Southern Regional Office

PO Box 4403

Christchurch

Phone: 377 9241

Our Ref: 22012-017

26 January 2007

The Planning Department

Selwyn District Council

Private Bag 1

LEESTON

SUBMISSION OF NEW ZEALAND HISTORIC PLACES TRUST POUHERE TAONGA TO NOTIFIED RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATIONS AND NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR

THE CENTRAL PLAINS WATER ENHANCEMENT SCHEME (CPWES)

CENTRAL PLAINS WATER LIMITED

NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT

CENTRAL PLAINS WATER TRUST

APPLICATIONS FOR RESOURCE CONSENT (6)

This submission is in relation to:

Land use consents in relation to the water distribution race network for the construction, use and maintenance of pipelines, open channels or waterways to convey water. Land use consents for the construction, use and maintenance of utility buildings and structures along and adjacent to the routes of the water distribution network. Six land use consents have been applied for, each covering a different geographical area of the Central Plains, as identified below:

RO65219 – Windwhistle

RO65218 – Te Pirita

RO65217 – Springfield

RO65216 – Sheffield

RO65215 – Darfield

RO65214 – Central

Notice of Requirement for a Designation of land for the Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme

To: Selwyn District Council

Name: New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga

Southern Regional Office

P.O. Box 4403

Christchurch

STATEMENT OF SUBMISSION

Pursuant to Section 96 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (NZHPT) makes the following submission:

The NZHPT opposes the applications from Central Plains Water Limited and Central Plains Water Trust for the proposed Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme (CPWES).

The reason for NZHPT position is as follows

The NZHPT is New Zealand’s leading national historic heritage agency. The work of the NZHPT is governed by the Historic Places Act 1993. The purpose of the Act is to “promote the identification, protection, preservation and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand”. In New Zealand, there are over 5000 heritage places and areas registered under the Historic Places Act 1993 as historic places, historic areas, wahi tapu and wahi tapu areas.

Under Section 6 of the RMA, historic heritage is considered a ‘matter of national importance’. From the information supplied in the applications NZHPT is unable to determine whether the adverse affects on historic heritage can be avoided, remedied or mitigated, as identified in Section 5 of the RMA.

Historical Context

The Selwyn District is significant for both Maori and European history. Selwyn is a predominantly rural region with a European history steeped in farming and coalmining. A number of early farms were established in the Selwyn area, one of the most well known is Homebush established by the Deans family in the 1850’s. Some examples of buildings and structures that are included on the NZHPT Register that are located within the proposed CPWES area include:

Homebush Station woolshed, stables, water tower, turbine and grain store (Category I)

Terrace Station homestead (Category I)

Homebush Station homestead (Category II)

Coton’s Cottage (Hororata) (Category II)

the Point House and Garden, Windwhistle Road (Category II)

Steventon Homestead, Whitecliffs Road (Category II).

As scheduled in the Proposed Selwyn District Plan (Rural and Township volumes) there are a number of identified heritage trees, heritage sites, buildings or structures and cultural sites or areas (Waahi Taonga or Mahinga Kai) and Waahi taonga (Management Sites) located within the proposed area of development. Additionally, there are a large number of historic mining sites within the area. The effects of the proposal on these heritage features have not been considered in the applications.

Details of our submission are as follows

The reason for our submission is to ensure that under Section 6 of the RMA the following matters of national importance (RMA Section 6e) “the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga” and (RMA Section 6f) “the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development” are recognised and provided for.

Historic Heritage Values

The applicant has not provided an assessment of the historic heritage values within the area of the proposed CPWES. NZHPT requests that the applicant commissions a suitably qualified heritage professional to undertake a comprehensive historic heritage assessment to determine the effects of the proposed scheme on historic heritage values. The definition of historic heritage in the Resource Management Act, 1991 states:-

‘historic heritage

a) means those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures, deriving from any of the following qualities”

ix) archaeological;

ii) architectural;

iii) cultural

iv) historic;

v) scientific;

vi) technological; and

b) includes –

i) historic sites, structures, places, and areas; and

ii) archaeological sites; and

iii) sites of significance to Maori, including wahi tapu; and

iv) surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources;”

With regard to the historic heritage assessment, to satisfy the requirements of the RMA all of the values identified in the definition above will need to be considered in the assessment of effects.

Heritage Management Plan

In the mitigation measures section of the applications, the applicant discusses the preparation of a heritage management plan. The applicant states that the heritage management plan will be prepared to “cover any destruction, damage or modification to any archaeological sites, historic sites or buildings classified under the Historic Places Act 1993, and will identify any conditions to be complied with in relation to heritage”. The heritage management plan should cover all heritage that meets the definition in the RMA regardless of whether or not they are classified under the Historic Places Act 1993.

Given the contents of the heritage management plan are unknown, NZHPT requests that Central Plains Water Trust and Central Plains Water Limited and their successors will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with NZHPT prior to commencement of works. The MOU will address, amongst others, the following matters:

- The method for identification of historic heritage places and for prevention or mitigation of adverse effects on historic heritage places;

- The mechanism for identification and protection of archaeological sites (noting that while these issues need to be addressed under the RMA, there is a parallel process requiring an authority under the archaeological provisions of the isotirc Historic Places Act 1993).

- Consideration of all adverse effects on historic heritage during construction, implementation, use and on-going maintenance of the proposed dam and canal works;

- Consideration of the effects on the cultural landscape to be undertaken in consultation with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu;

Archaeology

Wherever possible, the destruction, damage or modification of archaeological sites should be avoided or minimized. Integration with archaeological processes under the Historic Places Act 1993 is essential. Under the Historic Places Act 1993 the definition of an archaeological site is:

”any place in New Zealand that –

a. Either –

i. Was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900; or

ii. Is the site of the wreck of any vessel where that wreck occurred before 1900; and

iii. Is or may be able through investigation by archaeological methods to provide evidence relating to the history of New Zealand.”

There are a number of archaeological sites recorded in the NZ Archaeological Association Site Recording Scheme within the CPWES area. Please refer to Figure 1 below the red dots identify a recorded archaeological site. The sites have significance for both Maori and European values, some of these sites include Maori ovens, findspots, cottage ruins and artefacts. There may also be other archaeological sites in the area that have not been recorded. For example many of the existing irrigation schemes and stockwater races within the area that predate 1900 may be considered to be archaeological sites.

Figure 1: Recorded archaeological sites within the CPWES area

Under the Historic Places Act 1993 it is unlawful to alter, modify or destroy an archaeological site without an archaeological authority from the NZHPT to do so.

The applicant has not undertaken an archaeological assessment to determine the effects of the proposed works on archaeological sites. NZHPT requests that a comprehensive archaeological assessment be undertaken by a professionally qualified archaeologist to determine the effects of the proposed CPWES on archaeological sites. The archaeological assessment will provide recommendations, management options and mitigation measures and which can be used as part of the consent and the authority process.

Archaeological Authority

Under the Historic Places Act 1993 it is unlawful to alter, modify or destroy an archaeological site without an archaeological authority from NZHPT to do so. Under the act the NZHPT has a statutory timeframe of up to 3 months to process an authority application. On the completion of the archaeological assessment the applicant will be informed of the need to apply for an authority.

Accidental Discovery Protocol

In the mitigation measures section of the applications, the applicant makes reference to the preparation of an accidental discovery protocol to be developed to “cover instances where archaeological sites are unearthed during the construction phase”. Having an Accidental Discovery Protocol does not replace the need for an archaeological assessment to determine the effects of the proposal on archaeology. The Accidental Discovery Protocol is used to provide a process to minimize effects on unrecorded and unknown archaeological sites that are uncovered once work begins. NZHPT request that the Accidental Discovery Protocol be prepared by a professionally qualified archaeologist in consultation with NZHPT.

Sites of Significance to Maori

The proposed CPWES is located in an area which is rich in Ngai Tahu history. Several Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 (NTCSA) cultural redress sites are associated with the project area, including Ruataniwha (Cam River) Waikirikiri (Selwyn River) and statutory acknowledgement areas whakamatau (lake Coleridge) and nohoanga (Rakaia River).

We understand that a Cultural Impact Assessment has been prepared. The NZHPT considers that there is potential for the proposed CPWES to have adverse effects on Ngai Tahu cultural values, and therefore processes should be negotiated with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu to ensure that these affects are avoided or mitigated.

The Trust seeks the following decision:

That the consent authority decline all of the applications for the proposed CPWES.

Notwithstanding, NZHPT requests Selwyn District Council place the applications on hold, so that further information requests (pursuant to Section 92(1) of the RMA) can be made in respect of the following information. The following information requests are as follows:

- The applicant has not undertaken an archaeological assessment to determine the effects of the proposed works on archaeological sites. NZHPT requests that the applicant commissions a professionally qualified archaeologist to undertake a comprehensive archaeological assessment of the area identified in the Notice of Requirement including the dam and reservoir, to determine the effects of the proposed CPWES on archaeological sites.

- The applicant has not provided an assessment of the historic heritage values within the area of the proposed CPWES. NZHPT requests that the applicant commissions a suitably qualified heritage professional to undertake a comprehensive historic heritage assessment of the area identified in the notice of requirement application including the dam and reservoir, to determine the effects of the proposed CPWES on historic heritage values.

NZHPT will review our submission on receipt of the further information.

The NZHPT would like to be heard in support of this submission.

SIGNED

Alan Jolliffe

Acting General Manager

Address for service: Joanne Price

Heritage Adviser (Planning)

Southern Regional Office

P.O. Box 4403

Christchurch

Ph (03) 377-9241

Fax (03) 3742433

Central Plains Water Trust
c/- Buddle Findlay
Clarendon Tower
PO Box 322
CHRISTCHURCH
Attention: Rachel Dunningham