Railway Station