Historic heritage

Abstract

Best practice in managing New Zealand's heritage can best occur through an integrated package including incentives, education, support, and regulation provided for by the RMA and the Historic Places Act.

Each local authority should have an overarching philosophy and practice for heritage management that is clear and strategically focused (what are we trying to achieve and how?). Local authorities should collaborate with the owners of heritage places, tangata whenua, the community and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. The use of additional specialist involvement will be required at times.

As a matter of national importance plans must address a number of key matters in order to protect historic heritage: definitions, identification of heritage places/resources and assessment of their heritage values, archaeological and historic sites, incentives, regulatory controls, and mapping.

back to top

Guidance note

• Defining historic heritage
• Heritage strategy
• Identification of historic heritage places
• Cultural landscapes
• Archaeological sites
• Incentives and plans
• Regulatory controls
• Mapping

Defining historic heritage

Definitions used to categorise types of heritage include built, cultural, historic, and natural heritage. These frequently overlap. Historic heritage is the appropriate term for District/Regional Plans. It is place-based or spatial so is well suited to land use planning applications.

Historic heritage is now defined in the RMA (by RMA Amendment 2003). Historic heritage is defined by the RMA (s2):

Historic heritage:
(a) means those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand's history and cultures, deriving from any of the following qualities:

(i) archaeological:
(ii) architectural:
(iii) cultural:
(iv) historic:
(v) scientific:
(vii) technological; and

(b) includes -

(i) historic sites, structures, places, and areas; and
(ii) archaeological sites; and
(iii) sites of significance to Maori, including wahi tapu; and
(iv) surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources.

Places with historic heritage value are also located in the coastal marine area and may straddle district and regional boundaries (eg. boat ramps, seawalls, wharves). District and regional plans need to recognise and provide for the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development (s6).

back to top

Heritage strategy

• There is no statutory requirement to prepare a heritage strategy. However, doing so is a useful way to:
  • provide a structured process for thinking more broadly about heritage on a district (or community) basis. This can help identify aspirations and develop a vision, partnerships, and directions that stretch beyond the statutory requirements;
  • Provide for a whole community (not just experts) to think about heritage and what it means to them, so Council (and other players) can be guided by this in decision-making
  • Establish a direction for addressing the new requirements for historic heritage introduced by the RM Amendment Act 2003. Preparing a strategy can be a useful process by which to 'audit' existing Plan provisions so as to understand how well they satisfy the new requirements, where the gaps are and what actions can be undertaken and in what priority to address those gaps.
• Some guiding points when preparing a strategy are:
  • Be clear what its for, why its being done and what you hope to gain from it;
  • Have a vision and principles that can stand the test of time.
  • Look at implementation secondly. This is more likely to change over time to reflect changing circumstances;
  • Canvas all the options for heritage management and evaluate their suitability. This can be a useful basis for s32 of the RMA;
  • Have political support for, and involvement in, the process;
  • Increase awareness and knowledge of historic heritage within the community prior to consultation;
  • Use a variety of methods to engage the community;
  • Be inclusive of all interests;
  • Keep it simple, useable, and updateable, and ensure performance is measurable (it can be a simple measure - eg to prepare a heritage places inventory within 2 years); and
  • See the Consultation in Plan Development guidance note for useful suggestions that can also be applied to developing a heritage strategy.

back to top

Identification of historic heritage places

When identifying heritage places in a Plan, ensure there is a clear and robust basis for that identification. Information on heritage places in a plan must be up to date, so monitor it regularly. Values may diminish or increase over time, depending on other changes. Some places may disappear altogether and Plan list should be updated accordingly.

The amendments to s6 RMA to make protection of historic heritage a matter of National Importance should encourage local authorities to review the current lists or registers or inventories of heritage places to determine whether this is meeting the requirements of the Act.

The following notes assume that most local authorities will not be starting from scratch, but will be building on, or reviewing and making changes to, existing Plan heritage provisions. A series of phases to follow are:

• Plan the process and objectives
  • Plan the process to establish priorities (ie addressing threats, such as redevelopment in key heritage areas) and to set the consultation objectives and programme (see 'Heritage Strategy' section above).
  • Partner with tangata whenua to determine an appropriate approach to identification and assessment. Respect that iwi or hapu may not want sites disclosed, given potential site disturbance and sensitive events that may have occurred there (see reference to s 42RMA below)
  • Allocate realistic time and resources - ask other local authorities what they did and how much time/cost was involved.
  • Recognise that some aspects of heritage management are specialised tasks. Engage professionals as required (Historic Places Trust can advise on contacts).
• Establish criteria for identification
  • Ensure there is a clear set of criteria for identification of heritage places, including historic, cultural, technological, archaeological, architectural, and scientific values. Heritage values may derive from groupings of places, the context and settings of structures, interrelationships and layers of heritage. Refer to Cultural Landscapes, below.
  • Reference needs to be made to the definition of historic heritage in s 2 RMA (as a result of the RM Amendment Act 2003) to ensure that the full scope of the definition is recognised and provided for.
  • Special criteria may be required for some heritage places - for example, STEM (Standard Tree Evaluation Method) is a useful set of criteria for trees.
• Gather existing information
  • Refer to existing Historic Places Trust registered places, areas, wahi tapu and wahi tapu areas, New Zealand Archaeological Association recorded sites, and existing listed District/Regional Plan places. Under the RMA councils must take account of the Trust's Register when preparing plans. For trees refer to the Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture Notable Trees Register.
  • Refer to any iwi authority planning document for any heritage direction, statements or identified sites – these are required to be taken into account by regional and district plan preparation processes (RM Amendment Act 2003).
  • For local information and research refer to heritage interest groups, and to publications on heritage places (bridges, railways, churches, etc).
  • Critically review existing information and places - they may have limitations for use in the Plan. Information may be outdated, and places may have been identified by different criteria to the District Plan process. If budget allows, undertake a comprehensive audit of scheduled places.
• Identification and recording
  • Several techniques can be employed for identification (eg thematic survey, windscreen survey cultural mapping). Each has its pros and cons and needs to be combined with good information. Use a method(s) that will make it easy to find heritage places satisfying the established criteria.
  • Provide for tangata whenua to identify sites of significance to Maori, such as wahi tapu. If there is no iwi planning document, work this approach through with tangata whenua (eg as a joint survey project, or by helping prepare an iwi planning document such as an iwi management plan). It is likely that tangata whenua will consider some information regarding these sites as sensitive and may request that the information be protected. This will require the council to balance the public interest in having public information available during resource management hearings against the importance of avoiding offence to tikanga Maori or showing the location of wahi tapu. This balancing obligation is set out in s 42 of the RMA (see notes below)
  • Make identification of heritage places transparent by clearly recording information and values. These should be determined by comparison with the assessment criteria. Clarity of information and values will facilitate being able to determine the effects that future modification of heritage places will have on the values associated with those places.
  • Consider categorising places to differentiate values (eg Category I or II as per the HPT Register). This may help establish the level of regulation or eligibility for assistance.
  • Archaeological sites should not be categorised. It is difficult to assess their value without investigation (which may be intrusive). Also, many unknown sites cannot be included.
  • For Maori sites, it may be difficult to establish the degree of sacredness or importance. Collaborate closely with tangata whenua to determine whether categorisation is appropriate and on what basis.
  • Consult early on with owners of identified heritage places to check information, to inform, and to discuss any issues.
  • Provide new work to HPT and NZAA so their respective records/registers can be supplemented as appropriate.
  • Under s42 it is necessary that Council follow a clear process for protecting sensitive information.
  • This section requires Council to specifically determine (i.e. by a deliberate decision) the need to protect the confidential nature of the information outweighs the public interest in making the information available.
  • It can apply for example to burial grounds, artefacts, Whakapapa, wahi tapu, ancestral lands, personal information.
  • The process occurs by a resolution of Council and may be in, for example, a hearing or Council meeting.
  • The protection cannot be applied as a 'blanket', but requires consideration of each matter.
  • The process to be followed needs direct reference to s42 but involves: (1) an application being made to protect the information, (2) Council's consideration of public versus protection interests, (3) a formal order being made to protect, or not and the reasons why.

back to top

Cultural landscapes

Cultural landscapes are the patterns and forms of heritage that can be seen in a landscape. They can be thought of as an extension of the heritage precinct concept and are a useful way to recognise the interrelationships of heritage places over time. With some knowledge of the history of an area, landscapes can be identified that show:

• Different types of occupation or activity over time (eg Maori pa, followed by farming, followed by World War II gun emplacement); and/or
• Interrelated uses of a place (eg old dairy factories, milking sheds, field boundaries, distances between towns).
• A useful reference for this concept is Landscape New Zealand (July/August 2001), Managing Heritage - Webs and Layers.

The HPA recognises the term cultural landscape (refer s23 (2) (k)), but it has ultimately been omitted from the 2003 RMA Amendments.

• Providing for cultural landscapes in plans is a challenge, as they can be multi-layered, and their interconnections may cross over district boundaries.
• There is some rationale for a regional approach to address cultural heritage values.
• Heritage trails are a common application of the concept (at least the interrelated part) as they will follow a particular theme (goldmining in Central Otago for example) and link together the places associated with this.
• The challenges presented by cultural landscapes are noted below. Best practice appears to be to at least to recognise the interrelated nature of heritage places in identifying heritage values so that the associations between seemingly modest places or items are provided for appropriately.

back to top

Archaeological sites

• The Historic Places Trust has statutory responsibilities for archaeological sites under the HPA. Local authorities, however, do have complementary obligations under the RMA. When preparing plans ensure that policy statements and other relevant plan provisions recognise and promote the obligation on all parties to comply with the HPA archaeological authorities provisions.
• Develop a collaborative basis for site management in discussion with the Historic Places Trust and iwi. Many archaeological sites are also sites of significance to iwi.
• Include methods for archaeological site management in the plan in the appropriate form to match the level of information available (refer to 'Identification of Historic Heritage Places' section above). Where the information available is not detailed enough to prescribe regulation, use alternative methods to address RMA responsibilities including non-statutory databases, mapping, and raising landowners' awareness.
• Recognise areas of archaeological value, as well as discrete sites.
• If the definition 'archaeological site' is used in the plan, it should be the same as that in the HPA.
• Recognise the Trust in the plan processes as an affected party with respect to archaeological sites.
• When managing the resource consent process and archaeological sites, consider the following:
  • Develop a protocol with the Historic Places Trust for the parallel approvals process of RMA resource consents and applications under the HPA for authority to destroy, damage or modify archaeological sites. Include this in the plan as an information note or method for reference.
  • Cross reference archaeological sites related provisions in the plan to earthworks rules.
  • As part of the plan's information requirements, require an archaeological report for resource consent applications that affect an archaeological site. This can generally also be used for an application to the Historic Places Trust for authority to destroy, damage or modify an archaeological site.
  • As cultural values assessment demands an understanding of tangata whenua values, it is appropriate that this comes from tangata whenua.
  • Refer to guidance and/or protocols for accidental discovery in the plan. Apply accidental discovery conditions to resource consents that may affect an archaeological site.
  • Include specific assessment criteria to help evaluate the effects of activities on archaeological sites (refer to Regulatory Controls).
  • Develop protocols with iwi for archaeological sites identified as also of significance to tangata whenua.
  • Ensure staff know what archaeological sites are, have guidelines for how to identify them, and where they are likely to be found.

back to top

Incentives and plans

• Incentives are needed to encourage good management practice by owners of heritage places. Relatively modest incentives, such as architectural advice, waiver of consent fees, funds to assist private owners, and publicity, can generate community changes in attitude and in the practice of heritage management. Incentives are generally part of the counterbalance to plan regulation and hence tend to be outside the District Plan. However, the following is relevant:
  • Consider incentives as part and parcel of the s32 RMA process preceding the plan review. A Heritage Strategy process can balance incentives with regulation.
  • Consider applying levels of financial incentive to the listing of a heritage place in the District Plan, through a system that ranks heritage value. Be clear how the incentives will be applied.
• Ongoing political commitment to financial assistance will help ensure that heritage objectives continue progressing in the long term. Reporting progress to Council in terms of the effects of incentives is important to maintain support.

back to top

Regulatory controls

Apply regulation judiciously to create an appropriate balance between heritage values and the rights of property owners. Ideally regulation should be counter-balanced with non-regulatory methods of management.

Heritage section

A specific heritage section often works best, rather than dispersing rules for heritage places throughout the plan. This section should provide:

• Objectives and policies, with explanatory notes and reference to alternative methods as required
• Clear and precise definitions for terms like 'minor alterations', or 'demolition' if these are being used to distinguish activity status.
• Requirements for information to be supplied with applications and further documentation that may be required if consent is granted to destroy a heritage place (see information below)
• Criteria for listing heritage places, and ranking arrangements if applicable; any special methodologies used for assessments (such as the STEM Standard Tree Evaluation Method for trees). These should be suitably robust, and recognised by the courts and the profession;
• Targeted regulatory controls covering the range of heritage places, buildings, objects, trees, archaeological sites, sites of significance to Maori, and groupings or areas of heritage places. Cross reference controls to activities likely to affect heritage places – earthworks, demolition.
• Consider design guidelines for areas where there are characteristics in common to the area and its contextual setting. These must be part of the plan if they are to have legal weight, but can also be effective as a voluntary method complementing regulatory provisions.
• Make monitoring a consent condition for resource consent applications for heritage places (eg photographic documentation before, during and after changes). Require reasonable costs of monitoring to be met by the applicant.

Activity status

There are varying levels of control exercised by different local authorities over activities which affect heritage places. It is common that:

• Controlled Activity status is used for maintenance, minor alterations, and small signs. With some places, however, even maintenance can adversely affect heritage values;
• Discretionary Activity or Non-complying status is used for demolition or major changes such as moving a building or removing trees. However, if the aim is to discourage modification and to strengthen protection, Non-complying Activity status may be preferred.
• The advance (2003 RMA Amendment) of the protection of historic heritage to a Matter of National Importance under s 6 RMA suggests that more rigorous rules will be needed in many plans. This may result in lifting of the status of activities and assessment criteria that apply to activities that affect heritage places.
• Determination of activity types to status should also recognise factors such as whether there is a good set of guidelines in place for example, what the information base is about the heritage resource, the costs of applications, and resources of Council.

Regional heritage

Ensure that regional coastal plans identify heritage places in the coastal marine area and provide for them in rules.

Archaeology

• Recognise in the plan rules that activities affecting pre-1900 archaeological sites require an application to the Historic Places Trust for authority to destroy, damage or modify an archaeological site.
• Ensure that regulatory processes for resource consents provide for the Historic Places Trust as being an adversely affected party where the proposed activity relates to land that is subject to a heritage order, or is otherwise identified in the plan as having heritage value, or affects a registered historic place, historic area, wahi tapu or wahi tapu area (refer RMA s. 94B as to affected party status).

Information

State information requirements for resource consent applications for heritage places. Include:

• A clear definition of the location of heritage places relative to the activity;
• Assessment of effects on heritage values with reference to plan assessment criteria;
• An archaeological report for archaeological sites;
• Cultural values effects documentation by tangata whenua for Maori heritage places; and
• Approval from the Historic Places Trust as an adversely affected party.
• For heritage places of significant value that are undergoing significant changes, require Conservation Plans to be prepared by a qualified professional (Refer to the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for guidance on best practice to conserve historic heritage).

back to top

Mapping

When mapping heritage places, match the appropriate mapping method with the location and type of place being mapped. For practical issues (the type of system used, GIS accuracy, scale and notations) be guided by good examples - ask around for what works. Consider the following:

• Map places such as trees, buildings, and objects on plan maps. Attempt to show accurate placement of the mark, possibly using grid references or aerial photos. Account for scale in dealing with large sites; consider blow-up insets if needed to pinpoint a place.
• Recognise the spatial arrangement and interconnectedness of certain places by designating them as areas and precincts. Depict these on maps using boundary notations or shading.
• If not already using a GIS as the basis for the plan maps, flag places on the GIS so they come up during the enquiry process (for example, PIMs and LIMs).

When mapping sites recognise the whole, not just part, of the site. Consider, for instance, a building's setting or garden.

• Map areas of known archaeological value and archaeological sites, particularly data derived from the NZ Archaeological Association site recording scheme upgrade project. Awareness of sites is most important; alternative non-statutory mapping systems may be appropriate.
• Alert layers (identifying and mapping of geographic areas with a strong likelihood of extant sites) are one method of addressing the problem of unknown archaeological sites.

back to top

Best practice examples

The following examples illustrate best practice in particular aspects of plan preparation, and in practice generally, for historic heritage management. Best practice follows the guidance note directions, but will also be largely determined by local community objectives.

The following examples illustrate best practice in particular aspects of plan preparation, as described in the guidance note.

Heritage strategies

Christchurch City Heritage Conservation Policy 1999 (PDF 840KB)
Published by Christchurch City Council - February 1999
This strategy focuses on built heritage. It ties in with ICOMOS principles, policy for earthquake-strengthening buildings, and Building Act responsibilities and incentives.

Wellington City Council Built Heritage Policy 1998
Published by Wellington City Council - June 1998
This policy contains strategic direction, with reference to methods and linkages to other Council policy such as urban design.

Identification and assessment of historic heritage values

Identification and Assessment of Historic Heritage Values: Ranking

Auckland City District Plan, pages 10-12 (PDF 512KB)
Auckland City uses ranking to determine the degree of heritage significance and the concomitant level of incentive the ranking provides.

Identification and Assessment of Historic Values: Thematic approach

The Wellington City Council Heritage Inventory of Non-Residential Buildings 2001, appendix 1 (PDF 324KB)
The heritage inventory was prepared by a rigorous method of identification. It identifies the basis used for the assessment, and provides information for assessing the effects on significance for resource consent applications.

Regional approach: Auckland and Pay of Plenty

The Auckland Regional Council and Environment Bay of Plenty are leading the way with regional approaches to integrated heritage management.

• ARC has recognised priority areas for attention and developed a methodology for this, covering 7 local authority areas: Auckland's cultural heritage.
• Environment Bay of Plenty: Heritage Areas Threats

Auckland City

This provides incentives for built heritage in the Central Business District. It involves a Heritage Floor Space Bonus able to be transferred to another site (within a defined receiving environment) with the level of the bonus calculated according to the degree of significance attributed to the building according to the Council's own heritage points evaluation system.

Incentives

Good Solutions Guide for Heritage Buildings (PDF 908KB)
Published by North Shore City Council - June 2003
A guide to making changes to older houses and sites, including aspects such as fences and gates, & a useful non-regulatory tool to encourage responsibility for heritage management by house owners.

Incentives: New Plymouth District Plan (Proposed)

New Plymouth District Plan (Proposed), pages 62-73 (PDF 1.97MB)
This plan sets out a range of incentives for heritage management. These include a cumulative $50,000 pa Heritage Protection Fund for essential and desirable work on heritage places. This covers not just buildings but could include protection of archaeological sites, for example. The plan uses a ranking system to determine the amount of funding, and can also fund up to 2 hours architect time for anyone undertaking conservation of heritage places.

Incentives: Timaru District Plan (Proposed)

Timaru District Plan (Proposed), pages 119-125, 413-416 (PDF 1.08MB)
These methods include a range of incentives. The plan currently commits 10k per annum for a Trust Fund for conservation, and funds the first hour of conservation architect time for heritage conservation projects.

Wellington City Council

This council funds earthquake-risk building strengthening. It has committed $390,000 pa for the next 3 years. Contact: Heritage Policy Advisor, 04 499 4444

Regulatory controls

Regulatory Controls: Christchurch City Plan (Proposed)

Christchurch City Plan (Proposed), extracts from chapter 10 (PDF 3.76MB)
This plan includes a process for evaluating applications, discretionary activity status for changes to heritage buildings, and requirements for records

Regulatory Controls: Kaikoura District Plan

Kaikoura District Plan, pages 148-149 (PDF 268KB)
This plan has good provisions for archaeological sites, protocols for sites and waahi tapu, and an accidental discovery protocol.

Regulatory Controls: Wellincton City District Plan

Wellington City District Plan Design Guides
These guides form part of the Wellington City District Plan. They provide an analysis of character and important elements, and guidelines as to siting, building form, detail, and site works.

Regulatory Controls: Nelson City Council Plan (Proposed)

Nelson City Council Plan (Proposed), appendix 2 (PDF 31KB)
The Proposed Nelson City Plan has a comprehensive listing of trees. These are divided into heritage and landscape trees; heritage trees are essential and landscape trees important.

Regulatory Controls: Napier City District Plan (Proposed)

This plan contains rules based on the ranking of heritage places, differentiated according to a permitted or discretionary activity status.

The plan also recognises the heritage values of groupings of places by precincts, and defines assessment criteria and limits of discretion. It also has detailed controls on signs in most significant heritage areas. The detailed nature of the provisions for Napier recognise the significance of the district's heritage.

Mapping

Mapping: Christchurch City Plan (Proposed)

Christchurch City Plan (Proposed), pages 10/59-10/60 (PDF 492KB)
This plan uses additional site plans for sites that have multiple heritage buildings.

Mapping: Carterton District Plan

Carterton District Plan, map and pages 12/12-12/13 (PDF 766KB)
Carterton District Plan identifies heritage sites at a large scale (eg 1:50,000) on planning maps, accurate as far as possible, with reference to the legal description in the plan list.
NB: Historic buildings on map circled for your attention.

Mapping: Rangitikei District Plan (Proposed)

Rangitikei District (Proposed) Plan provides site specificity in urban areas on 1:65,000 maps for special sites, marae, natural areas, notable trees, heritage features and items, on maps produced from the Digital Cadastral Database.

• Rangitikei District Plan (Proposed) - Urban map (PDF 459KB)
• Rangitikei District Plan (Proposed) - Rural map (PDF 515KB)

back to top

RMA provisions

The RMA provisions of relevance are:

• s 2 Definition of historic heritage
• s5 Historic heritage is part of the physical resource.
• s6(e)
• s7
• s8
• Sections 30, 31, 32, 35 and 36 (and references to the Second Schedule) in respect of local authority functions.
• Sections 66, 67, 74 and 75 (and references to the Second Schedule) in terms of the preparation of plans and what they can and must address.
• Sections 88, 93 and 104 in respect of the resource consent process and requirements with respect to the sufficiency of Assessments of Effects on the Environment and coverage of effects on heritage places, requirements with respect to the notification of the Historic Places Trust and its affected party status, and matters for consideration in decision-making.
• Sections 187 and 314 in terms of protection powers for heritage places relating to heritage protection authority, heritage orders and interim protection.

RMA Amendment Bill

The amendment to the RMA (2003) came into effect in August 2003 introducing new requirements for historic heritage. References are made in the above text to address the changes that have affected historic heritage.

The aspects of the amendments that of significance to heritage management are principally those which:

• Define historic heritage (see above definition)
• Make the protection of historic heritage a matter of national importance.

Historic heritage is also specifically referred to with respect to preparation of regional coastal plans. Iwi planning documents are now required to be taken into account in plan preparation.

A key consideration for local authorities with the introduction of the amendments referred to above will be how well existing heritage management and the plan provisions satisfy these requirements.

For all local authorities some form of ‘audit' would be useful. Mention is made above that this could form part of a heritage strategy. Key aspects of discovery from such an audit would be:

• Do we recognise and provide for historic heritage as defined
• What are the gaps
• What are we going to do to address the gaps and what are the priorities

There will be some challenges ahead for local authorities to identify historic heritage resources in their local context, given the breadth of the definition.

Links to Other Legislation and Agencies

There is legislation other than the RMA that local authorities need to consider in making provision for historic heritage management through plans.

• Historic Places Act 1993 This Act is administered by the NZ Historic Places Trust, the consenting authority for archaeological sites, which therefore needs to be involved in establishing the basis for management of archaeological sites through the Plan. The HPA empowers the Trust to operate a national Register of historic places, historic areas, wahi tapu and wahi tapu areas. Plans should include these (refer to Identification of Historic Heritage Places).
• Conservation Act 1987 - Heritage on public conservation land may be controlled under a Conservation Management Strategy and therefore excluded from the Plan. The Plan should cross-reference to the CMS.
• Building Act 1991 - Local authorities function to facilitate the exchange of information on historic places. This is generally achieved by noting it on the PIM (or LIM - issued pursuant to s44A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987). The Historic Heritage Act 1993 consequentially amended the Building Act by including a number of provisions that facilitate this exchange of information:
  • The TA must (within 5 days) advise the HPT of receipt of an application for a PIM where the application affects any registered historic place, historic area, wahi tapu, or wahi tapu area [s30(4)]
  • A PIM must include information from any statutory organisation that has the power to classify/register land or buildings for any purpose where the TA has been notified of that classification/register. Where the TA uses information from such a classification/register, it must also provide a copy of the PIM to the relevant organisation that provided it with the classification/register [s31(2)(b) and s31(5)]
  • Similar provisions exist in relation to applications for building consents, where the applicant has not previously sought a PIM for the building consent [s33(6)]
  • There are implications under the Building Act for heritage places, and provisions for discretion under s47 (refer to Historic Places Trust guidelines (2000) regarding Earthquake Strengthening, Fire Safety, and Accessibility).
• Reserves Act 1977 - Reserves may be classified as historic reserves. Historic reserves may be vested in local authorities or the Historic Places Trust, or local authorities or the Historic Places Trust may be appointed to control and manage historic reserves. Reserves of other classifications may also include important historic heritage. Plans should be coordinated with the overall management direction of reserve management plans, prepared under the Act.
• Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. This Act promotes the retention of land by Maori and is administered by Te Puni Kokiri. It provides for land to be set aside as Maori reserve. This may include places of historic or cultural interest.
• Local Government Act 2002. This Act will enable local government to develop its own provisions to address local issues. Heritage planning, funding and management may be a key topic of that is addressed anew through long term community planning.

back to top

Case law

Pritchard v New Plymouth District Council A020/97 2 NZED 231 refers to the extended meaning given by s 2(1) to environment.

Minhinnick v Watercare Services Limited [1997] NZRMA 553 (HC) determines that archaeological sites are a physical resource and therefore the RMA applies.

See Catholic Archdiocese of Wellington and Others v Friends of Mount Street Cemetery [1999] 4 NZED 571 with respect to determining that local authority plans are a primary protection mechanism (rather than in this case a heritage protection order).

See AA Mc Farlane Family Trust v Christchurch City Council C46/99 NZRMA 365 4 NZED 367 with respect to the determination of reasonable use and plan provisions as primary protection mechanisms.

See Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society v Minister for the Environment CP167/93 3 NZED 370 (HC) with respect to heritage protection authority and the extent to which land surrounding a place is a necessary part of ensuring protection and reasonable enjoyment, and should also be covered by the heritage order.

See PA Moran and Ors. v Transit New Zealand W55/99 regarding determination of heritage values.

See Donnelly v Gisborne District Council A13/99 5ELRNZ 138 regarding consideration of heritage values under Part II.

See Wellington City Council and Ministry for Culture and Heritage v Serious About Heritage Society Incorporated CIV2003-485-841 in the High Court in respect of determining extent of a heritage 'site' and issues of notification.

See NZ Historic Places Trust v Archer 7 NZED 121 regarding the prosecution and fine ($6,000) for damaging an archaeological site by digging for bottles.

back to top

Related guidance notes

The following guidance notes are related:

• Consultation with Tangata Whenua
• Landscapes

back to top

Work in progress

• The Ministry for the Environment is preparing guidance on Maori Historic Heritage (MHH) that covers the following:
  • An outline of the key agencies involved in MHH management in New Zealand and their respective roles;
  • An explanation of the legislation relevant to MHH, focusing particularly on links between statutes (i.e. the RMA and HPA) and the instruments available under them;
  • Identification of contemporary planning issues regarding MHH with a particular focus on identification and protection;
  • Highlighting the planning options available to address the identified issues with an emphasis placed on current best practice throughout the country;
  • An analysis of the planning options including advantages, disadvantages and best practice challenges.

back to top

Relevant publications

In the Quality Planning Library

Heritage Management Guidelines for Resource Management Practitioners
Published by New Zealand Historic Places Trust - August 2004
Guidelines to assist local authorities, owners & developers to identify & manage historic heritage under the RMA, & information on archaeological site obligations under the Historic Places Act.

Heritage Landscapes Think Tank: Report on Proceedings (PDF 318 KB)
Published by New Zealand Historic Places Trust - August 2003
The Think Tank was a discussion of heritage landscapes concepts at a national level, and discussed some of the benefits and challenges of discussing broader views of heritage.

Heritage Protection and the Compensation issue (PDF 200 KB)
Published by New Zealand Planning Institute - March 1999
Discusses how a better balance is needed between property rights & the public good, & the need for case law to establish a "reasonable use" text that will encourage retention of heritage buildings.

Sustainable Management of our Heritage (PDF 425 KB)
Published by New Zealand Planning Institute - June 1997
Discusses: critical issues for Maori sites, waahi tapu, other archaeological sites, local authority planning for heritage; and possible future national heritage structures.

Local Authorities and Heritage Management (PDF 1 MB)
Published by New Zealand Planning Institute - December 1996
This report is a guide to good heritage management practice and looks into local authority approaches to heritage protection and management.

Sustainable Heritage Management (PDF 167 KB)
Published by New Zealand Planning Institute - December 1996
Applies concepts of sustainability to the assessment & management of historic & cultural heritage, discussing the Napier buildings as a case study.

Other publications

• ICOMOS [International Council of Monuments and Sites] (1992) New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage
• Landscape New Zealand (July/August 2001) Managing Heritage - Webs and Layers
• Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (1996) Historic and Cultural Heritage Management in New Zealand
• Trapeznik A (Ed) (2000) Common Ground? Heritage and Public Places in New Zealand
• Warren AN and Taylor C N (2001) Developing Heritage Tourism in New Zealand
• Allen H (1998) Protecting Historic Places in New Zealand
• Hall MC & McArthur S (Eds) (1996) Heritage Management in Australia and New Zealand: The Human Dimension
• Pearson M & Sullivan S (1995) Looking After Heritage Places: The Basics of Heritage Planning for Managers, Landowners and Administrators
• New Zealand Historic Places Trust (2000 series) Guidelines for Earthquake Strengthening; Guidelines for Making Heritage Buildings Accessible; Preparing Conservation Plans; Fire Safety; and Developing Heritage Buildings.
• Department of Conservation Guidelines for Assessing Archaeological Value
• New Zealand Historic Places Trust (2000/2001): Archaeological Site Brochures: Applying for an Archaeological Authority; and Protecting Archaeological Sites.
• Ministry for the Environment (1992) Brochures: Heritage Protection - A Guide for the Public; and Protection of Maori Heritage Places.

Websites

The Post Occupancy Evaluation website may also be a useful resource. The website contains information and case studies on Post Occupancy Evaluation. This is a systematic evaluation of opinion about buildings in use, from the perspective of the people who use them. It assesses how well buildings match users' needs, and identifies ways to improve building design, performance and fitness for purpose.

back to top

Current challenges in practice

Responding to the RMA Amendment Act (2003). There will be a need to reconsider the protection of historic heritage as a matter of national importance. This will create challenges in terms of:

• Having the capacity within local authorities to undertake the work required – a comprehensive review may be a sizeable task that may require multiple skills not usually found in house (eg historian, conservation architect, archaeologist, researcher).
• With the tendency having been to allow adaptation to many places or their demolition or destruction in order to try and facilitate development, the new requirements for the protection of historic heritage will require a philosophical shift which will be an issue in many places – when is heritage being protected, how far can change occur and still retain heritage value - these are questions that will need rethinking.
• Obtaining quality of information and understanding of what is historic heritage in the local context - this may require relative levels of a District/Region to determine which places should be protected
• Establishing interfaces with community planning (under the Local Government Act)
• The need to partner with tangata whenua in order to achieve the effective protection of historic heritage and the form that partnership should take.

Managing archaeological sites. Given that the responsibility for management is with NZHPT and the extent and location of archaeological sites is often unknown, the ability of local authorities to address these effects of activities on these places is a challenge. For example:

• How to record sites in a way that allows District planning decisions to take account of them.
• How to map sites when the location of all the sites will never be known.
• How to ensure that the 'sensitive' sites (eg wahi tapu) are recognised and provided for without jeopardising the site by its public disclosure.
• Involvement of tangata whenua in heritage management and heritage value identification. There are cross-over issues with resourcing, relationships with local authorities and with other iwi. There is an opportunity for iwi management plans to address heritage management and now to be taken account of under the RMA, s104. Section 42 of the RMA provides opportunities to protect sensitive information, but this needs to be balanced against the public interest in having this information available.

Regional Significance: It is a function of Regional Plans to address effects of the use, development or protection of land which are of regional significance. Heritage values derive from activities and development that are not confined to District boundaries. For example, the distribution of dairy factories which might individually have local value, may take on a regional significance when they are seen in association with each other; the same may be said for archaeological sites. Consideration of regional significance will create challenges in terms of:

• How to assess regional significance as different from district significance
• Determining the relative role of regional plans and district plans to effectively protect historic heritage as per s6 RMA given the need for some coordination between the jurisdictions. Given that heritage values can be best 'read' at a regional level given spatial distribution and relationships (i.e. the cultural landscape), will it be a matter of identification regionally and then protection at a district level, or will there be regional and district 'lists?'

back to top

Acknowledgements and Editorial Comments

This guidance note was prepared by Marc Baily, Boffa Miskell Ltd ( Wellington). Best efforts have been made to make correct references to legislation and work of others, but refer in all instances to the source.

Thanks and acknowledgement to NZHPT for some of the best practice examples references and assistance to the editorial panel; and Greg Vossler for peer review of the 2002 notes.

This guidance note was prepared in June 2002 and updated in December 2003.