appendix t myfanwy eaves historic heritage report · 2018-06-24 · wharf south water-space, the...
TRANSCRIPT
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”:
Consent: BUN60318372 2 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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);
Consent: BUN60318372 3 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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.
Consent: BUN60318372 4 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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).
Consent: BUN60318372 5 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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).
Consent: BUN60318372 6 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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
Consent: BUN60318372 7 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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.
Consent: BUN60318372 8 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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.
Consent: BUN60318372 9 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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.
Consent: BUN60318372 10 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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
Consent: BUN60318372 11 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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).
Consent: BUN60318372 12 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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.
Consent: BUN60318372 13 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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.
Consent: BUN60318372 14 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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.
Consent: BUN60318372 15 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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;
Consent: BUN60318372 16 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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,
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
Consent: BUN60318372 17 Address: America’s Cup: 8-34 Brigham St and surrounds, Wynyard Quarter
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 /