APPENDIX T MYFANWY EAVES HISTORIC HERITAGE REPORT · 2018-06-24 · Wharf South water-space, the Outer Viaduct Harbour and the access channel. c. A 74m extension to Hobson Wharf,

APPENDIX T

MYFANWY EAVES

HISTORIC HERITAGE REPORT

Consent: BUN60318372 1 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter

Technical Memo for Resource Consent application BUN 60318372. Historic Heritage matters.

To: Nicola Broadbent, Team Leader – North/West Consenting; Tracey Grant, Principal Project Lead – Premium Resource Consents

From: Myfanwy Eaves, Senior Specialist: Archaeology

Date: 20 June 2018

1 Application details

Applicant's name: Panuku Development Auckland

Application number: BUN60318372

Activity type: Bundled, Non-Complying

Site address: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter

2 Introduction

2.1 As requested, I have reviewed the America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson resource

consent application (Application) and relevant supporting information with

reference to the requirements of Chapters D17 (Historic Heritage Overlay),

E11 (Land Disturbance - Regional) and E12 (Land Disturbance - District) of

the Auckland Unitary Plan – Operative in Part (AUP) and having regard to

relevant provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

2.2 Section 2 of the RMA provides the following definition of “historic heritage”:


2.3 Section 6(f) of the RMA provides that in achieving the purpose of the Act, all

persons shall recognise and provide for “the protection of historic heritage

from inappropriate subdivision, use and development”.

2.4 The following documents relevant to the Application have been reviewed:

a. America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson Application for Resource Consent: Assessment of Environmental Effects, prepared by UNIO Environmental Limited, 13 April 2018 (AEE) (Application Document 4);

b. Protected New Zealand Objects Protocol (Protocol), unknown source and

date (Application Document 8);

c. America’s Cup Preliminary Site Investigation (Contamination) for

Resource Consent Application, Wynyard Hobson (PSI), April 2018, Beca

Limited (Application Document 27);

d. America’s Cup Wynyard Hobson: Proposed Conditions of Consent,

prepared by UNIO Environmental Limited, 13 April 2018 (Application

Document 7);

e. Annex 17, Wynyard Quarter Inventory of Character Elements, 2005,

former Auckland Council District Plan – Central Area (referred to in the

PSI);

f. America's Cup Wynyard Hobson: Landscape and Visual Effects

Assessment (LVA), April 2018, by Boffa Miskell (Application Document

11);

g. New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS);

h. Relevant provisions of the AUP, including the Precinct rules;

i. Auckland Libraries Heritage Images: 1978 (unknown 476-1), 1961 (NZ

Herald 1370-29-32-2), 1933 (Richardson 4-5326), 1912 (Winkelmann 1-

W1526), 1908 (Winkelmann 1-W884), 1905, (Auckland Weekly News

AWNS 19050525-13-3), 1904 (Winkelmann 1-W920);


j. Auckland Council GeoMaps and the Cultural Heritage Inventory (CHI),

and specifically the following CHI files1: CHI 18593 (Dredge driving

Wheel), CHI 401 (Hulk, Chelmsford), CHI 404 (Hulk, Kaniere), CHI 18610

(Industrial), CHO 536 (Western tide deflector, breakwater site),, CHI 541

(Western wharf), CHI 18609 (building industrial, Sanford/Vos boatbuilding

yards), CHI 18608 (building, industrial, Golden Bay Cement), CHI 19590

(sculpture), CHI 18610 (industrial, oil tanks), CHI 18606 (Building,

Sanford), CHI 18607 (building AHB shed), CHI 320 (transport bridge,

abutments and control shed), CHI 552 (wharf site, Albert (former), CHI

555 (wharf site, Ferry), CHI 990 (Maritime museum), CHI 582 (Hobson

wharf by Eastern Viaduct), CHI 533 (wharf site, Hobson Street), CHI 308

(building, Launchman's), CHI 20107 (memorial, and CHI 2551 (building,

Auckland Harbour Board, engineers' workshops (former) (all of these CHI

sites are plotted on Figure 2 below);

k. Relevant submissions received on the Application.

3 Summary of proposal 4

3.1 Panuku Development Auckland (the Applicant), seeks consent to establish

infrastructure to support the America’s Cup 36 (AC36) defence, the event

itself, and any subsequent defender races within the next ten years, and for

associated regatta and challenger series. The proposal is described in the

AEE and encompasses the following:

a. Construction over 19-21 months, operating 24 hours a day 6/7 days a

week. These works will require earthworks on Wynyard Point extending

over an area of 23,100m² and a volume of 10,607m³.

b. Dredging of 87,000m³ over a 5-7 month period within the Wynyard

Wharf South water-space, the Outer Viaduct Harbour and the access

channel.

c. A 74m extension to Hobson Wharf, the area to contain a syndicate base

building.

d. Four breakwaters: an 81m breakwater east of Wynyard Wharf; Halsey

Wharf, to extend initially 39m to the north of Halsey Wharf then turn and

extend 84m to the north-west; a 35m breakwater east of Hobson Wharf;

a 42m breakwater to the south of Hobson Wharf.

e. The installation of wave panes to the new breakwaters at Hobson Wharf

and Halsey Wharf.

f. Reclamation is proposed by infilling the water-space between the

existing Wynyard Wharf and Brigham Street. This construction will be

1 Available on line at https://chi.net.nz.


enabled by the stopping of Brigham Street (most probably to be

undertaken under special legislation, not part of this consent).

g. Five syndicate bases are proposed on Wynyard Point between 46-63

Jellicoe Street and 90 Brigham Street. The earthworks required (site

preparation works) for the construction of building platforms are also

proposed in this area but may be the subject of a separate consent

application.

3.2 Construction works are to be undertaken in the following areas:

• Wynyard Point on the eastern side of Hamer Street, between Jellicoe Street and 90 Brigham Street;

• Jellicoe Street (works for services);

• Halsey Street (works for services);

• Viaduct Events Centre (Halsey Wharf);

• Hobson Wharf.

3.3 The Applicant provides a description of the site and receiving environment in

the AEE at section 8. In brief:

a. The area is a highly modified coastal environment dominated by

commercial and public activity in conjunction with commercial and

recreational boating. This includes Westhaven Marina, Wynyard Precinct,

Viaduct Precinct, the Central Wharves Precinct and the Port Precinct. The

dominant activities include marine, fishing and port activities and

structures, food, beverage, entertainment, retail and accommodation

activities, cruise ship terminals, berthage, public access and events.

b. The AUP zones the works areas as Business – City Centre Zone and Coastal

– General Coastal Marine Zone. Two precincts also apply, the Wynyard and

Viaduct Harbour Precincts (Chapter I – with the Waitemata Navigation

Channel Precinct to the north of the site).

3.4 Table 1 of the AEE provide additional AUP information at pages 11-12. While

some GeoMaps Layers (non-statutory) information has been included in Table

1, the table does not list information available in the non-statutory CHI.2

3.5 The proposal is a non-complying activity and consent may only be granted if

the adverse environmental effects are no more than minor, or the proposal is

not contrary to the objectives and policies of the AUP (AEE 10.1.1, page 106).

2 Although section 10.6 of the AEE does list some of the CHI items known to be in the application area (AEE, page

138).


4. Review of Application / Reasons for consent:

4.1 We draw attention to s104(1), where direction is given to have regard to (c) Any

other matter that the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably

necessary to determine the application.

4.2 The applicant confirms, at least twice within the AEE, that the activity status for

the bundled application is recognised as non-complying (Section 10.1.1 (page

106) and section 11.7, page 249). We consider that there is known historic

heritage material contained within and adjacent to the application area (2.4.j).

4.3 Through the use of the CHI records, it has been identified that unscheduled

historic heritage items are present, condition unknown, including some within

the Application area (refer to Figure 2 below).

4.4 The Application does not include a historic heritage assessment (HIA) and does

not include a specialist analysis of the effects of the proposal on historic

heritage. A HIA would have been prepared by a historic heritage expert and

they would have collated all known information on potential historic heritage

resources from accepted heritage agencies and archival sources. The historic

heritage expert would then have provided an assessment of the effects of the

proposal on this material. A HIA would also have discussed the risk to both

historic heritage material and the proposal time line.

4.5 Rather than providing a HIA, the applicant has provided a ‘Protected Objects

Protocol’ (Document 8). I have not previously encountered this approach or

type of document in a RMA context. I do not support the approach for a number

of reasons:

a. I acknowledge that the Protocol is an attempt to address the fear/risk of

encountering historic heritage at this location. However, I consider that it

creates unnecessary confusion, uncertainty and unacceptable risk to

unrecorded historic heritage located in the application area.

b. The Protocol proposes to override the AUP’s accidental discovery rules

(E11, E12 and E26), which I do not support.

c. I consider the proposed approach may establish an undesirable

precedent for future applications.

d. Moreover, as the Protocol (Document 8) does not provide an effects-

based assessment, it seeks to establish an unacceptable process for the

recording of any historic heritage material encountered. It is important

that the applicant be required to provide records of material encountered

during the implementation of these consents.3

3 This will also assist the Council to fulfil its duties under section 35 of the RMA (to gather information, monitor and

keep records, e.g. as to the state of the environment).


4.6 Other documents (which form part of the application) provide a partial

assessment of effects. These are discussed below. In the absence of a

specialist assessment / HIA, I have endeavoured to assess the proposal’s

effects having regard to the partial information supplied by the applicant, and to

records and information available to the Council.

4.7 The Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVA) draws attention to the New

Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act

2010 (refer to section 5, pp 17-8).

4.8 As the LVA records (at section 5.3, page 18), section 8 of the Hauraki Gulf

Marine Park Act 2010 (which, in part, deals with the protection and, where

appropriate, the enhancement of the natural, historic, and physical resources of

the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and catchments), is to be treated as a national

policy statement and a New Zealand coastal policy statement.

4.9 The PSI by Beca discusses a "…history of soil contamination investigations in

the Wynyard Quarter area". The authors of the PSI observe (section 7, page

66):

Contamination by hydrocarbons has been identified widely across the

[Wynyard Point works] site, with measurable thicknesses of SPH

anticipated to be present in approximately 50% of the development

areas. The identified SPH is in most locations restricted to less than

50mm.

Further, the PSI notes that heavy metals, gasworks wastes and

asbestos deposits are present throughout the Wynyard Quarter area

as a result of contaminated fill materials used to reclaim the area in

the early 20th century. The soil contamination status and its potential

impacts … during construction works are further discussed in section 5

[author emphasis]

The PSI outlines the likely soil contamination levels present at the

Wynyard Point works area. It is proposed to supplement this PSI with

specific soil testing data in the form of a Detailed Site Investigation

(DSI) prior to the start of construction works. [author emphasis]

4.10 The PSI advises that the Jellicoe Street seawall will be encountered during

secondary excavation for infrastructure (Figure 5 page 16). It also advises that

the ongoing monitoring of groundwater levels at this location shows elevated

levels in this area. Further, it refers to the information provided in Annex 17 of

the former Auckland Council District Plan – Central Area Section 2005, entitled

“Wynyard Quarter Inventory of Character Elements”4. While that Annex no

longer has any statutory force, the PSI has made reference to it, and it provides

a useful description of some of Wynyard Quarter’s character elements (based

on a half day inspection of the area).

4 https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/district-and-

regional-plans/district-plans/central-area-district-plan/Pages/central-area-district-plan-annexures.aspx


4.11 Further, it is noted that a detailed site investigation (DSI) will be undertaken

prior to earthworks which will include sub-surface soil sampling throughout the

proposed works areas. The AEE notes that the area is known to be potentially

contaminated due to the material used in the reclamation (AEE, p94). This

further investigation will allow the identification of locations and depths of

contamination likely to be encountered during the earthworks. In my opinion, it

would be appropriate to link this DSI with historic heritage monitoring to inform

the nature and extent of historic heritage activity (discussed further in paragraph

5.11 below).

4.12 The development of the waterfront area is presented at section 4.1 of the AEE

(page 18), notably with a topographical and European-centric focus. A

reproduced image is accordingly labelled as ‘historic’ (Figure 2, AEE p19), my

Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Historic Reclamation diagram of the Auckland Waterfront (Ports of Auckland), AEE p19.

4.13 The AEE discusses 'historic matters' in separate locations.5 As a result, the

relevant information is scattered throughout the document and the dates of

various events are not presented clearly. The AEE commentary also relies on

secondary information sources (for example, Figure 1), rather than the usual

approach of returning to primary or original sources.

4.14 The AEE correctly identifies the scheduled items in the vicinity of the project

(section 8.9, pp75-6), noting for instance the scheduled Western Viaduct lift

bridge (Schedule 14.1, ID 02068) and the Wind Tree sculpture (ID 1916).

4.15 In order to assess effects on historic heritage matters, it is simplistic to

concentrate on the known and identified items as presented in the AEE as it

5 Sections 4.1, section 8 and in the main at section 10.6.


suggests that all human activity is fixed in time and place. Historic heritage

experts (such as archaeologists and historians) constantly question existing

knowledge of our collective past. This is because of new evidence becoming

available (through excavation or declassification for example), or a change in

the political or statutory framework. Heritage is subject to constant change and

must, therefore, be reviewed to remain informed and robust rather than

anecdotal.

4.16 Tables 3 and 4 and in the AEE (Section 9) review and address the rules for

Precinct Plans and Overlays (Chapter D AUP). Section 9.2.3 (Table 5 AEE)

addresses Auckland-Wide rules (Chapter E).

4.17 In Table 5 of the AEE the applicant states that that consent is sought to infringe

rule E11.6.1(2)(d), providing for the disturbance of protected New Zealand

objects as defined in the Protected Objects Act 1975 (POA). This infringement

is a restricted discretionary activity. The matter of concern, as described in the

AEE (at page 90), is the “potential location of structures used in the reclamation

of Wynyard Point”, with the scope of the infringement described as relating to

“protected objects only”.

4.18 Also in Table 5, the applicant states that consent is sought to infringe rule

E26.7.5.1(2)(d) (also a restricted discretionary activity) providing for the

disturbance of protected New Zealand objects. Again, this relates to the

potential location of structures used in the reclamation of Wynyard Point, and

the applicant states that the scope of this infringement relates to protected

objects only.

4.19 E11.6.1 and E26.5.5.1 both contain “accidental discovery” rules and similar

rules can be found in E12.

4.20 To the extent that the proposed works will occur in areas subject to the regional

coastal provisions of the AUP, I note that the following provisions in Chapter F

deal with historic heritage:

a) F.2.22.2.(1)(b) whether effects on the values of Historic Heritage Overlay

areas have been avoided, remedied or mitigated;

b) F2.23.2(1)(f)(i) whether the proposal has included an assessment of Mana

Whenua values and how any effects have been avoided, remedied or

mitigated;

c) F2.23.2.(1)(h)(i) whether the proposals avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse

effects on historic heritage.


4.21 Any sites or places of significance to Mana Whenua that are identified prior to,

or discovered during use and development in the coastal marine area, must

comply with the accidental discovery rules in E11 Land disturbance – Regional

or E12 Land disturbance - District.

4.22 Please note I have not addressed sites and places of significance to mana

whenua in this document as only mana whenua can make comments on these

matters.

4.23 The AEE also notes (section 9.3) that proposed Plan Change 4 to the AUP

(which concerns the correction of technical errors and anomalies in the AUP)

has implications with regard to the reinstatement of view shafts to the Wynyard

precinct (Chapter I214). As of 15 June 2018, PC 4 is under appeal.

5. Technical assessment of effects: Historic Heritage

5.1 In this section I provide a technical assessment of the proposal’s effects on historic heritage, having regard to relevant provisions in the AUP.

5.2 As a general observation, the absence of a HIA and any detailed assessment of the AUP’s historic heritage provisions makes the task of assessing the proposal’s heritage impact more difficult.

5.3 As the proposal is non-complying all effects are relevant, including potential historic heritage effects.

5.4 Chapter D17 of the AUP is concerned with the Historic Heritage Overlay, and therefore unsurprisingly the objectives at D17.2 and policies at D17.36 focus on scheduled heritage places. I acknowledge that there are no specific locations or areas are identified through AUP Schedule 14.1 in the location of the proposal.

5.5 However, D17.1 Archaeological sites or features also clearly recognises the fact that only a small portion of Auckland’s archaeological sites are identified in Schedule 14.1:

The proportion of archaeological sites within Auckland that are identified in

Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage is low. Archaeological sites are

subject to additional rules to manage activities that have the potential to

adversely affect archaeological values, such as land disturbance, or disturbance

of the foreshore or seabed. The accidental discovery rule in E12 Land

disturbance - District applies in order to protect presently unknown archaeological

values that may be discovered when works or development is undertaken.

It continues, under D17 Unscheduled historic heritage:

Much of Auckland’s heritage has not been identified or evaluated to determine its

significance.

6 These are both regional coastal plan and district plan provisions.


Some places that have been identified as having significant heritage values are

not presently included in the historic heritage schedule, either because of

incomplete information, lack of consultation with landowners, or for other reasons.

Presently unscheduled historic heritage places that meet the criteria for

scheduling will be evaluated for inclusion in the schedule through future plan

change processes.

5.6 I believe there will be negative effects to historic heritage remains through the

execution of parts of this proposal. However with no HIA supplied the difficulty arises in detailing these with any clarity.

5.7 The activities described in the application include reclamation, removal of

maritime objects (crane and rail tracks, AHB bollards, cast iron plates and fittings, bluestone kerb/channel), severance of the Jellicoe Street sea wall and excavation and removal of fill layers deposited on the sea bed from 1900s to the 1930s.

5.8 Basic information regarding historic heritage in the area is available on the non-

statutory CHI database. This is reproduced as Figure 2 below, overlaid with the UNIO Locality Plan (Application Document 2). It shows clearly that historic heritage items are known to be located within and adjacent to the proposed areas of activity.

5.9 The likelihood of encountering contaminated fill is discussed in the Preliminary Site Investigation PSI (Document 31), yet the source of the contaminants is explained only as "fill" and not assessed in anyway with regard to potential historic heritage values. I note in passing that the source of the “fill" might have been identified through HIA research and potentially could have been used to assist the contamination specialists in identifying sources of contaminants beyond those already known. Fundamentally, the material deposited at the application location was placed there through human activity, directly related to maritime activity, nineteenth century industrial processes and waste removal from an urban area.

5.10 My concern regarding the reclamation is twofold, general and specific. As stated above (paragraph 5.9) the material used to reclaim this part of the sea bed is comprised of relocated earth, derivatives of the coal gas industry, organic waste (including timber hulks), processed iron or steel (boilers, fittings from vessels) and unknown random tipping. What cannot be known until PSI test pitting is undertaken is the level of preservation of this material across the activity area. High ground water levels will create anaerobic preservation conditions as will arid conditions. Areas of wetting and drying will have limited material preservation conditions. DSI testing informs us that the ground water is high near the Jellicoe Street wall therefore the potential for historic heritage to survive there is higher.

5.11 I also note that the severance of the Jellicoe Street sea wall has not been addressed. It would appear that utility connections must be made and avoidance is not possible, yet no remediation is specified nor any mitigation proposed. Discovery of the c. 1903 wall will not be accidental; therefore it is professional practice to record the historic heritage through appropriate conditions, or as part of a suite of procedures and conditions developed through an appropriate Historic Heritage Management Plan. In my opinion, this normal


AUP approach is appropriate and can be completed prior to any works commencing.

5.12 I consider the execution of elements of the proposal will have some negative effects on these historic heritage remains, although in the absence of a HIA it is difficult to assess the degree of effect.

5.13 Because of this uncertainty, I recommend that, if consent is granted, a robust set of conditions should be imposed to address potential adverse historic heritage effects (irrespective of the proximity of the activity to scheduled (14.1) sites).


Figure 2: Historic Heritage and UNIO plans combined. UNIO describe the red area as primary proposal, yellow areas for secondary construction and purple dashed as indicative event areas. The underlying AC GeoMaps information is the Cultural Heritage Inventory (CHI) number and site name. Blue squares indicate Historic structures, purple dots indicate a maritime site and pink dots indicate a Maori Heritage area.


Assessment of effects conclusion

5.14 Again, the applicant has not supplied an HIA to assist with the task of assessing the proposal’s potential effects on the receiving environment for historic heritage in terms of the AUP and RMA provisions discussed above. In my opinion, the proposal is likely to have some adverse effects on historic heritage, however as discussed above it is difficult to assess the degree of potential effect.

5.15 Subject to the imposition of robust conditions to record all encountered material that is identified as historic heritage (see section 7 below), then the overall effects of the proposal can be minimised. While methods such as the recording of data and potential preservation of significant material in an appropriate institution is no substitute for in situ preservation, appropriate recording and interpretation can provide mitigation for destruction.

5.16 If the proposed conditions are implemented in full then any effects on historic heritage will be adequately addressed, and on this basis, the overall effects would be minor.

6. Relevant Submissions

6.1 At this time, 83 submissions have been received on this Application. Of this

number, ten raise heritage matters directly, in part or in whole. Other submitters have referred to heritage matters which are not subject to heritage controls in the AUP and therefore cannot be addressed through this memo.

6.2 The submissions from Geraldine Speed (#22), Steward Speed (#23), John Wayne Mandeno (#60), Brett MacLean (#53), Brent Impey and Wendy Palmer (#61), and Russell Hall (#30) are substantially identical and raise an issue concerning view shafts. The identified view shaft is from Maungawhau Mount Eden, however, it is included within the Natural Heritage overlays only, not Historic Heritage, and therefore not subject to historic heritage controls in the AUP.

6.3 Robert Henry Brown (#25). The submitter is concerned that no indication is given in the application documents for berthing space to be made available for large heritage vessels such as the William C Daldy, floating crane Rapaki, or the Auckland ferry Toroa. The rules regarding such matters will be addressed by the Council planner, Nicola Broadbent. However, from my perspective it is desirable to consider the allocation of berthage for heritage vessels that reflect and enhance the maritime heritage of Waitemata.

6.4 Peter James McCurdy (#26). This submitter considers there is an ongoing loss

of maritime heritage, both land-based items and floating vessels. The comment is made that there was an 'absence of consideration of heritage responsibilities' in the application documents. The relief sought by this submitter is twofold: first, berthage for heritage vessels and second, the inclusion of conditions that require there be no loss of material maritime heritage as a result of granting the resource consent. In the first matter, this will be responded to by Ms Broadbent. As to the second matter, the suggested conditions are set out below.


6.5 William C Daldy Preservation Society (#18). This Society has identified the loss of current berthage and no indication for a future berth for this restored 1935 vessel. Supporting documentation is presented. Statements are made regarding unique status of this type of steam tug and reference is made to the International Register of Heritage Steam Ships.

6.6 The World Ship Trust (1980-2014) used to play a leadership role in recording

vessels of significance in the maritime heritage world. Since the Trust disbanded in 2014, a new organisation has arisen, the International Historic & Traditional Ships Panel (IHTS), which sits within the International Congress of Maritime Museums. In summary, there is no mechanism for the protection of the ship from this or any other international listing. However, as it does appear in numerous international registers: the significance is clearly recognised internationally and this could indicate that the vessel would in fact have the potential to be protected by the provisions of the POA. This is a matter between the submitter and the Ministry for Cultural and Heritage and not a local government matter.

6.7 The Society (#18) seeks the retention of the William C Daldy in the area, however the AUP rules do not address this matter. The opportunity for future waterfront events to include the vessel is endorsed, as are their aspirations for maritime heritage representation. I support the ongoing presence of this vessel in future Waitemata heritage events.

6.8 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) (#63). This submitter has reiterated its request for a heritage impact assessment by an appropriately qualified heritage professional. They note the application AEE has omitted to address the effects on two places listed in national legislation: the New Zealand Heritage List / Rārangi Kōrero 'Harbour Historic Area' (List number 7158), and the New Zealand Archaeological Association (NZAA) site R11/2901. This is a matter for the consenting planner to address.

6.9 The HNZPT submission notes the inadequacy in the Protocol (Document 8). Again, I consider that this Protocol is unnecessary and can be replaced by appropriate conditions.

6.10 HNZPT seek commitment from the Applicant / consent holder to retain and

incorporate existing historic heritage elements of the industrial and maritime legacy of the area. I recommend conditions below to facilitate this discussion, if required.


7. Recommendation and conditions and advice notes

7.1 I recommend that, if consent is granted, the conditions set out at paragraph 7.5

below be imposed.

7.2 The heritage conditions supplied with the application (Application Document 7) include the following condition and the provision of a Protected Objects Protocol (Application Document 8):

7.3 For reasons discussed above, I consider that this proposed condition 45 and the accompanying Protocol do not adequately address effects on historic heritage as interpreted in the RMA. I consider the matters referred to in condition 45 are better addressed through the established statutory processes under the control of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage.

7.4 In terms of the current (RMA) process, potential effects on historic heritage are best addressed through the conditions and advice notes set out in paragraph 7.5 below, which put in place an appropriate process to require the consent holder to avoid, remediate or mitigate for the loss of any historic heritage material.

Conditions

7.5 I recommend that the following conditions be imposed, if consent is granted:

45. Historic heritage

The Consent Holder shall comply with the following requirements:

a. A project archaeologist is to be nominated to monitor earthworks across

the application area.

b. The Consent Holder shall provide copies of the Detailed Site Investigation

(DSI) and any updated geotechnical report/s to the project archaeologist.

Upon reviewing this information and in consultation with the Team Leader

Cultural Heritage Implementation, the archaeologist will determine

whether any further monitoring is required.

c. If further monitoring is required then the following actions shall apply:

i. The project archaeologist shall be appointed to oversee all

earthworks including land clearance and building establishment

earthworks where relevant;


ii. Recording shall be undertaken in line with accepted archaeological

practice and shall include (but not be restricted to) scaled digital

photography and sketch plans;

iii. If the historic heritage material encountered sits outside Heritage

New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act or Protected Objects Act

legislation, the material shall be offered to the National Maritime

Museum (in the first instance) by the project archaeologist;

iv. If any historic heritage item, encountered through the execution of

this consent and outside other legislation, is deemed of sufficient

material stability and public interest to be retained, then the consent

holder shall give consideration to the retention of this historic

heritage in a location agreed by the consent holder and Team Leader

Compliance Monitoring – Central within the application area. If an

agreed location cannot be identified within the application area,

provision shall be made for the historic heritage item to be safely

stored until such time as an agreed location becomes available.

d. At the completion of all earthworks monitoring, a report shall be prepared

to provide a complete record of the historic heritage content of the site.

This report must be provided within twelve (12) months of the completion

of the earthworks to the Team Leader Compliance Monitoring - Central

(for the Manager: Heritage Unit,

[email protected]).

e. The project archaeologist shall update the CHI records on the Auckland

Council Cultural Heritage Inventory database within two months of the

completion of all earthworks.

Advice Note:

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014

The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (hereafter referred to as the Act)

provides for the identification, protection, preservation and conservation of the historic

and cultural heritage of New Zealand. All archaeological sites are protected by the

provisions of the Act (section 42). It is unlawful to modify, damage or destroy an

archaeological site without prior authority from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga.

An Authority is required whether or not the land on which an archaeological site may be

present is designated, a resource or building consent has been granted, or the activity is

permitted under the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part (November 2016).

According to the Act (section 6) archaeological site means, subject to section 42(3) –

a) any place in New Zealand, including any building or structure (or part of a

building or structure), that –

i. was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900 or is the

site of the wreck of any vessel where the wreck occurred before 1900; and

ii. provides or may provide, through investigation by archaeological

methods, evidence relating to the history of New Zealand; and


b) includes a site for which a declaration is made under section 43(1)

It is the responsibility of the consent holder to consult with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere

Taonga about the requirements of the Act and to obtain the necessary Authorities under the

Act should these become necessary, as a result of any activity associated with the consented

proposals.

For information please contact the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Northern

Regional Archaeologist – 09 307 0413 / [email protected].

Protected Objects Act 1975 –

Māori artefacts such as carvings, stone adzes, and greenstone objects are considered to be

tāonga (treasures). These are taonga tūturu within the meaning of the Protected Objects

Act 1975 (hereafter referred to as the Act).

According to the Act (section 2) taonga tūturu means an object that –

a) relates to Māori culture, history, or society; and

b) was, or appears to have been –

i. manufactured or modified in New Zealand by Māori; or

ii. brought into New Zealand by Māori; or

iii. used by Māori; and

c) is more than 50 years old.

The Act is administered by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage. Tāonga may be

discovered in isolated contexts, but are generally found within archaeological sites. The

provisions of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 in relation to the

modification of an archaeological site should to be considered by the consent holder if

tāonga are found within an archaeological site, as defined by the Heritage New Zealand

Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.

It is the responsibility of the consent holder to notify either the chief executive of the

Ministry of Culture and Heritage or the nearest public museum (for Auckland this is the

Auckland War Memorial Museum), which shall notify the chief executive, of the finding of

the taonga tūturu, within 28 days of finding the taonga tūturu; alternatively provided that

in the case of any taonga tūturu found during the course of any archaeological

investigation authorised by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga under section 48 of the

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, the notification shall be made within 28

days of the completion of the field work undertaken in connection with the investigation.

Under section 11 of the Act, newly found taonga tūturu are in the first instance Crown

owned until a determination on ownership is made by the Māori Land Court.

For information please contact the Ministry of Culture and Heritage – 04 499 4229 /

[email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0041/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM4005568

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

APPENDIX T MYFANWY EAVES HISTORIC HERITAGE REPORT · 2018-06-24 · Wharf South water-space, the Outer Viaduct Harbour and the access channel. c. A 74m extension to Hobson Wharf,