(Section 24 of the RPS)

The Northland region has a considerable number of significant heritage features. Most of them relate to early Maori settlement and include pa sites, terraces, pits and middens which are particularly prevalent along the coast. Buildings and sites from the early European exploration, timber milling and gum digging areas make up another part of the region's heritage. The features are a unique and valuable resource, not only from a cultural and historical perspective, but also from an economic one in terms of potential tourism.

Anticipated Outcomes

· A more comprehensive record of heritage features.

· Greater public appreciation of the value of waahi tapu and their significance to the Tangata Whenua.

· A significant increase in the number of heritage features, formally protected by heritage orders, covenants, reserves or other instruments.

Policy Mix

The objective for the heritage protection section is the protection and where possible, enhancement of, the cultural, historic and amenity values of heritage features.

The policy approach for the identification and recording of heritage features (Policy 24.4 (a)) is to assist iwi authorities, New Zealand Historic Places Trust and the Department of Conservation to identify and record features, ultimately resulting in registers of heritage features within the district and regional plans.

The policy approach for the protection and enhancement of heritage features (Policy 24.4 (b)) is a mixture of advocacy and regulatory mechanisms, including rules in the district and regional plans.

The Heritage Protection section contains nine individual methods of implementation that flow from the policy direction discussed above.

What's the current state?

There is a need for a common heritage database and for information sharing between government agencies, and councils. The NRC has a co-ordinating role. The RPS requires that registers of heritage features be included in regional plans. Past attempts to facilitate this have been unsuccessful and it is mainly promoted through district plans. Currently, archaeological sites recorded in the New Zealand Archaeological Association (NZAA) Site Recording Scheme (SRS) as at 2006 are recorded in the Whangarei District and Far North District Plans, whilst both Kaipara and the Far North District Plans show recorded sites as at 2004.

Archaeological sites

Early settlement in Northland, especially in coastal areas, means that the region is rich in archaeological sites. The NZAA national inventory identifies more than 11,480 sites in Northland as at August 2007, of which approximately 10,530 (92%) are related to Maori occupation. The Maori sites include waahi tapu sites, middens, terraces, pa sites, battle grounds and urupa.

Working with Maori

The latest SOE report mentions the NZAA and its national inventory of all sites of significance that have been recorded and registered with them, known as the NZAA Site Recording Scheme (SRS).

In 2001 the NZAA began a national programme to update the information on the SRS. By 2004 the NRC had joined with the Whangarei District Council to look at an upgrade of the Whangarei district records. The initial stage was a desktop review of the Whangarei district, from which NZAA were able to determine which sites needed revisiting to ensure accuracy and validity of their records.

The second stage of the upgrade involved visiting sites which required validating, which was carried out jointly by local iwi representatives and an archaeologist for NZAA, with funding assistance from the Whangarei District Council and NRC. When this project was completed, work began on the desktop review of the Kaipara and Far North districts. As the NRC was the only organisation funding this project, only the initial stage was completed for both districts.

During 2007 the NRC seconded a senior policy analyst to work with Te Uri o Hau to extrapolate information from their Waitangi Tribunal reports. This information related to sites of significance and cultural landscapes. An inventory was created which catalogued and referenced material making it readily available for use by Te Uri o Hau.

What has worked well in this section?

There has been greater identification of land-based sites/features of heritage significance via their scheduling in district plans, as well as waahi tapu and other sites of significance to Maori on crown and Maori land.

The distribution of non-notified applications to Tangata Whenua is supported and should be continued as it enables an assessment of cultural/heritage impacts of each application based upon Tangata Whenua knowledge and is an opportunity for Tangata Whenua to evaluate any potential effects on those areas and sites they considered too important to identify through the district plan or NZAA records.

The Environmental Standards within the Water and Soil and Plan for Northland are excellent and well supported for their protection of sites of significance.

What has not worked in this section?

Identification of heritage sites and values at the regional level is still lacking in some areas as well as identifying heritage of "Regional Significance". RPS methods which sought to establish registers in regional plans of those heritage features which immediately adjoin the CMA and rivers have not been implemented. There is also a need to better identify and provide for the protection of numerous archaeological sites.

There has been little up-take of iwi authorities establishing recording systems for waahi tapu sites and other features. This has resulted in a reliance on developers to identify sites which is often too late in the process.

Whilst all archaeological sites are protected under the Historic Places Act whether recorded or not, the assumption that the Act protects buildings is not correct – the protection comes from provisions within district plans or covenants between owners and the Historic Places Trust.

General comments on this section:

Councils themselves are heritage protection authorities and therefore have shared responsibilities with the NZ Historic Places Trust.

There is concern at the links with Section 19: Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Landscapes, and areas that may have fallen between the gaps. Section 19 discusses landscapes in respect of natural values significant to Maori and amenity values but not those of cultural/historic significance. These may be Maori and/or Pakeha e.g. Pouerua, Te Puna, Whangarei stone walls, field systems and pa complexes. It is not clear whether these areas are actually captured by the NZAA database or the Historic Places Register

Section 22, which address Coastal Management, needs to recognise the cultural/historic values of the coast, as well as natural character of the coast.

Consultation on resource consent applications with Tangata Whenua differs between the districts but there is a consistent concern from Tangata Whenua at how and when their input is considered. There is a lack of ability for Tangata Whenua to satisfy a council that an additional cultural assessment report is required (using section 92 of the RMA).

Is this section Efficient and Effective?

Heritage protection is working well in some instances and not well in others. There is a mixed bag of effective protection and complete in-action across the region, with the level of effort from councils being minimal. This section does not adequately reflect the new requirements for councils under the RMA. Overall, it is considered that councils in Northland should do more to protect and promote our historic heritage and that the existing policies and methods have only been partly effective.

Emerging Issues for this section?

The profile of heritage, certainly at the regional level, needs to be lifted – consistent with the movement of historic heritage from section 7 (other matter) to section 6 (f) (nationally important matter) of the RMA since the RPS was initially formulated. The roles of the various agencies in managing heritage also need clarification, which could be identified through the RPS.

There is a need to complete the audit of what we know (archaeological sites) for the entire region before starting to address what we don't know. This section should ensure that a consistent approach to site identification and recording is undertaken for the region. You cannot prevent damage to sites if you do not identify those sites in the first instance.

Generally speaking, Tangata Whenua are reluctant to identify sites of significant cultural value, which can be challenging because if councils don't know where they are, the sites cannot be protected. If Maori choose not to formally identify sites then there is very little councils can do to offer any degree of "protection". Opportunities for other innovative forms of protection (outside of the RMA) should be explored by Tangata Whenua with assistance from councils if necessary.

Conclusions

Currently the focus for heritage protection is on the physical elements of heritage namely, archaeological sites and historic buildings which occur primarily through district plans, which can be inconsistent across the region. The less tangible elements of heritage are often not recognised or managed (i.e. cultural/heritage landscapes, sites of significant historic events).

Given the elevation of heritage issues within the RMA, this section could provide more direction to enable:

· a consistent approach to heritage across the region;

· greater awareness of the economic and social value of heritage;

· clarity as to roles and responsibilities in heritage protection; and

· greater recognition of heritage/cultural landscapes and heritage values not currently taken into account (i.e. coastal/marine heritage).