Plans, policies and reports

YOU ARE IN: Your council > Plans, policies and reports

District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

(Notified version 2006)

Hearing reports index

Summary report on submissions to the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006

Topic:	Part 7 – Heritage (archaeological sites)
Report to:	The Hearing Panel
Author:	Sarah Smith, assistant planner
Date:	1 September 2008
Group file:	314/274010-001

1.0 Introduction

For ease of use and understanding, the heritage submissions and further submissions have been divided into the seven themes which relate to different heritage disciplines:

archaeological sites
buildings, objects, properties and places of special value
conservation areas
ecological sites
geological items
Maori heritage
trees.

Each heritage theme has been addressed in a separate hearing report. Each hearing report addresses all matters within the Plan that relate to that discipline. For example, this report addresses submissions relating to archaeological sites in:

part 7 – Heritage
appendix 1a – Schedule of archaeological sites – inner islands
appendix 2b – Schedule of archaeological sites – outer islands
appendix 4 – Criteria for scheduling heritage items.

There are submissions that relate to more than one discipline; these have been addressed in the general heritage hearing report.

This report considers submissions and further submissions ('submissions') that were received by the council in relation to archaeological sites of the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006 ('the Plan'). The Plan was publicly notified on 18 September 2006. The closing date for lodging submissions was 11 December 2006. The submissions and summary of decisions requested were publicly notified for further submission on 29 April 2007. The closing date for lodging further submissions was 28 May 2007.

This report has been prepared under section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 ('the RMA'), to assist the hearings panel to consider the submissions on archaeological sites. This report discusses the submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually) and includes recommendations from the planner who prepared this report. The recommendations identify whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in part) and what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in submissions. Further submissions are not specifically addressed but are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate.

The recommendations contained in this report are not decisions of the council. The council will issue its decisions following consideration of the submissions, further submissions, any supporting evidence presented at the hearing, and this report. The council's decisions will be released after all the hearings to the Plan have been completed.

2.0 Statutory framework

This section of the report briefly sets out the statutory framework within which the council must consider the submissions. In preparing this report the submissions and, in particular, the decisions requested in the submissions, have been considered in light of the relevant statutory matters. These were summarised by the Environment Court in Eldamos Investments Limited v Gisborne District Council W 047/05 where the court set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in district plans:

The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
1. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a)); and
2. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
3. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)).
The policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they:
1. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b)); and
2. Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and
3. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and
4. (If a rule) achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan (s76(1)(b)).

The purpose of the RMA is "to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources", and "sustainable management" is defined in section 5(2) as meaning:

"... managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while—

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

Along with section 5, part 2 of the RMA includes sections 6 (matters of national importance), 7 (other matters) and 8 (Treaty of Waitangi), which set out a range of matters that the council needs to recognise and provide for in achieving the purpose of the RMA. Those matters are also relevant when considering submissions.

The Plan must assist the council to carry out its functions under section 31 of the RMA. These functions are:

"(a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:

(b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of—

(i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and

(ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and

(iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land:

(iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:

(d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:

(e) The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes."

In addition to the matters listed above from the Eldamos decision:

The Plan must "give effect to" any national policy statement and any New Zealand coastal policy statement (s75(3)(a) and (b)).
The Plan must "give effect to" the regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005) (s75(3)(c)).
The Plan must be "not inconsistent with" any regional plan (s75(4)).
The council must ensure that that the Plan does not conflict with sections 7 and 8 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 ("the HGMPA"). Section 10 of the HGMPA requires that sections 7 and 8 of that Act be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement under the RMA.

3.0 Background

This section of the report sets out background information about the topic under consideration. It identifies how the Plan deals with archaeological sites.

The archaeological heritage of the islands comprises an underlying and often invisible record of past human activity. Archaeological sites are a fragile cultural resource containing scientific, cultural or historic evidence of the exploration, occupation, settlement and development of this area by indigenous and early European people.

The Plan identifies and protects significant archaeological sites. To determine whether an archaeological site is worthy of protection in the Plan, it is assessed and evaluated against the criteria in appendix 4. The evaluation criteria is also used to determine whether a site is a category A or B item. Category A items are extremely valuable archaeological sites that are considered to have heritage significance beyond their immediate surrounds. Category B are sites that are considered to be less significant then category A sites but still need to be protected from inappropriate use and development.

In protecting archaeological sites, the Plan applies different rules to sites depending on their management group type and category. The six management group types are:

Archaeological earthworks – large scale
Archaeological earthworks – small scale
Buildings and other structures
Burials
Archaeological deposits
Maritime.

It is noted that there are archaeological sites that are not known to the council, or that do not have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling, however all sites that meet the definition of "archaeological site" are protected under the Historic Places Act.

4.0 Analysis of submissions

4.1 Introduction

This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about archaeological sites and recommends how the panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. The submissions are addressed under subject headings. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in section 2.0 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given appropriate consideration to these and any other relevant matters.

A list of the submissions which raise issues about archaeological sites together with the related further submissions is contained in appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains the summary of the decisions requested by the submissions considered in this report. Any amendments to the Plan recommended in response to submissions are identified in this section of the report and are further detailed in appendix 3.

The list of submissions contained in appendix 1 may include some submissions and further submissions which were received 'late', ie they were received after the closing date for lodging submissions (11 December 2006) or further submissions (28 May 2007). All late submissions were considered by the hearing panel at the start of the hearing process and the panel has already waived the failure to comply with the time limit for any late submissions or further submissions listed in appendix 1. This has been done in accordance with sections 37 and 37A of the RMA.

4.2 Submissions about general issues

Submissions dealt with in this section: 511/1, 511/2, 511/3, 511/4, 1185/1, 1185/2, 1185/3, 1185/4, 2643/7, 2643/8, 2644/8, 2644/9, 2910/1

4.2.1 Decisions requested

Submissions 511/1 and 1185/1 seek compensation from council to land owners who have identified archaeological sites on their land which causes any inconvenience to them such as re-planning of proposed house building.

Submissions 511/2 and 1185/2 seek for the council to compensate owners for loss of use of their own land due to archaeological sites.

Submissions 511/3 and 1185/3 seek that the council pay for any archaeologist's reports that need to be done in regard to building platform approvals.

Submissions 511/4 and 1185/4 seek that if the archaeological site is deemed significant and causes the owners of the land not to be able to build where they had planned that the section be bought at current market value and be protected and used as a public resource.

Submissions 2643/7 and 2644/8 request for a reassessment of their valuation (with a view to a reduction in their valuation and thereby or rates due to presence of scheduled heritage items (map ref 16-1, 19-1, 19-2.) at 630 Gordons Road) by Auckland City Council Valuation Department.

Submissions 2643/8 and 2644/9 seek that in the event that the council either declines to reassess our valuation or determines not to reduce our valuation, to offer rates relief at least proportionate to the amount of our land area that is subject to scheduling as a heritage item (16-1) and (19-1) respectively.

Submission 2910/1 seeks that further discovered heritage archaeological sites received immediate interim protection pending assessment. Include other relevant criteria in the proposal.

4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.2.2.1 Compensation

Submissions 511/1, 511/2, 511/4, 1185/1, 1185/2 and 1185/4 seek compensation from the council for the restrictive land use rules applied. It is noted that in achieving sustainable management of natural and physical resources, council must recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance as set out in Section 6 of the Resource Management Act:

" 6 Matters of national importance

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance:

(a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

(b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

(d) The maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers:

(e) The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga.

(f) The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.

(g) The protection of recognised customary activities." [writers emphasis]

Therefore it is considered that the provisions in part 7 of the Plan are necessary in order for the council to be able fulfil its requirements and to ensure significant archaeological sites are protected from inappropriate use, subdivision and development, and to promote sustainable management. In relation to archaeological sites council seeks to do this by requiring resource consents for most activities within a scheduled archaeological site and its scheduled site surrounds.

Section 85 of the RMA outlines that compensation may be payable for proposed provisions that would render the interest in the land incapable of reasonable use. Reasonable use is defined in the Act to include the use or potential use of the land for any activity whose actual or potential effects on any aspect of the environment or on any person other than the applicant would not be significant. There are a number of activities that are permitted or require resource consent for scheduled archaeological sites. While most activities require resource consent it is unlikely that the land is incapable of reasonable use. The need to apply for a resource consent is not, in itself, rendering the site incapable of use. It is also noted that all archaeological sites, as defined by the Historic Places Act (HPA), are protected under the HPA, regardless of the Plan's requirements. Therefore, an authority to modify would be required from the Historic Places Trust even if the sites had not been scheduled by the Plan.

Therefore it is not considered necessary to provide for compensation. It is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Submissions 2643/7 and 2644/8 request a reassessment of their valuation with a view to a reduction in their valuation or rates due to presence of scheduled heritage items. Submissions 2643/8 and 2644/9 seek that in the event that the council either declines to reassess our valuation or determines not to reduce our valuation, to offer rates relief at least proportionate to the amount of our land area that is subject to scheduling as a heritage item (16-1) and (19-1) respectively.

Both of these matters are outside the scope of the Plan and therefore it is recommended that these submissions be rejected. This is a matter that the submitter should raise with the valuation services in the council and not through the plan review process. The following website provides information on the process if someone should want to object their valuation: http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/services/valuation/objections.asp .

4.2.2.2 Assistance

Submissions 511/3 and 1185/3 seek that the council pay for any archaeologist's reports that need to be done in regard to building platform approvals.

It is considered that obtaining an archaeologist's report for a resource consent application is akin to obtaining an engineering report or similar. The council does not offer to pay for specialist reports that may be needed to assist the council in determining the extent and type of effects that may result from a particular activity. This is also a matter that is outside the scope of the Plan and therefore it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.2.2.3 Interim protection

Submission 2910/1 seeks that further discovered heritage archaeological sites receive immediate interim protection pending assessment. Include other relevant criteria in the proposal.

All archaeological sites, as defined in the HPA, are protected by the Historic Places Act 1993, with an authority required from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to modify, damage or destroy any archaeological site. Therefore interim protection is provided to all archaeological sites under different legislation. It is noted that even once archaeological sites are protected by the Plan they continue to be protected by the Historic Places Act.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted with no amendments to the Plan as all archaeological sites are protected whether scheduled in the Plan or not.

Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to general issues

That submissions 511/1, 511/2, 511/3, 511/4, 1185/1, 1185/2, 1185/3, 1185/4, 2643/7, 2643/8, 2644/8 and 2644/9 be rejected.

That submission 2910/1 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

4.3 Submissions about 7.8

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2641/19, 2912/4

4.3.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2641/19 seeks to amend clause 7.8 to state the following or similar:

The archaeological heritage of the islands comprises an underlying and often invisible record of past human activity... Archaeological sites..., by definition can include above surface, surface and subsurface components.

Submission 2912/4 seeks to retain clause 7.8.

4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.3.2.1 Above surface components

Submission 2641/19 seeks to give appropriate recognition to built archaeology by including the wording 'above surface' to the introduction.

The second paragraph in clause 7.8 as notified states:

"Archaeological sites are characterised by the presence of physical remains, evidence or structures and modified landscapes and, by definition, include surface and subsurface components. ..."

It is agreed that wording could be added to clarify that archaeological sites can include above surface components. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted.

4.3.2.2 Support

Submission 2912/4 seeks to retain clause 7.8. It is recommended that this submission be accepted as it supports the council's requirement to protect historic heritage.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to clause 7.8

That submission 2641/19 be accepted and the second paragraph of clause 7.8 be amended accordingly to state:

Archaeological sites are characterised by the presence of physical remains, evidence or structures and modified landscapes and, by definition, can include above surface , surface and subsurface components. However, surface evidence on such sites may be obscure, or absent.

That submission 2912/4 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

4.4 Submissions about clause 7.8.1

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1243/53, 2519/4, 2641/20, 3521/63, 3521/64

4.4.1 Decisions requested

These submissions relating to clause 7.8.1 raise the following issues:

removing last sentence
including timing of external document to be produced
amending definition of archaeological sites
amending the clause to provide more information on the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993
highlighting.

4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.4.2.1 Document containing all known archaeological sites

Submission 1243/53 seeks to remove the last sentence from clause 7.8.1 which states "The council intends to produce a document containing information about known archaeological sites in the inner islands which have not been scheduled in the Plan."

It is intended that this map will not become part of the Plan but will be non-statutory educational information.

Accordingly, it is considered inappropriate to have this sentence in the Plan as it will be non-statutory and once this document is completed a plan change will need to occur to update this sentence. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted and the sentence removed from this clause.

Submission 3521/64 seeks to amend clause 7.8.1 to specify the timing of the production of the document containing information about known archaeological sites in the inner islands which have not been scheduled in the Plan.

It is noted that this document is underway however it is not known when this document will be completed and therefore it is inappropriate to include a reference to the timing. Notwithstanding this, as noted above, it has been recommended that this sentence be removed entirely from the clause. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.4.2.2 Archaeological site definition

Submission 2519/4 seeks to amend clause 7.8.1 so that the definition is consistent with the Historic Places Act definition. The wording in clause 7.8.1 is not consistent with the definition in the Historic Places Act and therefore it is supported that this clause be amended. It is recommended that this submission be accepted and clause 7.8.1 be amended accordingly.

4.4.2.3 Amending the clause

Submission 2641/20 seeks to amend clause 7.8.1 to state the following or similar:

If any archaeological site is to be damaged, destroyed or modified an authority must be sought from the NZHPT. An authority is required prior to damaging, destroying or modifying any archaeological site, whether scheduled within this Plan or not. The council intends to produce a document containing information about known archaeological sites in the ~~inner islands~~ Hauraki Gulf Islands which have not been scheduled in the Plan.

The submission further states that this section confuses the protection of archaeological sites under the provision of the Historic Places Act 1993 and protection of archaeological sites scheduled in the Plan. The title of this section is 'The archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993.'

It is acknowledged that the title of this section infers that it will only discuss the provisions of the Historic Places Act. However, it is considered that it is important to convey that archaeological sites that did not reach the threshold score for scheduling are still protected under the Historic Places Act. It is agreed that the wording should be included to advise that authority is required prior to any works that will affect an archaeological site. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted in part and clause 7.8.1 be amended as follows:

An archaeological site is defined under the Historic Places Act 1993 as a place associated with human activity that occurred before 1900, or may be able through investigation by archaeological methods to provide evidence relating to the history of New Zealand. Not all archaeological sites within the islands have been scheduled in the Plan. All known archaeological sites were evaluated against the criteria as outlined in clause 7.8.4. However only those sites that have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling have been protected in the Plan. Notwithstanding this, all archaeological sites are protected under the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993. An authority from New Zealand Historic Places Trust is required prior to damaging, destroying or modifying any archaeological site, whether scheduled in the Plan or not. those archaeological sites that did not have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling in the Plan are still protected by the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993. The council intends to produce a document containing information about known archaeological sites in the inner islands which have not been scheduled in the Plan.

4.4.2.4 Highlighting

Submission 3521/63 seeks to amend clause 7.8.1 by highlighting the following sentence: "Notwithstanding this, those archaeological sites that did not have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling in the Plan are still protected by the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993."

The highlighting of this sentence is not supported as it has equal importance to other clauses or parts of the clause in the Plan. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to clause 7.8.1

That submissions 3521/63 and 3521/64 be rejected.

That submissions 1243/53 and 2519/4 be accepted and submission 2641/20 be accepted in part and clause 7.8.1 be amended accordingly to state:

An archaeological site is defined under the Historic Places Act 1993 as a place associated with human activity that occurred before 1900, and is or may be able through investigation by archaeological methods to provide evidence relating to the history of New Zealand. Not all archaeological sites within the islands have been scheduled in the Plan. All known archaeological sites were evaluated against the criteria as outlined in clause 7.8.4. However only those sites that have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling have been protected in the Plan. Notwithstanding this, all archaeological sites are protected under the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993. An authority from New Zealand Historic Places Trust is required prior to damaging, destroying or modifying any archaeological site, whether scheduled in the Plan or not. those archaeological sites that did not have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling in the Plan are still protected by the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993. The council intends to produce a document containing information about known archaeological sites in the inner islands which have not been scheduled in the Plan.

4.5 Submissions about clause 7.8.3

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2641/21

4.5.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2641/21 seeks to retain clause 7.8.3.

4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

Clause 7.8.3 is the objective and policies for archaeological sites. The Plan seeks to protect significant archaeological sites which contribute to the islands heritage and therefore seeks to fulfil the matter of national importance to protect historic heritage from inappropriate use and development. This is supported by the policies in this clause. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted as it supports this clause.

Planner's recommendations about submissions to clause 7.8.3

That submission 2641/21 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

4.6 Submissions about clause 7.8.4

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2091/5, 2641/22

4.6.1 Decisions requested

These submissions raise the following issues:

further information of the scoring system
reminder of the Historic Places Act provisions.

4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.6.2.1 Scoring system

Submission 2091/5 seeks to amend clause 7.8.4 by adding the following wording at the end of the second paragraph:

The council uses a scoring system to rank the visible aspects of archaeological sites against the evaluation criteria. Under this scoring system, sites which rank highly enough to warrant scheduling are given a category A or B status as follows:

category A – 70 points and over
category B – 50 -69 points.

Appendix 4 of the Plan sets out the criteria for scheduling heritage items including trees. The appendix does not state the method of evaluation nor explain the points system used. It is considered that this information is not necessary as an experienced heritage specialist is the only person to use this evaluation method.

Therefore to include the above paragraph as requested by the submitter would cause further confusion and is meaningless without reasoning of how points are allocated. Therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Therefore it is recommended that submission 2091/5 be rejected.

4.6.2.2 Reminder of Historic Places Act provisions

Submission 2641/22 seeks to amend clause 7.8.4 to state the following or similar:

As noted in clause 7.8.1, all archaeological sites are protected by the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993. An authority is required from the NZHPT prior to damaging, destroying or modifying any archaeological site, whether the site is scheduled within the Plan.

This clause informs the user of the Plan that archaeological sites are scheduled in the Plan determined on their value when assessed against the criteria in appendix 4. Therefore it is considered inappropriate to discuss the provisions of the Historic Places Act in this clause, as well as an unnecessary repetition of the amended clause 7.8.1. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to clause 7.8.4

That submissions 2091/5 and 2641/22 be rejected.

4.7 Submissions about clause 7.8.5

Submissions dealt with in this section: 1243/54, 1243/55, 2641/23, 3521/65

4.7.1 Decisions requested

These submission raise the following issues:

landowner awareness
fencing assistance
description of the buildings and other structures management group
reference to NZHPT.

4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.7.2.1 Landowner awareness

Submission 1243/54 seeks for management group type E (archaeological deposits) to ensure that landowners are aware of category A and B sites on their properties.

While this submission effectively addresses a process issue it is noted that council attempted to contact property owners prior to surveying the archaeological sites, although some owners were unable to be contacted. Therefore most landowners will be aware of the archaeological site(s) on their properties from the site visits by the council.

Landowners have the opportunity to see if there are any archaeological sites on their properties by viewing the proposed plan and the accompanying maps.

Therefore it is considered that the council has the processes in place to ensure that landowners can easily find out if they have archaeological items on their properties. It is also noted that the council undertook consultation as part of the Plan review process and notification of the proposed Plan was well documented. Notwithstanding the above, council cannot be responsible for notifying all land owners of all provisions in the Plan that may affect them. It is recommended that this submission be accepted with no amendments to the Plan as the council has processes for increasing awareness of landowners to the presence of archaeological sites.

4.7.2.2 Fencing assistance

Submission 1243/55 seeks for management group type E (archaeological deposits), for the council to provide assistance to fence off land where it is not practical to exclude the types of stock for which consent is required for, or which are prohibited from, grazing.

The council provides funding assistance for some conservation projects on private land. Other organisations including the Auckland Regional Council and QEII National Trust also provide funding assistance. The QEII National Trust provides opportunities and assistance in protecting special areas through an open space covenant. The QEII Trust also offers funding assistance for activities such as fencing to eligible applicants. It is also noted that the council has previously not charged for the heritage component of a resource consent.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected as this is a matter that is outside the scope of the district plan.

4.7.2.3 Description of management group type C

Submission 2641/23 seeks to amend under management group C the following or similar:

Sites which include buildings and other structures/features within the curtilage, or the remains of buildings and other structures/features within the curtilage.

The wording as notified states:

"Sites which include the remains of buildings and other structures on the land which could include stone features or the remains of historical industries such as mine adits."

It is considered unnecessary to include the word curtilage in this description of management group type C. The site surrounds will normally include the curtilage of a archaeological item. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.7.2.4 Reference to NZHPT

Submission 3521/65 seeks to amend clause 7.8.5 to refer directly to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust's sole power to issue an authority to modify or destroy an archaeological site under ss.11 and 12 of the Historic Places Act 1993.

Clause 7.8.5 outlines the rules for archaeological sites scheduled in the Plan and the management group types. It is therefore considered inappropriate to include reference to NZHPT in this clause. It is noted that it has been recommended above to have reference to NZHPT and the provisions of the Historic Places Act in clause 7.8.1 of the Plan. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to clause 7.8.5

That submission 1243/54 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.

That submissions 1243/55, 2641/23 and 3521/65 be rejected.

4.8 Submissions about table 7.1

Submissions dealt with in this section: 526/16, 527/16, 528/16, 529/16, 539/16, 721/2, 1269/1, 1269/3, 1274/8, 2643/2, 2643/3, 2643/5, 2644/3, 2644/4, 2644/6, 2916/1

4.8.1 Decisions requested

These submissions raise the following issues:

to acknowledge and provide for existing farming and grazing operations including areas of the submitters land covered by rules in table 7.1
existing use rights
planting of trees and digging gardens
grazing of heavy animals
retention of table 7.1.

4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.8.2.1 Prohibition of grazing

Submissions 526/16, 527/16, 528/16, 529/16 and 539/16 seek for table 7.1 to acknowledge and provide for existing farming and grazing operations including areas of the company's land. The submitters further state that the prohibition of grazing of animals does not allow for existing farming operations.

The table acknowledges and provides for grazing within the Plan where the grazing of light animals such as sheep is a permitted activity in category A scheduled sites. However, in the Plan as notified a resource consent is required for the grazing of heavy animals such as cattle in category A archaeological sites, management groups C and D, and is prohibited in management groups A, B and E.

The rationale for requiring consent or prohibiting particular types of activities is that heavy animals can damage or destroy archaeological sites and therefore it is considered appropriate for a resource consent to be required, or in some instances for particular types of activities to be prohibited. The issue of whether a prohibited status is appropriate in this instance is discussed below in section 4.10.2.1 of this report.

It is also noted that the submitter may have existing use rights as discussed below.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted in part as the Plan does provide for grazing of light animals as a permitted activity and the grazing of heavy animals in management groups C and D as restricted discretionary activities.

4.8.2.2 Existing use rights

Submissions 1274/8, 2643/5 and 2644/6 seek for the council to confirm in writing that routine maintenance (involving thistle and other weed grubbing) is not captured by heading 2 and 13 on activity table 7.1 and that the submitter may continue therefore to undertake routine farm maintenance as they have done in previous, but not recent, years.

It is acknowledged that the archaeology section does not provide for routine maintenance, redecoration or repair etc as a permitted activities as is done for buildings, objects, properties and places of special value. This is addressed in 4.8.2.3 below.

In relation to the issue of existing use rights the submitter is seeking for the council to state that they have existing use rights to continue routine farm maintenance. Section 10 of the RMA allows certain existing uses which were lawfully established to continue despite contravening a rule of a proposed or operative district plan which subsequently comes into force.

The council cannot provide written confirmation of existing use rights to the submitter as part of the Plan review process. The submitter would have to provide supporting evidence and documentation that the activities were lawfully established to Auckland City Environments and apply for a Certificate of Existing Use pursuant to section 139A of the Resource Management Act.

Notwithstanding this, it is noted that these submissions are outside the scope of the district plan and therefore it is recommended that they be rejected.

4.8.2.3 Planting trees and gardening

Submission 721/2 requests that planting of trees and digging gardens be permitted activities in these areas (category A scheduled archaeological sites).

The planting of trees or the forming of new gardens may detrimentally affect the values of a scheduled archaeological site for which it has been scheduled. It is considered that the disturbance of the land has the potential to degrade and destroy an archaeological site and therefore the planting of trees or digging of new gardens may result in the loss or degradation of an archaeological site. Category A archaeological sites are extremely valuable and need to be preserved. Requiring a resource consent enables the council to assess the effects of planting on the values and the physical material of the site.

On balance it is considered too onerous to require a resource consent for hand weeding a garden and therefore it is recommended that hand weeding be excluded from the earthworks control and this submission be accepted in part.

4.8.2.4 Grazing of heavy animals

Submission 1269/1 and 1269/3 seek that the grazing by heavy animals be deleted from table 7.1 as it relates to management group types C and D, or they are listed as being permitted. The rationale for this, as outlined in the submission, is that the scheduled area on their site generally encompasses farmland that has been grazed for 65 years; the cost of prevention will be excessive as the only way to stop animals grazing is to fence the site off and there will be a loss of economic vitality.

As already noted, the Plan does not extinguish existing use rights which are provided for in section 10 of the RMA. If the activity has been carried out for 65 years then it is possible these will apply. It is also noted that sites would have been protected by the Historic Places Act provisions, regardless of them being scheduled in the Plan. Notwithstanding these issues, it is acknowledged that there may be a loss of productive use and other costs associated with having scheduled archaeological sites on a property. In scheduling archaeological sites council is recognising and providing for matters of national importance, such as the protection of historic heritage, however, it is important that scheduling sites must be guided by the overarching purpose of the RM Act. Archaeological sites are physical resources that must be managed sustainably. However, council has chosen to only schedule those archaeological sites that have sufficient heritage value to meet the criteria outlined in the Plan.

It is not considered appropriate to delete the grazing of heavy animals from this table for management group types C and D as this would mean that only the land unit provisions control the grazing of heavy animals. This could result in damage to or the destruction of the archaeological site. It is considered that such an approach would not recognise and provide for matter of national importance, nor would it promote sustainable management. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

It is noted that many of the burial sites may also be scheduled as Maori heritage sites in a future plan change and would therefore require a consent under the provisions for scheduled Maori heritage sites where any activity which involves ground disturbance is a discretionary activity.

The requirement for a consent provides an opportunity for the council to consider the impacts of grazing on the archaeological site and if appropriate place conditions such as restrictions on the season for grazing and the stocking rate. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected and the activity status remain restricted discretionary.

Submissions 2643/2 and 2644/3 seek to amend table 7.1 so that the continued grazing of horses and cattle on the scheduled areas 19-1 and 16-1, respectively, is a permitted activity. As an alternative to a permitted status submissions 2643/3 and 2644/4 seek to amend the table so that the continued grazing of horses and cattle is a restricted discretionary activity. It is noted that this is a category A archaeological site and is in management group A and therefore grazing of heavy animals is a prohibited activity in the Plan as notified.

It is not considered appropriate to apply different rules to individual properties based on their land uses. Therefore to make a change to the table in relation to these specific archaeological sites would result in the activity status for grazing heavy animals in all management group A archaeological sites a permitted or restricted discretionary activity (i.e. less restrictive).

It is not considered appropriate for the grazing of heavy animals to be a permitted or restricted discretionary activity in table 7.1 as this table relates to category A archaeological sites. These are extremely valuable archaeological sites that, when assessed against the relevant criteria, were considered to have heritage significance beyond their immediate surrounds. Their loss or degradation would be unacceptable in terms of achieving the purpose of the RMA. These sites need to be preserved and as heavy animals could create considerable damage to archaeological sites it is not appropriate to permit this activity nor give it a restricted discretionary activity status.

It is noted that the submitters may have existing use rights to continue grazing heavy animals on these archaeological sites; existing use rights are discussed above in section 4.8.2.2 of this report.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected based on the above reasoning.

4.8.2.5 Support

Submission 2916/1 seeks to retain table 7.1 and enhance the levels of control proposed.

It is recommended that this submission be accepted in part in so far as it supports the retention of table 7.1 which sets out the provisions for category A scheduled archaeological sites. The submitter does not elaborate on how the council should enhance the levels of control proposed.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to table 7.1

That submissions 526/16, 527/16, 528/16, 529/16, 539/16 and 2916/1 be accepted in part with no amendments to the Plan.

That submissions 1269/1, 1269/3, 1274/8, 2643/2, 2643/3, 2643/5, 2644/3, 2644/4 and 2644/6 be rejected.

That submission 721/2 be accepted in part and table 7.1 be amended to exclude hand weeding from the earthworks control.

4.9 Submissions about table 7.2

Submissions dealt with in this section: 526/17, 527/17, 528/17, 529/17, 539/17, 721/3, 834/2, 892/1, 892/2, 892/3, 892/4, 892/5, 1269/2, 1269/4, 1271/4, 3547/1, 3548/1

4.9.1 Decisions requested

These submissions generally raise the following issues:

amendments relating to a specific property
to acknowledge and provide for existing farming and grazing operations including areas of the submitters land covered by rules in table 7.1
planting trees and gardening
grazing by heavy animals.

4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.9.2.1 9 Hamilton Road, Surfdale

Submission 892 seeks for various amendments to table 7.2 in relation to their property at 9 Hamilton Road, Waiheke:

amend table 7.2 to enable the right to plant vegetation or trees suitable for the site without consent
amend table 7.2 to enable the right to alter and add necessary building to my property
amend table 7.2 to enable the right to construct a fence or post on the property
amend table 7.2 to enable the right to relocate or build a new home in the future
amend table 7.2 to enable the right to replace or upgrade utility services without consent.

The archaeological site that is located partly on the submitter's property is map reference 9-10. Submissions relating to this category B archaeological site have been addressed below in section 4.13 of this report and it has been recommended to confine the extent of this archaeological site to public land along the foreshore. Therefore the submitter's property would no longer be within this archaeological site and the provisions of table 7.2 would not apply.

Notwithstanding this, it is considered appropriate to include an activity in the tables to clarify that the maintenance, repair and restoration of buildings is a permitted activity. It is only once any alterations are proposed to extend the footprint of the building that a resource consent is required. It is therefore recommended that submission 892/2 be accepted in part.

It is recommended that submissions 892/1, 892/3, 892/4 and 892/5 be rejected on the basis that the recommendation below will be accepted and the archaeological site will be removed from this property.

4.9.2.2 Prohibition of grazing

Submissions 526/17, 527/17, 528/17, 529/17 and 539/17 seek for table 7.2 to acknowledge and provide for existing farming and grazing operations including areas of the company's land. The submitters further state that the prohibition of grazing of animals does not allow for existing farming operations.

The table acknowledges and provides for grazing within the Plan where the grazing of light animals such as sheep is a permitted activity in category B scheduled sites. However, in the Plan as notified a resource consent is required for the grazing of heavy animals such as cattle in category B archaeological sites, management groups A, B, C and D, and is prohibited in management group E.

Heavy animals can damage or destroy archaeological sites and therefore it is appropriate for a resource consent to be required for this activity as the council has a requirement under the RMA to protect our historic heritage. The issue of whether a prohibited status is appropriate in this instance is discussed below in section 4.10.2.1 of this report.

It is also noted that the provisions of the Plan do not extinguish any existing use rights that may apply as discussed in section 4.8.2.2 of this report.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted in part without amendments to the Plan as the Plan does provide for grazing of light animals as permitted and the grazing of heavy animals in management groups A,B, C and D as restricted discretionary activities.

4.9.2.3 Planting trees and gardening

Submission 721/3 seeks that the planting of trees and digging of gardens be permitted activities in these areas (category B scheduled archaeological sites).

The planting of trees or the forming of new gardens may detrimentally affect the values of a scheduled archaeological site for which it has been scheduled. It is considered that the disturbance of the land has the potential to degrade and destroy an archaeological site and therefore the planting of trees or digging of new gardens may result in the loss or degradation of an archaeological site. Requiring a resource consent enables the council to assess the effects of planting on the values and the physical material of the site.

Furthermore, it is noted that some archaeological sites encompass dwellings and the council does not want to prevent any reasonable use of the land. It is considered that the routine maintenance of existing domestic gardens and lawns should be a permitted activity. It is also noted that scheduled archaeological sites do not cover all of a property and so there are alternative locations to situate a vegetable garden.

On balance, it is considered too onerous for the council to require a resource consent for hand weeding of a garden and therefore it is considered appropriate to exclude hand wedding from the earthworks control. It is recommended that this submission be accepted in part.

Submission 834/2 seeks that permitted activities for most of this area (map ref 18-5) includes normal vineyard activities.

It is considered that a vineyard activity is too broad as it encompasses a variety of activities. If vineyard activities results in earthworks or the planting of vegetation, or any other activity listed in table 7.2, then a resource consent is required. If the vineyard activities do not trigger any of the activities listed in this table then the land unit provisions apply and there are no further restrictions due to the archaeological site.

Activities that result in ground disturbance may damage or destroy the archaeological site and therefore it is not considered appropriate for the council to permit vineyard activities.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.9.2.4 Grazing of heavy animals

Submission 1269/2 seeks that grazing by heavy animals be deleted from table 7.2 as it relates to management group types C and D. It is not considered appropriate to delete the grazing of heavy animals from this table for management group types C and D as this would mean that only the land unit provisions control the grazing of heavy animals and that no further restrictions are placed on their grazing. This is inappropriate as heavy animals can damage or destroy archaeological sites. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 1269/4 seeks that grazing of heavy animals in management group types C and D be a permitted activity in table 7.2. As notified, the grazing by heavy animals in table 7.2 for management group types C and D is a restricted discretionary activity. Heavy animals can create considerable damage to archaeological sites resulting in their degradation or loss, therefore it is considered appropriate for there to be a requirement for a resource consent. Should consent be granted it also provides an opportunity for the council to place conditions on the consent avoiding or mitigating the potential for adverse effects. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected and the activity status remain restricted discretionary.

Submission 3547/1 seeks a change to activity 11 in table 7.2 to make the grazing of heavy animals permitted, so that the property owners are free to make these decisions in accordance with the needs of the land. The size and number of animals should also be at the property owners discretion. As discussed above, heavy animals may damage or destroy archaeological sites and therefore it is not appropriate to permit this activity. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.9.2.5 Utility services

Submission 3548/1 seeks that activity 8 in table 7.2 be designated a P for permitted activity to allow the property owners the unrestricted ability to maintain the power lines and water for irrigation as needed in this area. The submitter's concern is particularly with map reference 9-4.

It is noted that activity 8 in table 7.2 refers to the construction, replacement or upgrading of utility services by trenching, thrusting or directional drilling. If the submitter is referring to maintaining the existing infrastructure this may be a permitted activity as long as it did not include earthworks. If infrastructure is constructed, replaced or upgraded via trenching, underground thrusting or directional drilling then it is considered appropriate that this would require consent as it could cause considerable damage to archaeological sites.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.9.2.6 Earthworks for grave sites

Submission 1271/4 seeks an exemption under table 7.2 which allows earthworks to be carried out, specifically for the preparation of a new grave site, which do not modify the existing heritage feature (being the existing graves map ref 9-3) in any way as a permitted activity.

This would require earthworks for new grave sites in management group type D – Burials to be a permitted activity. This is considered appropriate as there are other regulations such as the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 that govern burial sites.

It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted and table 7.2 be amended to state:

All and any earthworks (excluding burials in management group D)
Earthworks for burials as a permitted activity in management group D and discretionary in all other management groups.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to table 7.2

That submissions 834/2, 892/1, 892/3, 892/4, 892/5, 1269/2, 1269/4, 3547/1 and 3548/1 be rejected.

That submissions 526/17, 527/17, 528/17, 529/17 and 539/17 be accepted in part with no amendments to the Plan.

The submission 892/2 be accepted in part and table 7.1 and 7.2 be amended accordingly to include the following activity as permitted:

Maintenance, repair and restoration of buildings.

That submission 1271/4 be accepted and table 7.2 be amended accordingly to state:

Activities	Management group type
	A	B	C	D	E	F
2. All and any earthworks (excluding burials in management group D)	RD	RD	RD	D	RD	RD
3. Earthworks for burials	D	D	D	P	D	D

That submission 721/3 be accepted in part and table 7.2 be amended to exclude hand weeding from the earthworks control.

4.10 Submissions about both tables

Submissions dealt with in this section: 526/18, 526/19, 527/18, 527/19, 528/18, 528/19, 529/18, 529/19, 539/18, 539/19, 941/38, 941/39, 1243/56, 1243/57, 2091/1, 2091/2, 2091/3, 2091/4, 2520/1, 2520/2, 2641/24, 2641/25, 2641/26, 2641/27

4.10.1 Decisions requested

These submissions raise the following issues:

prohibited status of some activities
rules relating to the scheduled site surrounds
notes that remind users of the Plan to comply with provisions in the Historic Places Act
notes that the extent of the scheduled site is limited to visual assessment only
consideration of Maori values
adopting tables
grazing of heavy animals

4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.10.2.1 Activities and their statuses

Submission 2091/1 seeks to amend table 7.1 by inserting 'NC' in place of 'Pr' where it occurs in the following locations:

in row 11 under columns A, B and E.

Submission 2091/3 seeks to amend table 7.2 by inserting 'NC' in place of 'Pr' where it occurs in the following location:

in row 11 under column E

Submissions 526/18, 527/18, 528/18, 529/18, 539/18 seek to delete all reference to prohibited activities in table 7.1 and submissions 526/19, 527/19, 528/19, 529/19, 539/19 seek to delete all reference to prohibited activities in table 7.2.

The arguments for each position have been put forward to aid the Panel in forming their decision.

Non-complying activity status
Support argument	Argument against
Less onerous on landowner. Still provides protection to the item through the resource consent process. There may be circumstances where it may be appropriate to undertake these activities. Resource consent can be granted in exceptional circumstances.	Resource consent may be applied for.
Prohibited activity status
Provides absolute protection to the archaeological item. No resource consent can be applied for under prohibited status. A private plan change to alter the Plan is the only way to apply to undertake the activity.	Too onerous on landowners. Has to be supported with strong evidence that such an activity would never be appropriate in any circumstance.

On balance, it is recommended that the activity statues for these activities be changed to non-complying and these submissions be accepted. Consequentially the objectives and policies may have to be amended to be clear and definitive.

4.10.2.2 Rules for scheduled site surrounds

Submissions 2091/2 and 2091/4 seek to amend tables 7.1 and 7.2 respectively by deleting row 1 and row 13 in their entirety with consequential renumbering of the other rows.

The activity in row 1 states:

Erecting buildings or structures, or planting vegetation that will obstruct views of scheduled features within a scheduled site surround . [writers emphasis]

The activity in row 13 states:

Works or activities within the scheduled site surrounds . [writers emphasis]

The tables list the activities, and their statuses, that the council consider may occur within sites scheduled as an archaeological item. It is not intended that this table list the activities for scheduled site surrounds of an archaeological item. It is therefore inappropriate for the activities listed in row 1 and 13 to be included in tables 7.1 and 7.2 as the activities relate to the site surrounds and not the scheduled item.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted.

It is also noted that below it is recommended to include a new clause that provides rules for scheduled site surrounds. Therefore the rules relating to the scheduled archaeological item and the scheduled site surrounds will be separate.

4.10.2.3 Notes to tables 7.1 and 7.2

Submissions 2641/24 and 2641/25 seek to add two new notes to tables 7.1 and 7.2 respectively as follows:

As noted in section 7.8.1, all archaeological sites are protected by the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993. An authority is required from the NZHPT prior to damaging, destroying or modifying any archaeological site, whether the site is scheduled within this Plan or not.
Additionally, the area containing the extent of the scheduled site is indicative of visual assessment only and further sub surface archaeological remains may be located outside of this area.

It is agreed that a note should be added to both of the tables to inform the user of the Plan that the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993 have to be complied with along with the rules in these tables.

In regards to the proposed note (4) which seeks to state that the extent of scheduled sites is indicative of visual assessment only is not supported. The extent of the sites as mapped may include subsurface archaeology detected through probing or other archaeological investigative methods during the survey.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted in part and a new note be added to both tables stating:

All archaeological sites are protected by the Historic Places Act 1993. An authority is required from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust prior to damaging, destroying or modifying any archaeological site, including sites scheduled in the Plan.

4.10.2.4 Resource consent - controlled

Submissions 1243/56 and 1243/57 seek for management group type E (archaeological deposits) where a consent if required for grazing that this be a controlled activity, which will be issued free of charge.

During the formulation of the Plan, the council reached the view that the controlled activity status was not appropriate for any of the activities identified in the Plan. In the past, the council has used the controlled activity status in the Isthmus Plan, the Central Area Plan and in the operative Hauraki Gulf Islands Plan. Considerable experience in administering these Plans, together with the development of case law, has led council to the view that, in the main, the use of the controlled activity status does not provide the council with sufficient discretion to address the potential adverse effects associated with particular proposals. The council cannot decline an application for a controlled activity. While the council may impose reasonable conditions that relate to the matters over which it has reserved control, it cannot impose conditions which fundamentally alter the proposal. To do so would effectively negate the consent granted and prevent the activity from taking place. Not all proposals which warrant assessment through the resource consent process can be adequately mitigated by the use of conditions. Some proposals need to be declined or substantially modified. The controlled activity status should be reserved for situations where the council is confident that every proposal should be consented to and that adverse effects can be adequately addressed via conditions without substantial modification to the original proposal. While the controlled activity approach does provide greater certainty to applicants, this needs to be balanced against the need to ensure good environmental outcomes. In this situation council may decline or substantially modify a proposal, as such, it is not considered appropriate to use the controlled activity status.

In relation to applications being processed free of charge, the council currently processes the heritage component of resource consents free of charge.

It is therefore recommended that submissions 1243/56 and 1243/57 be accepted in part.

4.10.2.5 Consideration of Maori values

Submissions 2641/26 and 2641/27 seek to amend the Plan to ensure the consideration of the impact on (potential) Maori heritage sites or cultural values for activities affecting scheduled archaeological sites. This could be achieved for example, through amending the status of all 'restricted discretionary' activities identified within tables 7.1 and 7.2 to full 'discretionary' activities.

It is considered that the matters of discretion for restricted discretionary activities in table 7.1 and 7.2 encompass the consideration of the impact of an activity on the Maori heritage and cultural values. The relevant matters of discretion are stated below.

"1. The extent to which the application is consistent with objectives and policies for archaeological sites, and the overall heritage objectives.

2. An archaeologist's assessment, including the effect on the archaeological values of the site and the values for which the site has been scheduled."

The objective is to protect significant archaeological sites by retaining sites which contribute to the historic and cultural values of the islands. Therefore when assessing a proposal the council will consider the values for which the site has been scheduled and the effect of the proposal on these values.

The council's assessment of discretionary activities is not restricted and therefore anything can be considered. It is therefore considered that the council has the ability to consider the effect of an activity on Maori cultural values.

It is recommended that these submissions be accepted in part in so far as it supports the existing process for consideration of cultural values. It is not supported that the status of restricted discretionary activities be changed to discretionary activities.

It is also noted that the council advises applicants to consult with iwi and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust where necessary and evidence of that consultation is expected to be provided with the application.

4.10.2.6 Adopt tables 7.1 and 7.2

Submissions 941/38 and 941/39 seek to adopt table 7.1 and table 7.2 respectively, as notified

As it has been recommended in this report to make amendments to both of these tables it is not appropriate to adopt these tables as notified. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

4.10.2.7 Grazing of heavy animals

Submissions 2520/1 and 2520/2 seek to insert the following wording into table 7.1 and table 7.2 respectively, as a permitted activity:

Light grazing of cattle on any archaeological site on land falling within the Conservation Land Unit, and either managed directly by Department of Conservation operational staff, or undertaken in accordance with DOC approved concession issued by the Minister of Conservation under Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987.

It is considered that the intensity of grazing is subjective, and therefore 'light' grazing of cattle may result in adverse effects to the archaeological item. It is also considered that the intensity of grazing would not be easily enforceable.

Heavy animals can damage or destroy archaeological sites and therefore it is appropriate for the council to control this activity through requiring a resource consent, or prohibiting it in particular circumstances. The council also has requirements under the RMA and needs to fulfil its role in protecting historic heritage from inappropriate use. Therefore, on an effects basis it is not considered appropriate to either prohibit or require non-complying activity consent for grazing of heavy animals on some sites, but permit it in others.

It is also acknowledged that section 4(3) of the RMA exempts the crown from complying with the rules in the Plan in certain instances where an activity on land held or managed under the Conservation Act that is:

(a) consistent with a conservation management strategy/plan established under the Conservation Act; and

(b) does not have a significant adverse effect beyond the boundary of the area of land.

It is noted that the grazing of light animals is a permitted activity in both tables.

It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to both tables

That submissions 2091/2 and 2091/4 be accepted and tables 7.1 and 7.2 be amended accordingly to remove rows 1 and 13.

That submissions 526/18, 526/19, 527/18, 527/19, 528/18, 528/19, 529/18, 529/19, 539/18, 539/19, 2091/1 and 2091/3 be accepted and the activity status of the following be changed from prohibited to non-complying:

Table 7.1, row 11 under columns A, B and E
Table 7.2, row 11 under column E.

That submissions 2641/24 and 2641/25 be accepted in part and a new note be added to tables 7.1 and 7.2 to state:

All archaeological sites are protected by the Historic Places Act 1993. An authority is required from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust prior to damaging, destroying or modifying any archaeological site, including sites scheduled in the Plan.

That submissions 941/38, 941/39, 2520/1 and 2520/2 be rejected.

That submissions 1243/56, 1243/57, 2641/26 and 2641/27 be accepted in part with no amendments to the Plan.

4.11 Submissions about provisions for site surrounds

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2091/6

4.11.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2091/6 seeks to insert the following new clauses immediately before existing clause 7.8.6, or words to like effect:

7.8.5A Rules for scheduled site surrounds

7.8.5A.1 Permitted activities

The following are permitted activities within the scheduled site surrounds of archaeological sites:

Additions and alterations to existing buildings.
Routine maintenance, including all normal work required to use, maintain, and enjoy existing garden or landscape features.
The planting of vegetation that does not include forestry or horticulture.
The grazing of stock.
Archaeological investigations.
The construction, replacement or upgrading or utility services by trenching, underground thrusting or directional drilling.
The construction of post and wire fences.

7.8.5A.2 Restricted discretionary activities

The following are restricted discretionary activities within the scheduled site surrounds of archaeological sites:

The construction and/or relocation of buildings.
Earthworks (excluding gardening for domestic purposes, which is permitted).
Forestry.
Horticulture.
The construction of fences or walls other than post or wire fences.
Road and footpath construction or modification.

4.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

As it has been recommended above to remove rules for the site surrounds from tables 7.1 and 7.2, it is appropriate to include a new clause that provides rules for scheduled site surrounds.

The rules that apply to the scheduled item and to the scheduled site surrounds are different due to the different purposes for which they have been protected. Items are scheduled for their heritage value, whereas site surrounds are scheduled in order to protect the context of the scheduled item from effects that may detract from its heritage significance and value. It is therefore considered appropriate to permit activities that have negligible effects on the site surrounds but to require consent for activities which may detract from the heritage significance of the scheduled item. It is considered appropriate to provide a introduction to the rules for site surrounds.

It is considered that the activities sought by the submitter are appropriate with three minor exceptions:

Archaeological investigation

Some methods of archaeological investigation such as trenching can be highly destructive to an archaeological site. It is therefore recommended that the activity be amended to permit: Archaeological investigation consistent with the ICOMOS New Zealand charter for the conservation of places of cultural heritage value. It is also noted that authority from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust will be required in most instances.

Construction, replacement or upgrading of utility services by trenching, underground thrusting or directional drilling

It is considered unnecessary to list this activity as the earthworks involved will result in consent. It is therefore recommended that this activity be removed.

Earthworks

Earthworks encompasses most activities and therefore where activities such as planting of vegetation and the construction of a post and wire fence is intended to be permitted it will become restricted discretionary due to the earthworks involved. It is therefore recommended that the earthworks activity be amended to exclude not only gardening for domestic purposes but also earthworks resulting from activities permitted in rules for scheduled site surrounds.

As a consequential amendment, it is necessary to amend the site surrounds definition in clause 7.15 as it currently reads to include the scheduled item as well as the surrounds. The definition for scheduled site surrounds states:

"Includes all the land on which a scheduled item (or group of items) is located, and all land within a defined area around the scheduled item(s), as illustrated in the diagrams in appendix 1 – Heritage schedules for the inner islands and appendix 2 – Heritage schedules for the outer islands. Site surrounds includes all those things, such as (but not limited to) land, trees, gardens, buildings and structures that are part of the heritage significance of the place and are located within the site surrounds.

The site surrounds are identified to protect the context of an item (or items) from effects that detract from the inherent heritage significance and value of the scheduled item."

In separating the rules that apply to the scheduled item and the scheduled site surrounds it is important that the definition of site surrounds does not include the item itself as the rules are less stringent for the surrounds as compared to the scheduled item itself. It is therefore recommended that the definition be amended to exclude the scheduled item itself.

It is therefore recommended that submission 2091/6 be accepted and wording to like effect be included in the Plan including amendments to the definition of site surrounds.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking a new clause

That submission 2091/6 be accepted and a new clause be added to the Plan as follows, and that the following clause be renumbered accordingly:

7.8.6 Rules for scheduled site surrounds

The scheduled site surrounds will often contain archaeological sites beyond the scheduled item(s). The archaeological sites in the site surrounds may not have sufficient heritage value to warrant scheduling on their own, but they contribute to the heritage significance of the scheduled item. Therefore it is important to manage activities within scheduled site surrounds in order to protect the context of the scheduled item(s) from effects that may detract from its heritage significance and value.

7.8.6.1 Permitted activities

The following are permitted activities within the scheduled site surrounds of archaeological sites:

Additions and alterations to existing buildings.
Routine maintenance, including all normal work required to use, maintain, and enjoy existing garden or landscape features.
The planting of vegetation that does not include forestry or horticulture.
The grazing of stock.
The construction of post and wire fences.
Archaeological investigation consistent with the ICOMOS New Zealand charter for the conservation of places of cultural heritage value.

7.8.6.2 Restricted discretionary activities

The following are restricted discretionary activities within the scheduled site surrounds of archaeological sites:

The construction and/ or relocation of buildings.
Earthworks (excluding gardening for domestic purposes and earthworks for activities which are permitted in clause 7.8.6.1).
Forestry,
Horticulture.
The construction of fences or walls other than post or wire fences.
Road and footpath construction or modification.

The definition of scheduled site surrounds in clause 7.15 be amended accordingly to state:

Includes ~~all the land on which a scheduled item (or group of items) is located, and~~ all land within a defined area around the scheduled item(s), as illustrated in the diagrams in appendix 1 – Heritage schedules for the inner islands and appendix 2 – Heritage schedules for the outer islands. Site surrounds includes all those things, such as (but not limited to) land, trees, gardens, buildings and structures that are part of the heritage significance of the place and are located within the site surrounds.

The site surrounds are identified to protect the context of an item (or items) from effects that detract from the inherent heritage significance and value of the scheduled item.

4.12 Submissions about clause 7.8.6

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2091/7, 3521/66

4.12.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2091/7 seeks to amend clause 7.8.6 as outlined below or alternative wording to like effect.

7.8.6 Matters of discretion for restricted discretionary activities

7.8.6.1 Scheduled sites

For restricted discretionary activities identified in table 7.1 Activity table for category A scheduled archaeological sites, and table 7.2 Activity table for category B scheduled archaeological sites, T the council has restricted its discretion ~~for restricted discretionary activities~~ to considering the following matters:

...

7.8.6.2 Scheduled site surrounds

For restricted discretionary activities identified in clause 7.8.5A.2, the council has restricted its discretion to considering the following matter:

The extent to which the works or activities detract from the visual or physical context of the archaeological sites contained within the site surrounds.

Submission 3521/66 seeks to amend clause 7.8.6 to refer directly to the NZHPT's sole power to issue an authority to modify or destroy an archaeological site under ss 11 and 12 of the Historic Places Act 1993.

4.12.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.12.2.1 Separation of assessment matters for scheduled items and site surrounds

Due to the recommendation above, to clearly separate the rules relating to scheduled archaeological sites and scheduled site surrounds it is consequently appropriate to separate the assessment criteria.

The matter of discretion for restricted discretionary activities within the scheduled site surrounds is supported. The purpose of the site surrounds is to protect the context of an item from effects that detract from, or damage, its inherent heritage significance and value.

Therefore it is recommended that this submission be accepted.

4.12.2.2 Reference to authority of NZHPT

Clause 7.8.6 sets out the matters to which the council has restricted its discretion for restricted discretionary activities in table 7.1 and 7.2. The process by which NZHPT requires authority to modify or destroy an archaeological site is a different process to that which the council undertakes. Authority must be granted from both NZHPT and the council before a proposal can go ahead. It is therefore unnecessary for the council to take into account the decision of NZHPT when assessing a proposal. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to clause 7.8.6

That submission 2091/7 be accepted and clause 7.8.6 be amended accordingly to state:

7.8.6 Matters of discretion for restricted discretionary activities

7.8.6.1 Scheduled sites

...

7.8.6.2 Scheduled site surrounds

For restricted discretionary activities identified in clause 7.8.5A.2, the council has restricted its discretion to considering the following matter:

The extent to which the works or activities detract from or damage the visual or physical context of the archaeological sites contained within the site surrounds.

That submission 3521/66 be rejected.

4.13 Submissions about specific sites

Submissions dealt with in this section: 35/1, 36/1, 36/2, 36/3, 37/1, 53/1, 57/1, 106/1, 291/1, 297/1, 297/2, 361/1, 483/1, 488/1, 502/1, 783/1, 786/1, 786/2, 786/3, 789/1, 793/1, 834/1, 900/1, 900/2, 1092/1, 1178/1, 1247/1, 1248/1, 1248/2, 1248/3, 1248/4, 1248/5, 1248/6, 1249/1, 1249/2, 1249/3, 1249/4, 1249/5, 1249/6, 1268/1, 1268/2, 1270/1, 1271/1, 1271/2, 1271/3, 1274/1, 1274/2, 1274/3, 1274/4, 1274/5, 1274/6, 1274/7, 1274/11, 1274/12, 1290/1, 1290/2, 2061/1, 2062/1, 2097/1, 2099/1, 2099/2, 2100/1, 2103/12, 2112/1, 2559/1, 2559/2, 2577/1, 2639/1, 2642/1, 2642/2, 2642/3, 2642/4, 2643/1, 2643/4, 2644/1, 2644/2, 2644/5, 2657/1, 2657/2, 2664/1, 2664/2, 2680/1, 2680/2, 2688/1, 2688/2, 2692/1, 2692/2, 2696/1, 2696/2, 2708/1, 2708/2, 3168/1, 3168/2, 3213/1, 3213/2, 3301/1, 3329/1, 3329/2, 3395/1, 3521/149, 3550/1, 3568/1, 3568/2, 3572/1, 3572/2, 3588/1, 3588/2

4.13.1 Decisions requested

These submissions seek for various amendments relating to specific properties and/or specific archaeological sites.

4.13.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.13.2.1 Archaeological sites by map reference number

Map ref 1-3

Submissions 297/1, 900/1, 2657/1, 2680/1, 2688/1, 2692/1, 2696/1, 2708/1, 3213/1, 3568/1, 3572/1 and 3588/1 seek for the full extent of the Matiatia foreshore urupa should be listed as a category A gravesite, management group type: burials, and listed under heritage sites.

Submissions 297/2, 900/2, 1290/2, 2559/2, 2657/2, 2680/2, 2688/2, 2692/2, 2696/2, 2708/2, 3213/2, 3568/2, 3572/2 and 3588/2 seek that the extent of the Matiatia urupa should be shown as identified with the geophysical survey carried out in 2002 and the exposure of koiwi in September 2006, that is from the boat ramp to the southern stream and as far in land as identified by a new geophysical survey.

Submissions 1290/1 and 2559/1 seek to amend the Plan to provide the identification, recognition and protection of the true extent of the urupa at Matiatia. The full extent of the urupa should be appropriately recognised, possibly via listing as a category A gravesite, management type: burials, and listed under heritage sites, or via identification as a Waahi Tapu and in any event through agreement with Mana Whenua.

Submission 2097/1 seeks to schedule additional graves at Matiatia foreshore as an archaeological site. This requires the inclusion of a new diagram in appendix 1a and for an archaeological site to be shown on sheet 1, map 2.

Further research on the Matiatia foreshore urupa is required. It is recommended that the Panel recommend that officers undertake this scoping work and report back to the City Development Committee with recommendations. We anticipate that this scoping work will be done in the 2008/09 financial year and therefore any changes to the Plan will be made after the decision version of the Plan has been released. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected as the work and potential scheduling will be undertaken outside of this plan review process.

Map ref 7-5

Submission 1247/1 seeks to amend the archaeological area 7-5 to the existing two areas as noted on the title to Lots 10 and 11. It should not be extended onto any part of Lot 12 (60 Cable Bay Lane).

Submission 2100/1 seeks for the boundaries to the heritage site 7-5 as identified in the Plan to be realigned to accord with the surveyed boundaries to as identified by Clough and Associates and shown on DP 331964 as protected areas "BC" and "BD".

This property is part of the Park Point subdivision. An archaeological assessment by Clough and Associates (1996) was undertaken as part of the subdivision process. Archaeological site 7-5 was identified during this assessment and its boundaries were surveyed onto the subdivision plan. The Plan GPS site boundaries are more extensive then the consent notice as determined by the 1996 assessment and cover part of an access way. It is recommended that these submissions be accepted and that the site boundary of archaeological site 7-5 be amended to match the surveyed boundaries as identified by Clough and Associates and shown on DP 331964 as protected areas 'BC' and 'BD' and including the small area linking the two areas.

Map ref 7-7

Submission 2099/1 seeks for council to remove archaeological site 7-7 in its entirety.

A review of the site evaluation indicates that scheduling is not warranted and therefore it is recommended to accept this submission and remove this archaeological site.

Map ref 7-9

Submission 2099/2 seeks to remove the portion of archaeological site surrounds 7-9 which encompasses the building platform of Lot 35 of the Park Point subdivision and its immediate surrounds.

It is noted that archaeological sites 7-6, 7-7 and 7-8 are all included in the site surrounds 7-9. Therefore based on the recommendation above to remove 7-7, it is appropriate to reduce 7-9 correspondingly. It is therefore considered that the building platform for lot 35 will be outside of the amended site surrounds and it is recommended that this submission be accepted.

Map ref 9-3

Submission 1271/1 seeks that the boundaries of the grave sites be amended so they are consistent with the boundaries of the applicable easement plan.

The decision sought by the submitter is unclear and therefore it is recommended that the submitter attend the hearing and identify any inconsistencies. It is noted that archaeological sites do not follow legal boundaries. Therefore, at this stage, it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 1271/2 seeks for the site to be recorded as a "Private Cemetery" under the "Description of items", not Cemetery.

Cemetery is a generic term to describe the site or feature type for the purposes of classification only. It is considered that private could be added at the end of cemetery and therefore it is recommended that submission 1271/2 be accepted in part.

Submission 1271/3 seeks that corrections are made to the archaeological site information as follows (but not limited to):

The site was upgraded from its original state by the Kennedy Family in 1998 with the concrete grave covers being replaced with a single concrete slab and the original headstones remounted on the new slab. At this time the original stainless steel railings on all three headstones were also replaced.
The reference to the site being accessible via 26 Donald Bruce Road is not correct as access is only available from 32 Donald Bruce Road or via the easement shown.

This request relates to the site pack for this archaeological site and seeks to include further information and amend incorrect information. It is noted that this is outside the scope of the Plan and therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected. However this information will be passed onto the heritage team for these amendments to be made.

Map ref 9-5

Submission 1270/1 seeks to delete archaeological site 9-5 in its entirety.

This is the location of Captain John Brown Kennedy's house (1888) – 'Dunesslin'. It includes 3 norfolk pines, a bougainvillaea and a concrete water tank (1889). It is also the unconfirmed location of a shipyard. This is a significant archaeological site in its own right, even without the unconfirmed location of the shipyard and therefore it is not appropriate to remove it from the Plan. It is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Map ref 9-6

Submission 1268/1 seeks that the boundaries of the Kennedy Bay oyster farm be amended so that the most westward boundary of the heritage designation is located below the line of MHWS and does not extend to the property at 38 Donald Bruce Road.

It is agreed that the landward boundary should be adjusted to reflect the accurate boundary of this site and that the landward boundary be moved to MHWS mark. However on this basis, this scheduled item would no longer be in the council's jurisdiction and therefore it is appropriate to remove this item entirely from the Plan. It is noted that the Kennedy Bay Oyster Farm is scheduled in the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted.

Submission 1268/2 seeks to make the following corrections (but not limited to) to the archaeological site information for Kennedy Bay oyster farm be made:

The vagueness and spelling mistakes of the second half of the description be removed.
The poor condition of the site be recognised.
Recognition of the labour of the prisoner of war camp at Motuihe.

This request relates to the site pack for this archaeological site and seeks to include further information and amend incorrect information. It is noted that this is outside the scope of the Plan and therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected. However, this information will be passed onto the heritage team for these amendments to be made.

Map ref 9-10

Submissions 36/1, 37/1, 53/1, 57/1, 291/1, 361/1, 483/1, 783/1, 786/1, 786/2, 786/3, 789/1, 1092/1, 2062/1, 2112/1, 2577/1, 3168/1, 3329/2 and 3395/1 oppose the archaeological item 9-10 on their specific properties and seek for it to be removed or to be refined to council land on the foreshore. Submission 793/1 seeks for the archaeological area 9-10 to be reconsidered.

It is agreed that the area does need to be reassessed. Given the difficulty of accurately determining the extent of this site outside the Surfdale Reserve, the number of private landowners affected by the current site area, and the considerable level of modification to archaeological deposits on private property from residential development, it is recommended that the site area be amended to consist of only public land along the foreshore. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted.

Submission 36/2 seeks to have all specific archaeological protections removed from private properties in Surfdale in relation to archaeological site 9-10 and submission 36/3 seeks any additional changes which are required in the text and maps to give effect to this submission. It has been recommended above for this archaeological site to be amended to exclude private properties, therefore it is recommended that these submissions be accepted.

Submissions 2061/1, 2639/1, 2664/1, 3329/1 and 3550/1 oppose archaeological site 9-10 and seek for it to be deleted. This is inappropriate as the area contains significant archaeological items. It is however recognised that the area should be removed from private land and this has been recommended above. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected as it is inappropriate to remove this item in its entirety from appendix 1a.

Submission 2664/2 seeks for the council to readdress the rating valuation if archaeological site 9-10 is not changed due to adverse affect on the properties values. As it has been recommended above to remove this scheduled site from private properties it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 3168/2 opposes any predictive designation of the Surfdale area on the grounds of insufficient evidence. As mentioned above it is difficult to accurately determine the extent of this area outside of the reserve given the significant modifications of the area and therefore it is recommended that it be removed. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted in part in so far as it supports the tightening of the scheduled site.

Map ref 10-6

Submission 502/1 seeks to delete 21 View Road from the Plan with regards to archaeological site 10-6.

It is noted that only a small part of the archaeological site is located on 21 View Road. This terrace feature is a significant archaeological item and it is inappropriate to remove it. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Map ref 15-5

Submission 106/1 objects to any restriction being placed on section 77 O'Brien Road that did not apply at the time of purchase, with specific reference to map reference 15-5. Alternatively an offer should be made to purchase the site at market value.

As part of the Plan review process Waiheke island was assessed for archaeological sites. Many sites were identified and those that had sufficient heritage value were scheduled in the Plan. It is considered that providing protection to archaeological sites though the Plan meets council's requirements under the RMA. This site would have been protected by the provisions of the Historic Places Act regardless of it being scheduled as part of the Plan review process. It is also noted that the council has since purchased the property at 77 O'Brien Road for access to the Glen Brook Reserve. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Map ref 16-1

Submission 2644/1 seeks to reduce the scheduled area 16-1 at 630 Gordons Road from approximately 1.8 hectares to 1 hectare.

A site visit was undertaken in 2006 after the notification of the Plan. As a result it is recommended that the site area of archaeological site 16-1 be reduced. However the plan attached to the submission showing the requested reduction to the site area is inaccurate, too small and does not include all archaeological features associated with this site. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted in part in so far as it supports the reduction recommended.

Submission 2644/2 seeks for the council to note that it would be impractical for the scheduled area to be fenced off. No relief is requested and therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 2644/5 seeks for the council to provide the submitter with confirmation in writing that they can continue to farm scheduled area 16-1 as they have done for many decades. Section 10 of the RMA allows certain existing uses which were lawfully established to continue despite contravening a rule of a proposed or operative district plan which subsequently comes into force.

The council cannot provide written confirmation of existing use rights to the submitter. The submitter would have to provide supporting evidence and documentation that the farming activity was lawfully established to Auckland City Environments and apply for a Certificate of Existing Use pursuant to section 139A of the Resource Management Act.

However, it is noted that these submissions are outside the scope of the district plan and therefore it is recommended that they be rejected.

Map ref 16-3

Submission 35/1 seeks to completely remove archaeological item 16-3 as if this site existed it has been totally desecrated by the earthworks indicated.

It is agreed that this site has been destroyed. It is therefore recommended that this submission be accepted and archaeological item 16-1 be removed from appendix 1a and Map 2, Sheet 16. It is also recommended that the heritage team be advised to inform New Zealand Historic Places Trust and update the New Zealand Archaeological Association site record form.

Map ref 16-5

Submission 488/1 seeks to move the boundary of the site surrounds for archaeological site 16-5 very slightly north to avoid 339 Gordons Road.

Archaeological site surrounds are calculated by a spatial programme that incorporates other archaeological sites, whether scheduled or not, within an expanding distance from category A archaeological sites. This indicates that the area scheduled as an archaeological site surround contains at least one other archaeological site and therefore it is inappropriate to amend the boundaries. Also, it is noted that the site surrounds only covers a comparatively small portion of 339 Gordons Road and this small area is part of a wetland that is also scheduled as a site of ecological significance.

It is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Map ref 17-6

Submission 1178/1 seeks that the additional limitation (map ref 17-6) be resurveyed so that the 5 sites identified in 1995 not be connected in the manner proposed, but rather be identified by individual protection circles.

This archaeological site was surveyed, assessed and reviewed in 2002 as part of the district plan review. As a result this site was scheduled in the proposed plan as category B, and recorded to contain fourteen archaeological terrace features and midden scatter.

It is recommended that this site be reassessed before the decision version of the Plan is released to determine whether the exact locations of the archaeological items and that no recommendation be made at this stage.

It would be helpful if the submitter could attend the hearing and provide more information on the five archaeological sites and their location more specifically.

Map ref 18-3

Submission 3301/1 seeks for the Maunganui (258C Orapiu Road) to be removed from the schedule. This is a significant category A site and therefore it is not appropriate to remove it from appendix 1a. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Map ref 18-5

Submission 834/1 seeks that the area marked 'Heritage feature' becomes more specifically defined. The archaeological feature has been specifically defined in appendix 1a, map reference 18-5. It is not possible to define it any further. It is therefore recommended that this submission is rejected.

Map ref 19-1

Submission 2643/1 seeks to reduce the scheduled area 19-1 at 630 Gordons Road so as to provide a house site and access (up the existing farm track) without having a significant impact on the main archaeological attributes of the site.

This archaeological item is category A and therefore is an extremely valuable archaeological site. Table 7.1 sets out the activities for category A items. It would be a discretionary activity to construct a building on this archaeological site. Therefore the council requires a resource consent to enable an assessment on the heritage values of the item. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected as it is not appropriate to reduce the scheduled area.

Submission 2643/4 seeks to provide the submitter with confirmation in writing that they can continue to farm the scheduled area 19-1 as they have done for many decades.

Section 10 of the RMA allows certain existing uses which were lawfully established to continue despite contravening a rule of a proposed or operative district plan which subsequently comes into force. The council cannot provide written confirmation of existing use rights to the submitter as part of the Plan review process. The submitter would have to provide supporting evidence and documentation that the farming activity was lawfully established to Auckland City Environments and apply for a Certificate of Existing Use pursuant to section 139A of the Resource Management Act. However, it is noted that this submission is outside the scope of the district plan and therefore it is recommended that it be rejected.

Map ref 19-2

Submission 2642/1 seeks for the council to review the archaeological evaluation for the Awaawaroa Wharf (19-2) given the further information set out by the submitter and in particular, to reassess the scores given to the wharf under headings B, D, F, G, H, N, O of appendix 4 section 1 of the Plan.

Submission 2642/2 seeks that if the archaeological reassessment of Awaawaroa Wharf results in a score of less than 50, to remove the wharf as a scheduled heritage item from the plan before it becomes operative.

The score for this scheduled site resulted from the heritage values of the wharf itself. As the wharf is in Auckland Regional Council's jurisdiction it is considered appropriate to remove this scheduled site from the Plan. It is therefore recommended that submission 2642/1 be accepted in part and submission 2642/2 be accepted.

Submission 2642/3 seeks if the archaeological reassessment of the Awaawaroa Wharf results in a score in excess of 50 to reassess the wharf for removal as a scheduled heritage item prior to the next 10 year district plan review given the further deterioration in the remnant structure that is likely to have resulted in the intervening period.

Due to the above recommendation to remove this scheduled site, it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 2642/4 seeks for the council to note that because the wharf serves no useful purpose and because of exorbitant ACC and ARC rates levied the property owners have no financial wherewithal to undertake any repairs to or maintenance on the remnant structure.

There are no requirements in the Plan for landowners to undertake any repairs or maintenance of a scheduled heritage item. As the submitter does not request any relief it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Map ref 23-21

Submission 3521/149 seeks for archaeological site 23-21 to be amended to include reference to 'log chute'. The submitter states that kauri slide is more generally referred to as log chute.

It is recommended that this submission be accepted as 'log chute' is the more common name.

Map ref 25-8

Submission 1274/1 seeks for the council to remove pine trees from the legal road reserve area of the site so as to stop their roots from causing further erosion and further compromising the site. This is an operational matter that is outside the scope of the Plan and therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 1274/2 seeks for the council to provide the property owners with advice on the site maintenance so as to mitigate against continued deterioration of the site and to advise the property owners in writing that no resource consent is required to remove native trees (including those in excess of 3m) and old fence posts from within the scheduled area. Council's Heritage department do provide free advice on scheduled sites and how to manage them. In relation to existing use rights these are not addressed through the Plan review process. If the submitter believes that the activities are permitted under the Plan they can apply to Auckland City Environments for a Certificate of Existing Use pursuant to section 139A of the Resource Management Act. However, these matters are outside the scope of the Plan and therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 1274/3 seeks for the council to review the HGI.22 for the site given the further information provided and, in particular, to reassess the scores given to the site under headings A, F, G and H of appendix 4, section 1 of the Plan.

The site was reassessed in 2007 and the scores given to the site under the headings A, F, G and H are considered appropriate and therefore should remain unchanged. It is recommended that this submission be accepted as the scores were reassessed in April 2007.

Submission 1274/4 seeks for the item to be removed if it scores under 50 in the reassessment.

The item was reassessed in 2007 and given a score of 64 and therefore it is inappropriate for it to be removed from the Plan. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 1274/5 seeks if the reassessment results in a score in excess of 50 points, to reassess the site for removal as a scheduled heritage item prior to the next 10 year district plan review given the further deterioration that is likely to result without intervention on the part of council or the property owners in the interim.

The item will likely be reassessed as part of the next Plan review and if it does not reach the threshold score it will be removed from the Plan. However it is not appropriate to remove this item from the Plan before that review has been undertaken and the council can not predict the future physical state of the terrace. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 1274/6 seeks for the council staff to mark (peg) on the ground the boundaries of the scheduled area. The location of archaeological sites is clearly located in the planning maps and appendices. However, council is not responsible for marking archaeological sites on the ground. This is outside the scope of the Plan and therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 1274/7 seeks for council staff to reassess the site with a view to removing an area from the scheduled area so as to provide a house site with access without having a significant impact on the main archaeological features of the site. If the site were redefined following reassessment to mark on the ground the boundaries of the revised scheduled area.

The proposed building platform is situated on the eastern boundary of the archaeological site. It is considered inappropriate to amend this boundary, as it should be maintained to protect the integrity of the site. It is noted that the submitter has since lodged an application for subdivision (July 2008) and the plans within this application show the proposed building platform and accessway in an area that does not conflict with the archaeological site. It is therefore considered unnecessary and inappropriate to amend the boundaries of this archaeological site. It is recommended that this submission be rejected.

Submission 1274/11 seeks for the council to note the legal issues raised regarding reasonable use and S85 of the RMA, and the statutory authority to protect heritage items including jurisdiction and process issues. This submission does not request any changes to the Plan and therefore it is recommended that it be rejected.

Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the property is capable of reasonable use. Section 85 of the RMA defines reasonable use as use or potential use of the land for any activity whose actual or potential effects on any aspect of the environment or on any person other than the applicant would not be significant. Activity table 7.2 provides for many activities as restricted discretionary activities. It is therefore considered that the provisions do not render the land incapable of reasonable use. There is also opportunity to develop land outside the archaeological site.

Submission 1274/12 seeks for the council's consultant archaeologists to visit the property (Lot 2 DP 194989 Orapiu Road) and an adjacent property to assess the merits of other potential archaeological sites.

Archaeologists have subsequently visited this property and another site has been recorded however it did not reach the threshold score for scheduling and thus is not in the Plan. It is recommended that this submission be accepted and the site was assessed as requested.

Map ref 31-19

Submission 2103/12 seeks to amend sheet 31, map 2 by changing the symbol used for scheduled item 31-19 on Browns Island so that it is identified with a pink square as an archaeological site rather than a black square as a building.

Firstly it is noted that this archaeological item is on Motuihe Island, not Browns. This item is a quarantine cemetery with 7 graves. It is a typographical error and therefore it is recommended that this submission be accepted and the square be changed from black to pink.

Map ref 33-3

Submissions 1248/1 and 1249/1 seek to reduce the boundaries of scheduled archaeological site 33-3 to cover clearly definable tool-making sites which from evidence and reports are the only significant sites of value. Submissions 1248/2 and 1249/2 seek to realign the boundaries of scheduled archaeological site 33-3 so that the area above the mean high water mark is not classified as category A.

The site area currently shown on map 33-3 and also included within site surround map 33-8 could be realigned so as not to extend inland beyond the beach but should extend over the whole beach above MHWS. It is therefore recommended that submissions 1248/1, 1248/2, 1249/1 and 1249/2 be accepted in part in so far as they support the reduction of the site area.

Submissions 1248/3 and 1249/3 seek for the Plan to allow access for launching a boat on the western side of the jetty within scheduled archaeological site 33-3.

It is assumed that by access the submitter is referring to the construction of an access way to the jetty. The site surround and Rural 3 land unit provisions would apply. Given the coastal protection yards of 40m within Rural 3 and the site surround requirements, resource consent will likely be required. Given its coastal and heritage sensitivities it is not considered appropriate to provide for access as a permitted activity. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Submissions 1248/4 and 1249/4 seek to publicly identify Home Bay as a heritage site, e.g. with educational signage on the history of the site. It is noted that the Sanford Homestead is a category B scheduled building and is identified as such in the Plan. Given Home Bay's archaeological sites and the scheduled building it obviously has heritage value. However, the provision of educational signage etc is not something that can be required through the Plan review process. This is outside the scope of the Plan and therefore it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Submissions 1248/5 and 1249/5 seek the ability to continue to manage environmental aspects of scheduled archaeological site 33-3 without seeking council permission. E.g. self-initiated environmental work – revegetation, weed and rodent control.

All activities that occur within the scheduled site must comply with the provisions in the Plan. In this instance, the activity of planting any vegetation is a restricted discretionary activity in the scheduled site and therefore a resource consent would need to be granted for this activity to continue. This is considered appropriate as the tree roots and digging involved in planting may damage or destroy the archaeological item(s). It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected as the council requires a resource consent of planting in a scheduled site.

Submissions 1248/6 and 1249/6 seek for the management of the heritage area by council to stop excessive vehicle use on the beach.

This is an enforcement issue and is outside the scope of the Plan, therefore it is recommended that these submissions be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to specific sites

That submissions 1274/3 and 1274/12 be accepted with no amendments.

That submissions 106/1, 297/1, 297/2, 488/1, 502/1, 834/1, 900/1, 900/2, 1248/3, 1248/4, 1248/5, 1248/6, 1249/3, 1249/4, 1249/5, 1249/6, 1268/2, 1270/1, 1271/1, 1271/3, 1274/1, 1274/2, 1274/4, 1274/5, 1274/6, 1274/7, 1274/11, 1290/1, 1290/2, 2061/1, 2097/1, 2559/1, 2559/2, 2639/1, 2642/3, 2642/4, 2643/1, 2643/4, 2644/2, 2644/5, 2657/1, 2657/2, 2664/1, 2664/2, 2680/1, 2680/2, 2688/1, 2688/2, 2692/1, 2692/2, 2696/1, 2696/2, 2708/1, 2708/2, 3213/1, 3213/2, 3301/1, 3329/1, 3550/1, 3568/1, 3568/2, 3572/1, 3572/2, 3588/1 and 3588/2 be rejected.

That submission 2103/12 be accepted and sheet 31, map 2 of Maps – volume 1 Inner Islands be amended to change the symbol used for scheduled item 31-19 on Browns Island from a black square to a pink square.

That submission 3521/149 be accepted and appendix 1a, map reference 23-21 be amended so that the reference to 'Kauri slide' is change to 'Log chute'.

That submission 35/1 be accepted and appendix 1a and Maps – Volume 1 (Map 2, Sheet 16) be amended to remove item 16-3 in its entirety.

That submissions 36/1, 36/2, 36/3, 37/1, 53/1, 57/1, 291/1, 361/1, 483/1, 783/1, 786/1, 786/2, 786/3, 789/1, 793/1, 1092/1, 2062/1, 2112/1, 2577/1, 3168/1, 3329/2 and 3395/1 be accepted and submission 3168/2 be accepted in part and appendix 1a and Maps – Volume 1 (Map 2, Sheets 8 & 9) be amended to refine the boundaries of archaeological item 9-10 to council land on the foreshore.

That submission 2642/1 be accepted in part and submission 2642/2 be accepted and appendix 1a and Maps – Volume 1 (Map 2, Sheet 19) be amended accordingly to remove scheduled item, map reference 19-2.

That submission 1271/2 be accepted in part and appendix 1a and the description of item of map reference 9-3 be amended to state: Cemetery (private) (3)

That submission 2099/1 be accepted and appendix 1a and Maps – Volume 1 (Map 2, Sheet 7) be amended to remove archaeological item map ref 7-7 in its entirety.

That submissions 1247/1 and 2100/1 be accepted and appendix 1a and Maps – Volume 1 (Map 2, Sheet 7) be amended to show the correct boundaries of map ref 7-5 that are consistent with the surveyed boundaries as identified by Clough and Associates and shown on DP 331964 as protected areas 'BC' and 'BD' and to include the area linking these sites.

That submissions 1248/1, 1248/2, 1249/1 and 1249/2 be accepted in part and appendix 1a and Maps – Volume 1 (Map 2, Sheets 32 & 33) be amended to reduce the boundaries of map reference 33-3.

That submission 2644/1 be accepted in part and appendix 1a and Maps – Volume 1 (Map 2, Sheet 16) be amended to reduce the boundaries of map reference 16-1.

That submission 1268/1 be accepted and appendix 1a and Maps – Volume 1 (Map 2, Sheet 9) be amended to remove map ref 9-6 in its entirety.

That submission 2099/2 be accepted and appendix 1a and Maps – Volume 1 (Map 2, Sheet 7) be amended to reduce the boundary of site surrounds 7-9 accordingly.

No recommendation on submission 1178/1.

It is recommended that the scheduled site surrounds be amended accordingly as the result of the recommendations above.

4.14 Submissions about appendix 1a and 2a

Submissions dealt with in this section: 298/4, 380/4, 568/4, 586/4, 636/4, 646/4, 665/4, 673/4, 696/4, 706/4, 709/9, 721/1, 721/4, 731/4, 736/4, 748/4, 802/4, 819/4, 828/4, 837/4, 844/4, 850/4, 858/4, 871/4, 889/4, 893/4, 902/4, 925/4, 928/4, 957/4, 1011/4, 1055/33, 1055/42, 1123/4, 1152/4, 1204/4, 1216/4, 1232/4, 1291/4, 1375/4, 1637/4, 1638/4, 1639/4, 1640/4, 1641/4, 1642/4, 1643/4, 1644/4, 1645/4, 1646/4, 1647/4, 1648/11, 1649/4, 1650/4, 1651/4, 1652/4, 1653/4, 1654/4, 1655/4, 1656/4, 1657/4, 1658/4, 1659/4, 1660/4, 1662/4, 1663/4, 2124/4, 2131/4, 2133/4, 2278/4, 2283/4, 2463/4, 2503/1, 2503/2, 2503/3, 2503/4, 2503/5, 2503/6, 2503/7, 2547/6, 2561/4, 2620/1, 2641/28, 2641/29, 2641/30, 2641/31, 2641/32, 2641/33, 2641/34, 2675/4, 2679/4, 2684/4, 2691/4, 2695/4, 2706/4, 2710/4, 2780/4, 2782/4, 2791/4, 2826/4, 2842/4, 2994/4, 3009/4, 3011/4, 3025/4, 3061/47, 3176/1, 3354/4, 3513/4, 3521/146, 3521/148, 3536/4, 3561/4, 3569/4, 3573/4, 3589/4, 3628/4, 3786/4, 3806/4, 3814/4, 3817/4, 3832/4, 3836/4, 3838/3

4.14.1 Decisions requested

These submissions in general raise the following issues:

gaps in the listing of sites of archaeological sites
support
additions and reassessments of specific sites
referencing of NZAA site numbers
protection of all archaeological sites
additional maps
consistency with ARC
amendments to section 3 of appendix 1a.

4.14.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.14.2.1 Support

Submission 1055/33 supports and seeks retention of schedule of archaeological sites contained in appendix 1a. It is recommended that this submission be accepted as it supports the council's statutory requirement to protect historic heritage from inappropriate use and development.

4.14.2.2 Gaps in the lists

Submissions 298/4, 380/4, 568/4, 586/4, 636/4, 646/4, 665/4, 673/4, 696/4, 706/4, 709/9, 731/4, 736/4, 748/4, 802/4, 819/4, 828/4, 837/4, 844/4, 850/4, 858/4, 871/4, 889/4, 893/4, 902/4, 925/4, 928/4, 957/4, 1011/4, 1055/42, 1123/4, 1152/4, 1204/4, 1216/4, 1232/4, 1291/4, 1375/4, 1637/4, 1638/4, 1639/4, 1640/4, 1641/4, 1642/4, 1643/4, 1644/4, 1645/4, 1646/4, 1647/4, 1648/11, 1649/4, 1650/4, 1651/4, 1652/4, 1653/4, 1654/4, 1655/4, 1656/4, 1657/4, 1658/4, 1659/4, 1660/4, 1662/4, 1663/4, 2124/4, 2131/4, 2133/4, 2278/4, 2283/4, 2463/4, 2561/4, 2675/4, 2679/4, 2684/4, 2691/4, 2695/4, 2706/4, 2710/4, 2780/4, 2782/4, 2791/4, 2826/4, 2842/4, 2994/4, 3009/4, 3011/4, 3025/4, 3061/47, 3354/4, 3513/4, 3536/4, 3561/4, 3569/4, 3573/4, 3589/4, 3628/4, 3786/4, 3806/4, 3814/4, 3817/4, 3832/4, 3836/4 and 3838/3 seek for the council to take appropriate action to remedy the shortcomings identified regarding gaps in the listing of sites of archaeological significance, e.g. Okoka Bay.

The submitters have only identified Okoka Bay as a site that should be a scheduled archaeological site. The council has completed the task of identifying and scheduling archaeological items in the inner islands. It is considered that archaeological sites that may arise from further research in the future will be included in the Plan as a plan change, outside of the plan review process.

In regards to Okoka Bay, this was assessed and the archaeological sites did not score highly enough individually to be scheduled in the Plan. It is noted that the area is registered with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust as a wahi tapu area and it is protected under the Historic Places Act 1993, as are all archaeological sites. It is likely that Okoka Bay be included in the Plan as a Maori heritage site. However, for an item to be scheduled as Maori heritage it must first be considered and approved by iwi. As further research is required it is recommended that the Panel recommend that officers undertake this scoping work and report to the City Development Committee with a recommendation. It is anticipated that this scoping work will be done in the 2008/09 financial year and therefore any changes to the Plan will be made after the decision version of the Plan has been released. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected as the scoping work and possible scheduling will be undertaken outside of this plan review process.

4.14.2.3 Specific sites

Additions

Submissions 2503/1, 2503/2, 2503/3, 2503/4, 2503/5, 2503/6, 2503/7, 2641/29, 2641/30 and 3176/1 seek for various items to be considered for scheduling in appendix 1a and 2a. Further research is required to determine the heritage value of these items. It is recommended that the Panel recommend that officers undertake this scoping work and report to the City Development Committee with recommendations. It is anticipated that this scoping work will be done in the 2008/09 financial year and therefore any changes to the Plan will be made after the decision version of the Plan has been released. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected as the scoping work and possible scheduling will be undertaken outside of this plan review process.

It is noted that all archaeological sites are protected under the Historic Places Act 1993.

Submission 2620/1 seeks immediate reinstatement of the recognition of the historical significance of the church site at 131A Church Bay Road. This urupa did not reach the threshold score for scheduling archaeological sites and hence was not included in the Plan. It is noted that this site is scheduled in the operative plan under archaeological and Maori heritage sites. It is the council's intention that this site be scheduled as a Maori heritage site and will be included as part of the overall Maori heritage work. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Reassessment

Submission 721/1 seeks that more effort is made to specify the exact middens, pits and terraces instead of including a large area of land that does not have any of these features.

Submission 721/4 seeks that once archaeological surveys and or excavations have been done on each of these specific sites that they be reassessed for inclusion or not within the schedule archaeological site.

These submissions refer to archaeological sites 17-2 and 17-6. These archaeological sites were surveyed, assessed and reviewed in 2002 as part of the district plan review. As a result these sites were scheduled in the proposed plan as category B. Due to differences in the number of specific sites in the information pack to what the submitter is suggesting it is recommended that this site be reassessed.

As reassessment of the site has not yet been undertaken it is unknown at this stage whether the extent of the sites scheduled are exact. The reassessment will be completed for the decision version of the Plan and therefore there is no recommendation on these submissions at this stage.

4.14.2.4 Reference to the NZAA site numbers

Submissions 2641/33 and 2641/34 seek to amend appendix 1a and 2a respectively to provide reference to the NZAA site numbers.

Most, if not all, archaeological sites scheduled in the Plan reference the NZAA site number in the title of its name. Notwithstanding this, it is not essential as this number does not relate to the Plan. It is noted that appendix 2a lists only one item and there is no NZAA site number. It is therefore recommended that submission 2641/34 be rejected and submission 2641/33 be accepted in part in so far as it supports the existing references to NZAA site numbers in appendix 1a.

4.14.2.5 Protection for all archaeological sites

Submissions 2641/31 and 2641/32 seek to amend the appendices to provide for the protection of all archaeological sites of significance. In particular those on Ponui, Motuihe, Pakihi, Rangitoto, Motutapu, the Noises, Browns Island and Karamuramu.

As stated in clause 4.4 of the Plan some of the islands in the gulf, including the ones described in the submission were unable to be assessed at the time of notification. It also states that a plan change will be introduced to the Plan so that additional heritage resources on these islands will be recognised and protected in the future. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected as potential items for scheduling will not be included in the Plan as part of this plan review process. It is also noted that all archaeological sites are protected under the Historic Places Act 1993.

4.14.2.6 Additional maps

Submission 2547/6 seeks for a comprehensive study to be undertaken to produce further planning maps that show all known archaeological sites as currently recorded by ARC and the Archaeological Association.

Clause 7.8.1 of the Plan states that the council intends to produce a document containing information about known archaeological sites in the inner islands which have not been scheduled. This is in progress with the council's heritage team. However, this document is not intended to be part of the district plan and therefore it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.14.2.7 Consistent with ARC

Submission 3521/146 seeks to retain appendix 1a in a manner that is consistent with the lists contained in the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal, subject to amendments sought elsewhere in this submission.

Section 75(4) of the RMA states that a district plan must not be inconsistent with any regional plan, it does not state that it must be consistent with any regional plan.

The council assesses items against the criteria in the Plan. If the landward component of the item scores sufficiently high to warrant scheduling then it will be included in the heritage schedule. However, the council has different criteria and processes to the ARC and cannot simply schedule the landward component of an item in the Plan because the seaward component is scheduled in the Coastal Plan.

It is not appropriate for the Plan to include all archaeological items from the Coastal Plan as some of these items are not in Auckland City Council's jurisdiction.

The district plan is consistent with the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal in that it schedules some of the same items. However the district plan does not schedule all of the items that are scheduled in the coastal plan.

It is recommended that this submission be accepted in part. It is recommended that the submitter attends the hearing to identify any discrepancies between the coastal plan and district plan.

4.14.2.8 Section 3 of appendix 1a – notes and disclaimers

Submission 2641/28 seeks to amend section 3 of appendix 1a to state the following or similar:

As noted in section 7.8.1, all archaeological sites are protected by the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993. An authority is required from the NZHPT prior to damaging, destroying or modifying any archaeological site, whether the site is scheduled within this Plan or not.

The submitter states that a reminder to the provisions of the Historic Places Act should be included.

It is supported that the last sentence under the heading of 'The New Zealand Historic Places Trust' could be amended to be clearer. It is recommended that this submission be accepted in part and the sentence reworded as follows:

All archaeological sites in New Zealand are protected under the Historic Places Act 1993, whether scheduled or not, and any activity which proposes to damage, destroy or modify any archaeological site must be granted authority by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. ~~, whether listed or not.~~

Submission 3521/148 seeks to highlight the last sentence of paragraph 1 of section 3 in appendix 1a by underlining or bold text.

It is considered that if this sentence was highlighted that it would infer this sentence was more important than the others. As this is not the case it is considered inappropriate to highlight this sentence. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to appendix 1a

That submission 1055/33 be accepted and submissions 2641/33 and 3521/146 be accepted in part with no amendments to the Plan.

That submission 2641/28 be accepted in part and the last sentence of paragraph 1 in section 3 of appendix 1a be amended to state:

That submissions 298/4, 380/4, 568/4, 586/4, 636/4, 646/4, 665/4, 673/4, 696/4, 706/4, 709/9, 731/4, 736/4, 748/4, 802/4, 819/4, 828/4, 837/4, 844/4, 850/4, 858/4, 871/4, 889/4, 893/4, 902/4, 925/4, 928/4, 957/4, 1011/4, 1055/42, 1123/4, 1152/4, 1204/4, 1216/4, 1232/4, 1291/4, 1375/4, 1637/4, 1638/4, 1639/4, 1640/4, 1641/4, 1642/4, 1643/4, 1644/4, 1645/4, 1646/4, 1647/4, 1648/11, 1649/4, 1650/4, 1651/4, 1652/4, 1653/4, 1654/4, 1655/4, 1656/4, 1657/4, 1658/4, 1659/4, 1660/4, 1662/4, 1663/4, 2124/4, 2131/4, 2133/4, 2278/4, 2283/4, 2463/4, 2503/1, 2503/2, 2503/3, 2503/4, 2503/5, 2503/6, 2503/7, 2547/6, 2561/4, 2620/1, 2641/29, 2641/30, 2641/31, 2641/32, 2641/34, 2675/4, 2679/4, 2684/4, 2691/4, 2695/4, 2706/4, 2710/4, 2780/4, 2782/4, 2791/4, 2826/4, 2842/4, 2994/4, 3009/4, 3011/4, 3025/4, 3061/47, 3176/1, 3354/4, 3513/4, 3521/148, 3536/4, 3561/4, 3569/4, 3573/4, 3589/4, 3628/4, 3786/4, 3806/4, 3814/4, 3817/4, 3832/4, 3836/4 and 3838/3 be rejected.

No recommendation on submissions 721/1 and 721/4.

4.15 Submissions about appendix 4

Submissions dealt with in this section: 2641/61, 3521/153

4.15.1 Decisions requested

Submission 2641/61 seeks for the council to consider amendments to 1.0 of appendix 4 to address concerns raised regarding: the rating system being slanted towards the typical larger and more complex sites; the fact that visual assessments cannot be made accurately for many sites, the grouping (e) of sites; the need for (g) setting to provide for higher protection of last remnant sites; and the lack of consideration of Maori cultural values.

Submission 3521/153 seeks to amend in appendix 4 the criteria for scheduling archaeological sites to refer not only to community association with and public esteem for (criterion J) but also to ancestral relationships held by Maori.

4.15.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations

4.15.2.1 Submission 2641

Slant towards larger and more complex sites

The bias towards larger and more complex sites reflects the likelihood that these sites have a greater ability to provide meaningful heritage information. Complexity is a well established and recognised criterion in assessing the significance of archaeological sites.

Accuracy of visual assessments

While it is recognised that visual assessment has its limitations, this remains the primary methodology for archaeology survey in New Zealand, as further information can generally only be established through invasive investigation. Notwithstanding this, the assessment process can include non-visual information.

Grouping of sites

The submitter does not raise any concerns in regards to the grouping of sites.

Setting of an item to provide higher protection of last remnant sites

The 'setting' evaluation neither specifically enhances nor inhibits values associated with remnant sites and is not needed to provide higher protection for last remnant sites. While the last remnant of a site or the last archaeological remnant of a once wider landscape may or may not gain value in relation to setting, it is likely that it would gain value in the 'rarity' criterion.

Maori cultural values

The ranking system does not preclude consideration of Maori cultural values. It proved inappropriate for archaeologists to evaluate Maori cultural values as part of the assessment of the archaeological significance. The Maori values of archaeological sites will be assessed as part of the work in researching Maori heritage sites in the islands and will be included in the Plan as a plan change in the future if they are approved by iwi.

Based on the above reasoning it is recommended that this submission be rejected.

4.15.2.2 Submission 3521

The ranking system does not preclude consideration of Maori cultural values as discussed above. The Maori values of archaeological sites and places and areas that may have no archaeological values will be assessed as part of the work in researching Maori heritage sites in the islands. The evaluation scheme allows for any information regarding community association with or public esteem for. This was designed to capture any known information regarding an archaeological site regardless of its cultural background and therefore is inclusive of Maori cultural values. It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected.

Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments to appendix 4

That submissions 2641/61 and 3521/153 be rejected.

5.0 Conclusion

This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding archaeological sites of the Proposed Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2006.

The report recommends whether submissions should be accepted or rejected and how associated further submissions should be dealt with, and how the Plan should be modified as a result. These recommendations are made prior to the hearing of submissions and therefore without the benefit of evidence which may be presented at that time. At this stage before the hearing, it is recommended that this part of the Plan be approved, with amendments (as outlined in appendix 3), for the reasons outlined in this report.

	Name and title of signatories	Signature
Author	Sarah Smith, assistant planner
Reviewer	Nicola Short, Manager: Heritage
Reviewer	Megan Tyler, Manager: Islands
Approver	Penny Pirrit, Manager: City Planning

Appendix 1

List of submissions and further submissions

Appendix 2

Summary of decisions requested

Appendix 3

Recommended amendments to the Plan
Part A
Part B
Part C

Appendix 4

Specialist reports
Part A
Part B

Published September 2008

Home |
Terms of use