District Plan Hauraki Gulf Islands Section - Proposed 2006
(Notified version 2006)
Street index |
Planning maps |
Text |
Appendices |
Annexures |
Section 32 material |
Plan modifications |
Help |
Notified - Home |
Decision - Home
Hearing reports index
Summary report on submissions to the Auckland City District Plan: Hauraki Gulf
Islands Section - Proposed 2006
| Topic: |
Part 7 Heritage (Maori heritage) |
| Report to: |
The Hearing Panel |
| Author: |
Sarah Smith, assistant planner |
| Date: |
1 September 2008 |
| Group file: |
314/274010
- 006 |
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 Maori heritage in:
- part 7 Heritage
- appendix 1f Schedule of Maori heritage sites inner islands
- appendix 2f Schedule of Maori heritage sites outer islands
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 Maori heritage 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 Maori
heritage. 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:
- Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a));
and
- Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose
of the RMA (s72); and
- 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:
- Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b));
and
- Assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose
of the RMA (s72); and
- Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and
- (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
(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the
environment."
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:
(c) ...
(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 Maori heritage.
The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions to their ancestral
lands, sites, waterways, waahi tapu, wai tapu, and other taonga is of national importance
under the RMA. The Plan must therefore recognise and provide for this relationship
and seeks to by identifying sites and areas of significance to Maori and establishing
appropriate restrictions on land use and ground disturbance.
The council acknowledges the role of iwi in identifying sites and items and that
the council and iwi need to work together in order for Maori heritage to be included
in the Plan.
At the time of notification of the Plan no Maori heritage sites had been included
because essential information collected by the council had not yet been considered
by iwi. The council is not prepared to identify sites and items without iwi sanctioning
it. As a result, it may be that some submissions are rejected at this time because
iwi have not agreed the appropriateness of including certain sites in the Plan or
that council does not know the location of the site in order to include it in the
Plan. Rejection should not be seen as the council diminishing the importance of
identifying Maori heritage sites in the Plan. Accordingly, the council and iwi need
to continue to work together to finalise sites and items for inclusion in the Plan
once the work is completed at a later date.
Furthermore, it is noted that the sites scheduled in the operative plan will
continue to be protected until such time as the proposed plan becomes operative.
The proposed Plan is unlikely to be operative for at least three years so the protection
of these sites have not been lost.
4.0 Analysis of submissions
4.1 Introduction
This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about
Maori heritage 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 Maori heritage 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 consultation
Submissions dealt with in this section:
298/2,
380/2,
568/2,
586/2,
628/2,
634/2,
646/2,
665/2,
673/2,
696/2,
706/2,
709/7,
731/2,
736/2,
748/2,
802/2,
819/2,
828/2,
837/2,
844/2,
850/2,
858/2,
871/2,
889/2,
893/2,
902/2,
925/2,
928/2,
957/2,
1011/2,
1055/40,
1123/2,
1152/2,
1204/2,
1216/2,
1232/2,
1291/2,
1375/2,
1636/2,
1637/2,
1638/2,
1639/2,
1640/2,
1641/2,
1642/2,
1643/2,
1644/2,
1645/2,
1646/2,
1647/2,
1648/2,
1649/2,
1650/2,
1651/2,
1652/2,
1653/2,
1654/2,
1655/2,
1656/2,
1657/2,
1658/2,
1659/2,
1660/2,
1662/2,
1663/2,
2124/2,
2131/2,
2133/2,
2278/2,
2283/2,
2463/2,
2561/2,
2675/2,
2679/2,
2684/2,
2691/2,
2695/2,
2706/2,
2710/2,
2780/2,
2782/2,
2791/2,
2826/2,
2830/2,
2842/2,
2994/2,
3009/2,
3011/2,
3025/2,
3061/45,
3354/2,
3513/2,
3536/2,
3561/2,
3569/2,
3573/2,
3589/2,
3628/2,
3786/2,
3806/2,
3814/2,
3817/2,
3832/2,
3836/2,
3838/1
4.2.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
709/7,
3354/2 and
3832/2
oppose the failure to recognise that the resident Maori community as a whole should
be consulted on Maori heritage sites.
The other submissions seek for the council to take appropriate action to remedy
the shortcomings identified regarding the failure to recognise that the resident
Maori community as a whole should be consulted on Maori heritage sites.
4.2.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The council acknowledges that only iwi can identify sites that are of importance
to Maori. While the council consulted with iwi on the Plan as a whole prior to the
notification of the Plan, no specific consultation was undertaken regarding Maori
heritage.
The council will need to consult with iwi in regards to Maori heritage sites
and is not prepared to identify or schedule any such sites without iwi involvement.
Therefore it is recommended that these submissions be accepted with no amendments
to the Plan.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions remedying shortcomings
That submissions
298/2,
380/2,
568/2,
586/2,
628/2,
634/2,
646/2,
665/2,
673/2,
696/2,
706/2,
709/7,
731/2,
736/2,
748/2,
802/2,
819/2,
828/2,
837/2,
844/2,
850/2,
858/2,
871/2,
889/2,
893/2,
902/2,
925/2,
928/2, 957/2,
1011/2,
1055/40,
1123/2,
1152/2,
1204/2,
1216/2,
1232/2,
1291/2,
1375/2,
1636/2,
1637/2,
1638/2,
1639/2,
1640/2,
1641/2,
1642/2,
1643/2,
1644/2,
1645/2,
1646/2,
1647/2,
1648/2,
1649/2,
1650/2,
1651/2,
1652/2,
1653/2,
1654/2,
1655/2,
1656/2,
1657/2,
1658/2,
1659/2,
1660/2,
1662/2,
1663/2,
2124/2,
2131/2,
2133/2,
2278/2,
2283/2,
2463/2,
2561/2,
2675/2,
2679/2,
2684/2,
2691/2,
2695/2,
2706/2,
2710/2,
2780/2,
2782/2,
2791/2,
2826/2,
2830/2,
2842/2,
2994/2,
3009/2,
3011/2,
3025/2,
3061/45,
3354/2,
3513/2,
3536/2,
3561/2,
3569/2,
3573/2,
3589/2,
3628/2,
3786/2,
3806/2,
3814/2,
3817/2,
3832/2,
3836/2
and 3838/1
be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.
|
4.3 Submissions about mechanisms to protect cultural and spiritual dimensions
Submissions dealt with in this section:
298/3,
380/3,
568/3,
586/3,
628/3,
634/3,
646/3,
665/3,
673/3,
696/3,
706/3,
709/8,
731/3,
736/3,
748/3,
802/3,
819/3,
828/3,
837/3,
844/3,
850/3,
858/3,
871/3,
889/3,
893/3,
902/3,
925/3,
928/3,
957/3,
1011/3,
1055/41,
1123/3,
1152/3,
1204/3,
1216/3,
1232/3,
1291/3,
1375/3,
1636/3,
1637/3,
1638/3,
1639/3,
1640/3,
1641/3,
1642/3,
1643/3,
1644/3,
1645/3,
1646/3,
1647/3,
1648/3,
1649/3,
1650/3,
1651/3,
1652/3,
1653/3,
1654/3,
1655/3,
1656/3,
1657/3,
1658/3,
1659/3,
1660/3,
1662/3,
1663/3,
2124/3,
2131/3,
2133/3,
2278/3,
2283/3,
2463/3,
2561/3,
2675/3,
2679/3,
2684/3,
2691/3,
2695/3,
2706/3,
2710/3,
2780/3,
2782/3,
2791/3,
2826/3,
2830/3,
2842/3,
2994/3,
3009/3,
3011/3,
3025/3,
3061/46,
3354/3,
3513/3,
3536/3,
3561/3,
3569/3,
3573/3,
3589/3,
3628/3,
3786/3,
3806/3,
3814/3,
3817/3,
3832/3,
3836/3,
3838/2
4.3.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
709/8,
3354/3 and
3832/3
oppose the failure to provide mechanisms to protect the cultural and spiritual dimensions
of heritage value for Maori heritage sites.
The other submissions request the council to take appropriate action to remedy
the shortcomings identified regarding the failure to provide mechanisms to protect
the cultural and spiritual dimensions of heritage value to Maori heritage sites.
4.3.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Maori heritage sites differ from archaeological sites as they have a cultural
and spiritual dimension and therefore may extend further than a physical site. The
provisions in clause 7.13 seek to recognise this and protect the cultural and spiritual
dimensions of a Maori heritage site as well as its physicality. The mechanism is
clearly provided for in the Plan.
However, it is acknowledged that the mechanism hasn't been used as intended due
to the reasons already outlined. Overall, it is considered that the mechanism to
protect the cultural and spiritual dimensions of sites is provided by the Plan and
therefore it is recommended that these submissions be accepted with no amendments
to the Plan.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking mechanisms
to protect cultural and spiritual dimensions
That submissions
298/3,
380/3,
568/3,
586/3,
628/3,
634/3,
646/3,
665/3,
673/3,
696/3,
706/3,
709/8,
731/3,
736/3,
748/3,
802/3,
819/3,
828/3,
837/3,
844/3,
850/3,
858/3,
871/3,
889/3,
893/3,
902/3,
925/3,
928/3, 957/3,
1011/3,
1055/41,
1123/3,
1152/3,
1204/3,
1216/3,
1232/3,
1291/3,
1375/3,
1636/3,
1637/3,
1638/3,
1639/3,
1640/3,
1641/3,
1642/3,
1643/3,
1644/3,
1645/3,
1646/3,
1647/3,
1648/3,
1649/3,
1650/3,
1651/3,
1652/3,
1653/3,
1654/3,
1655/3,
1656/3,
1657/3,
1658/3,
1659/3,
1660/3,
1662/3,
1663/3,
2124/3,
2131/3,
2133/3,
2278/3,
2283/3,
2463/3,
2561/3,
2675/3,
2679/3,
2684/3,
2691/3,
2695/3,
2706/3,
2710/3,
2780/3,
2782/3,
2791/3,
2826/3,
2830/3,
2842/3,
2994/3,
3009/3,
3011/3,
3025/3,
3061/46,
3354/3,
3513/3,
3536/3,
3561/3,
3569/3,
3573/3,
3589/3,
3628/3,
3786/3,
3806/3,
3814/3,
3817/3,
3832/3,
3836/3
and 3838/2
be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.
|
4.4 Submissions about informing land owners
Submissions dealt with in this section:
1243/64
4.4.1 Decisions requested
This submission seeks for the council to provide for landowners to be fully informed
about Maori heritage sites on their land.
4.4.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The submitter is concerned at the implication, in the fourth paragraph of the
opening statement, that only limited information about Maori heritage sites will
be made available to the landowner.
The fourth paragraph states:
"The custody of privileged information about Maori heritage sites will be retained
and managed by identified heritage staff within the council. It will be held in
a form that is not at risk of disclosure (unless this has been specifically authorised
by iwi on a case-by-case basis). At the same time, landowners need to be provided
with sufficient information about acceptable activities on the sites so as to maximise
protection of the sites without unnecessarily constraining the activities of landowners."
This statement is not precluding landowners from the knowledge that they have
a Maori heritage site on their property. A landowner does not need to know confidential
information about a heritage site such as the reasons for its spiritual and cultural
value; they just need to know the location of the site in order to protect it and
adhere to the provisions in the Plan.
It is therefore considered that this submission be rejected as it may not be
appropriate in some instances for full information to be disclosed to landowners
due to their sensitive nature.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking public awareness
That submission
1243/64 be rejected.
|
4.5 Submissions in support
Submissions dealt with in this section:
2641/55,
2912/8
4.5.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
2641/55 and
2912/8
seek to retain clause 7.13 and 7.13.2 respectively.
4.5.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
These submissions are in support of recognising, protecting and scheduling Maori
heritage in the Plan. The council has requirements under the RMA to recognise the
relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands,
water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga, and protect historic heritage from inappropriate
use and development. It is therefore recommended that these submissions be accepted
in so far as they support any amendments made.
| Planner's recommendations about supportive submissions
That submissions
2641/55 and
2912/8
be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.
|
4.6 Submissions about ground disturbance
Submissions dealt with in this section:
1274/9,
2643/6,
2644/7
4.6.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
1274/9,
2643/6
and 2644/7
seek for the council to confirm, in writing, that routine maintenance (involving
thistle and weed grubbing, spraying etc) is not captured by clause 7.13.3.2 and
that we may continue therefore to undertake routine farm maintenance as we have
done in previous, but not recent years within scheduled areas 19-1 and 16-1.
4.6.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The submitters are confusing the provisions for Maori heritage sites with scheduled
archaeological sites.
It should be noted that there have been no Maori heritage sites identified in
the Plan as notified and therefore the provisions of 7.13 do not apply to any land
at this stage. However, in the future sites will be identified and then the provisions
of 7.13 will apply to those identified sites.
Clause 7.13.3.2 states that any activity that involves ground disturbance has
a discretionary activity status. Ground disturbance is defined as changing the ground
from its usual and present existence and therefore can be anything from earthworks
to weed grubbing. Thus, the activity of thistle and weed grubbing would breach this
provision and would require a resource consent on land that has been scheduled as
a Maori heritage site.
It is noted that the areas in question are within scheduled archaeological sites.
Both of these sites are within category A, which are extremely valuable archaeological
sites. The provisions within clause 7.8 apply to these sites. Most farm maintenance
activities will require a resource consent, for example the construction of post
and wire fence. Weed grubbing would also require a resource consent.
Therefore, farm maintenance activities that have been done in the past may not
be able to be continued without a resource consent.
It is therefore recommended that these submissions be rejected as there is no
specific relief sought.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking confirmation
That submissions
1274/9,
2643/6
and
2644/7 be rejected.
|
4.7 Submissions about picnicking facilities
Submissions dealt with in this section:
2641/56
4.7.1 Decisions requested
This submission seeks for clauses 7.13.3.1 and 7.13.3.2 to be amended by adding
the following bullet point:
- Provision of picnicking facilities.
4.7.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The submission states that due to the cultural inappropriateness of food being
brought onto a particular Maori heritage sites, such as wahi tapu, picnicking facilities
and similar activities should be excluded from being permitted within the Plan.
It is recognised that food is inappropriate on some Maori heritage sites. However,
this may not be the case for all Maori heritage sites. It is therefore considered
appropriate for the council to consult with iwi to determine whether such a provision
would be appropriate in the Plan and how it should be applied.
It is therefore recommended that this submission be rejected at this stage and
that officers consult with iwi on this matter.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking exclusion
of picnicking facilities
That submission
2641/56 be rejected and officers consult with iwi on this matter.
|
4.8 Submissions about Maori heritage area
Submissions dealt with in this section:
2549/2,
2620/2,
2620/3
4.8.1 Decisions requested
Submission
2620/2 seeks
for an investigation of the extent of the Urupa and of the location of other burials
on the Hart farm property and when that investigation has been completed definition
of an area including the Church site, Urupa and burials as a Maori Heritage Area.
Submission
2549/2 seeks
to schedule Hangaura (Church Bay) urupa (map ref 3.28 under the operative plan)
and church site in appendix 1f.
Submission
2620/3 seeks
for provision of appropriate rules and controls in the Plan to protect the Maori
Heritage Area from inappropriate adjoining land uses/activities.
4.8.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
4.8.2.1 Identification of Maori heritage area
The submission seeks for the council to investigate the extent of the urupa and
other burials on the Hart farm property and then schedule these areas.
The urupa which is known as the Hangaura (Church Bay) urupa is scheduled in the
operative plan under archaeological and Maori heritage sites inner islands (map
ref 3.28).
It has not been scheduled in the proposed plan as Maori heritage as it needs
to be considered by iwi and it was not scheduled as an archaeological site as it
did not meet the threshold for scheduling. However, it is noted that this site among
others is scheduled in the operative plan as Maori heritage sites and therefore
is protected until such time as the proposed plan reaches operative status. The
Plan is unlikely to be operative for at least three years so the protection of these
sites have not been lost.
For sites to be scheduled as Maori heritage in the Plan bicultural principles
are adhered to through joint consideration and approval by iwi and council; the
sites must be considered and approved by iwi and a heritage specialist within council.
In consultation with tangata whenua the council will undertake further research
to identify and recognise the heritage values of Maori heritage sites. It is recommended
that the Panel recommend that officers undertake this work and report to the City
Development Committee with recommendations. It is anticipated that this work will
scoped 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 submissions
2549/2 and
2620/2 be
rejected at this stage as the work and potential scheduling will be undertaken outside
of this plan review process.
4.8.2.2 Rules and controls
The Plan uses site surrounds to protect the context of the item from effects
that detract from the inherent heritage significance and value of the scheduled
item. Site surrounds would be identified and scheduled if it is considered that
activities provided for around the scheduled item may detrimentally affect the item.
Therefore it is inappropriate to include further provisions in the Plan to protect
Maori heritage sites from inappropriate adjacent land uses.
It is recommended that this submission be accepted in part with no amendments
as the Plan already provides mechanisms to protect the surrounds of an item.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking Maori Heritage
Area
That submissions
2549/2
and 2620/2
be rejected.
That submission
2620/3
be accepted in part with no amendments.
|
4.9 Submissions about disclosure
Submissions dealt with in this section:
2913/1
4.9.1 Decisions requested
This submission seeks for the council to recognise that some matters of Maori
heritage may not be and should not be disclosed and placed in a Plan. Instead, recognise
and provide for the 'building of capacity' of a person or persons either with the
tangata whenua, or within council who is a repository of this knowledge. Put in
place a provision in the Plan that the statement of that person(s) as to the sanctity
or value of a particular site has the effect of a rule in the Plan.
4.9.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
The submitter further states that because of life values some aspects of Maori
heritage are special and should not be written in the Plan.
It is acknowledged that there may be some matters of Maori heritage that cannot
be, and should not be, disclosed in the Plan. The Plan states that:
"the custody of privileged information about Maori heritage sites will be retained
and managed by identified heritage staff within the council. It will be held in
a form that is not at risk of disclosure (unless this has been specifically authorised
by iwi on a case-by-case basis)."
This statement recognises that some matters should not be disclosed in the Plan.
Specific matters about the particular site do not need to be disclosed in the
Plan however, it is important for Maori heritage sites to be identified in the Plan
to ensure their protection. Otherwise any activity on every property on the islands
would need to require a resource consent or some similar process for the identified
person or persons to assess whether the property contains a Maori heritage site.
Obviously this is not practical. To ensure the sites are protected it is important
to identify them in the Plan so that property owners are aware of the site(s) and
can take appropriate action or inaction to continue protection. Sites or items can
be identified so that the specific location within a larger scheduled area does
not need to be released.
The submitter also seeks for a statement of the identified person or persons
as to the value of a particular site to have the effect of a rule in the Plan. This
would lack certainty and clarity for the community.
It is recommended that this submission be accepted in part, as the council has
stated that heritage staff within the council will retain privileged information
about Maori heritage.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking person to
hold knowledge of Maori heritage rather than the Plan
That submission
2913/1
be accepted in part with no amendments to the Plan.
|
4.10 Submissions about specific sites
Submissions dealt with in this section:
298/1,
709/6,
858/1,
380/1,
568/1,
586/1,
628/1,
634/1,
646/1,
665/1,
673/1,
696/1,
731/1,
736/1,
748/1,
802/1,
706/1,
828/1,
837/1,
844/1,
850/1,
871/1,
889/1,
893/1,
902/1,
925/1,
928/1,
957/1,
1011/1,
1055/39,
1123/1,
1152/1,
1204/1,
1216/1,
1232/1,
1291/1,
1375/1,
1636/1,
1637/1,
1638/1,
1639/1,
1640/1,
1641/1,
1642/1,
1643/1,
1644/1,
1645/1,
1646/1,
1647/1,
1648/1,
1649/1,
1650/1,
1651/1,
1652/1,
1653/1,
1654/1,
1655/1,
1656/1,
1657/1,
1658/1,
1659/1,
1660/1,
1662/1,
1663/1,
2108/1,
2549/1,
2549/5,
2549/6,
2549/7,
2561/1,
2124/1,
2131/1,
2133/1,
2278/1,
2283/1,
2463/1,
2641/57,
2641/58,
2641/59,
2675/1,
2679/1,
2684/1,
2691/1,
2695/1,
2706/1,
2710/1,
2780/1,
2782/1,
2791/1,
2826/1,
2830/1,
2842/1,
2994/1,
3009/1,
3011/1,
3025/1,
3061/44,
3354/1,
3513/1,
3536/1,
3561/1,
3569/1,
3573/1,
3589/1,
3628/1,
3786/1,
3806/1,
3814/1,
3817/1,
3832/1,
3836/1
4.10.1 Decisions requested
Submission
2549/1 seeks
for the Plan to schedule R11/New Ropata Roa (map ref 1-3) in appendix 1f including
the additional graves discovered in 2002.
Submission
2549/6 seeks
for the Te Huruhi urupa to be scheduled in appendix 1f.
Submission
2108/1 seeks that the urupa at Matiatia is identified as a Maori heritage site
in appendix 1f and on sheet 1, map 2.
Submission
2549/5 seeks
to schedule urupa at Okoka Bay in appendix 1f.
Submission
2549/7 seeks
to schedule Te Wharau urupa at Park Point in appendix 1f.
Submission
2641/59 seeks to schedule Te Whau wahi tapu area ((NZHPT registration ref: 7230)
in appendix 1f.
Submission
2620/2 seeks
for an investigation of the extent of the urupa and of the location of other burials
on the Hart farm property and when that investigation has been completed definition
of an area including the Church site, urupa and burials as a Maori Heritage Area.
Submissions
298/1,
709/6,
858/1,
380/1,
568/1,
586/1,
628/1,
634/1,
646/1,
665/1,
673/1,
696/1,
731/1,
736/1,
748/1,
802/1,
706/1,
828/1,
837/1,
844/1,
850/1,
871/1,
889/1,
893/1,
902/1,
925/1,
928/1,
957/1,
1011/1,
1055/39,
1123/1,
1152/1,
1204/1,
1216/1,
1232/1,
1291/1,
1375/1,
1636/1,
1637/1,
1638/1,
1639/1,
1640/1,
1641/1,
1642/1,
1643/1,
1644/1,
1645/1,
1646/1,
1647/1,
1648/1,
1649/1,
1650/1,
1651/1,
1652/1,
1653/1,
1654/1,
1655/1,
1656/1,
1657/1,
1658/1,
1659/1,
1660/1,
1662/1,
1663/1,
2561/1,
2124/1,
2131/1,
2133/1,
2278/1,
2283/1,
2463/1,
2675/1,
2679/1,
2684/1,
2691/1,
2695/1,
2706/1,
2710/1,
2780/1,
2782/1,
2791/1,
2826/1,
2830/1,
2842/1,
2994/1,
3009/1,
3011/1,
3025/1,
3061/44,
3354/1,
3513/1,
3536/1,
3561/1,
3569/1,
3573/1,
3589/1,
3628/1,
3786/1,
3806/1,
3814/1,
3817/1,
3832/1
and 3836/1
seek for the council to take appropriate action to remedy the shortcomings identified
regarding the lack of Maori heritage sites in the Plan. For example the corner of
Te Huruhi Bay including the site of Piritahi Marae stands out as an obvious example
of a Maori heritage site area.
Submissions
2641/57 and
2641/58 seek to amend appendix 1f and 2f respectively to provide for the protection
of identified Maori heritage sites.
4.10.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
Specific sites identified and lack of Maori heritage in the Plan
At the time of notification there were no Maori heritage sites scheduled in the
Plan. For sites to be scheduled as Maori heritage in the Plan they must be considered
and approved by iwi and a heritage specialist within council. As this process has
not been done for these specific sites, it is inappropriate to schedule them in
the Plan.
As recommended in section 4.8.2.1 above, officers should work with iwi
to identify and map Maori heritage sites. It is therefore recommended that these
submissions which seek for specific sites to be scheduled be rejected as the work
and potential scheduling will be undertaken outside of this plan review process.
It is recommended that these submissions
298/1,
709/6,
858/1,
380/1,
568/1,
586/1,
628/1,
634/1,
646/1,
665/1,
673/1,
696/1,
731/1,
736/1,
748/1,
802/1,
706/1,
828/1,
837/1,
844/1,
850/1,
871/1,
889/1,
893/1,
902/1,
925/1,
928/1,
957/1,
1011/1,
1055/39,
1123/1,
1152/1,
1204/1,
1216/1,
1232/1,
1291/1,
1375/1,
1636/1,
1637/1,
1638/1,
1639/1,
1640/1,
1641/1,
1642/1,
1643/1,
1644/1,
1645/1,
1646/1,
1647/1,
1648/1,
1649/1,
1650/1,
1651/1,
1652/1,
1653/1,
1654/1,
1655/1,
1656/1,
1657/1,
1658/1,
1659/1,
1660/1,
1662/1,
1663/1,
2561/1,
2124/1,
2131/1,
2133/1,
2278/1,
2283/1,
2463/1,
2675/1,
2679/1,
2684/1,
2691/1,
2695/1,
2706/1,
2710/1,
2780/1,
2782/1,
2791/1,
2826/1,
2830/1,
2842/1,
2994/1,
3009/1,
3011/1,
3025/1,
3061/44,
3354/1,
3513/1,
3536/1,
3561/1,
3569/1,
3573/1,
3589/1,
3628/1,
3786/1,
3806/1,
3814/1,
3817/1,
3832/1
and 3836/1
be accepted in part as it has been recommended that the officers undertake further
research and work to enable sites to be scheduled in the future.
Protection of Maori heritage
As stated in the Plan, at the time of notification no Maori heritage sites were
included. It is acknowledged above that the council and iwi need to undertake a
comprehensive study to identify Maori heritage sites in the islands.
However, once Maori heritage sites have been identified in the Plan, the Plan
provides a high level of protection through the provisions.
It is therefore recommended that submissions
2641/57 and
2641/58 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan as the Plan already affords
protection to heritage sites once identified.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions relating to specific
sites
That submissions
2108/1,
2549/1,
2549/5,
2549/6,
2549/7
and
2641/59 be rejected and that the Panel recommend that officers continue the
work and report to the City Development Committee with recommendations.
That submissions
298/1,
709/6,
858/1,
380/1,
568/1,
586/1,
628/1,
634/1,
646/1,
665/1,
673/1,
696/1,
731/1,
736/1,
748/1,
802/1,
706/1,
828/1,
837/1,
844/1,
850/1,
871/1,
889/1,
893/1,
902/1,
925/1,
928/1, 957/1,
1011/1,
1055/39,
1123/1,
1152/1,
1204/1,
1216/1,
1232/1,
1291/1,
1375/1,
1636/1,
1637/1,
1638/1,
1639/1,
1640/1,
1641/1,
1642/1,
1643/1,
1644/1,
1645/1,
1646/1,
1647/1,
1648/1,
1649/1,
1650/1,
1651/1,
1652/1,
1653/1,
1654/1,
1655/1,
1656/1,
1657/1,
1658/1,
1659/1,
1660/1,
1662/1,
1663/1,
2561/1,
2124/1,
2131/1,
2133/1,
2278/1,
2283/1,
2463/1,
2675/1,
2679/1,
2684/1,
2691/1,
2695/1,
2706/1,
2710/1,
2780/1,
2782/1,
2791/1,
2826/1,
2830/1,
2842/1,
2994/1,
3009/1,
3011/1,
3025/1,
3061/44,
3354/1,
3513/1,
3536/1,
3561/1,
3569/1,
3573/1,
3589/1,
3628/1,
3786/1,
3806/1,
3814/1,
3817/1,
3832/1
and 3836/1
be accepted in part in so far as they support the Panel requesting officers to
continue work on Maori heritage sites.
That submissions
2641/57 and
2641/58 be accepted with no amendments to the Plan.
|
4.11 Submissions about general amendments to appendix 1f
Submissions dealt with in this section:
3521/150,
3521/151
4.11.1 Decisions requested
Submissions
3521/150 and
3521/151 seek to amend appendix 1f and 2f respectively to include explanatory
text that explains the huge significance to Maori of the numerous archaeological
sites scheduled elsewhere in the Plan.
4.11.2 Planner's analysis and recommendations
It is acknowledged that there are numerous archaeological sites scheduled in
the Plan that have a huge significance to Maori such as pa sites and which may also
be considered as Maori heritage sites.
The note at the beginning of both appendices states (with reference to the appropriate
islands):
"There are currently no Maori heritage sites scheduled in the inner (outer) islands.
Refer to clause 7.13 for further information."
It is considered that an explanatory note can be added to the appendices until
a comprehensive study is completed and Maori heritage sites are scheduled in the
Plan.
It is recommended that these submissions be accepted and the note be amended
to state:
There are currently no Maori heritage sites scheduled in the inner (outer) islands.
It is noted that there are numerous sites scheduled in the Plan that have both
archaeological and Maori values. Refer to clause 7.13 for further information.
| Planner's recommendations about submissions seeking amendments
to appendix 1f
That submissions
3521/150 and
3521/151 be accepted and the notes in appendix 1f and 2f be amended to state:
There are currently no Maori heritage sites scheduled in the inner (outer)
islands. It is noted that there are numerous sites scheduled in the Plan
that have both archaeological and Maori values. Refer to clause 7.13 for further
information.
|
5.0 Conclusion
This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding
Maori heritage 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
Published September 2008
