From Heritage New Zealand, Autumn 2008

by Pete Kerr

Despite a fraught beginning, discovery of a pas site in central Wellington had a resolution that left everyone happy

In November, 2005, work on a multi-million dollar high-rise development in the heart of Wellington city was suddenly halted when foundation work for the new building uncovered the remains of a 160-year-old pa site.

It was a remarkable find, given the pa site was just off Courtenay Place, in central Wellington, under a two-storey building that had stood in Taranaki Street for 100 years. And obviously, for local Maori in particular, it was a hugely significant discovery. The remains were of Te Aro Pa, one of the largest in the Wellington area, with up to 200 people in the 1850s occupying an area of more than two hectares.

But for building developer Washington Development Ltd and its project manager, David Dowsett, the find was the stuff of nightmares. The developer had already spent two years getting a resource consent from the Wellington City Council to build the apartments. The majority of the building’s 48 apartments had been pre-sold, $5 million had already been invested into the project and a contractor had been employed to begin preparation of the site for construction of the new eight-storey apartment complex.

But, as soon as the remains of the pa site were found the council withdrew the developers’ resource consent, effectively stalling the project indefinitely. What followed was a period of sometimes-heated discussions, finger pointing and intense frustration as a collection of seemingly disparate groups sat around a table and tried to figure out a resolution.

On one side was the developer, whose interest in the site was clearly financial; on another were local Maori, represented by the Wellington Tenths Trust, who were obviously keen to take guardianship of their heritage; and on yet another, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, with clear statutory functions through the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993, and a wider role to promote the identification, protection and preservation of the site.

Then there was the Wellington City Council, which had resource and building consent statutory functions, urban planning considerations, and a community responsibility to preserve a rare window into Wellington’s early history. Perhaps not surprisingly, most of the parties involved brought legal counsel.

What’s remarkable about this story – notwithstanding the Te Aro Pa find – is that it didn’t end in stalemate at the negotiation table and, furthermore, may well prove to be a template for future developments.

During the 18 months following the discovery, the various groups were able to get past their often considerable differences, find some common ground and forge an agreement that allowed everyone to walk away with smiles on their faces.

David Dowsett, owner of Guardsman Property Management Ltd, is credited by many for his efforts in helping to preserve the remains of the Maori settlement. Last year, the New Zealand Archaeological Association presented him with its Public Archaeology Award in recognition of the work he did at the Te Aro Pa site. The award is handed out every two years to recognise outstanding efforts in public archaeology, and this is the first time since its inception in 1998 that it has been awarded to an individual. All previous recipients have been local government or public institutions. The project was also Highly Commended at the 2006 Wellington Conservation Awards.

Dowsett can look back on the past couple of years with some fondness and pride, but it wasn’t all plain sailing – particularly in the beginning. “It really was my worst nightmare,” he says. “One second we had a viable project and had committed $12-15 million into the development, had everything ready to go, and then the council pulled the plug.”

The council decision to suspend construction had been triggered by the requirements of its resource consent. Pursuant to a condition of the consent, the developer had commissioned a number of reports prior to construction, including an archaeological report from an archaeological consultant, an historical report and a cultural impact report from the Wellington Tenths Trust. All of them pointed to the significance of the site but intimated that the fact construction was in the heart of the central city – an area that had been extensively modified in the past 100 years – meant it was highly unlikely that anything would be found.

The developers applied for, and received, an archaeological authority from the Historic Places Trust as a precaution, in case any surviving archaeological material was uncovered. A condition of the authority was that the demolition of the existing historic building, which was constructed in 1906, and site preparation for the new apartment complex had to be monitored by an archaeologist. The 1906 building, originally a bakery, had two demolition orders on it, the first of which had been granted in 1968 due to its poor state.

Then came the day in November 2005 when the removal of a large concrete ground beam from the demolished bakery building revealed a number of circular post holes. As these were thought to relate to the contact period for settlement of Te Aro Pa, the Trust was notified (under condition 3(d) of the archaeological authority) that there were “reasonable grounds upon which archaeological investigations of site(s) encountered could provide significant information as to the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand”.

A review of the conditions on the authority by the Trust resulted in the requirement to carry out an archaeological investigation, in accordance with section 15 of the Historic Places Act 1993. Construction would not be allowed to resume until all archaeological information had been excavated and recorded.

The investigation was carried out on site from 30 November to 9 December 2005 by project archaeologist Nicola Molloy and a team including Christine Barnett, Bruce McFadgen, Chris Jennings and Christine McAlpine. The original development plans for the apartment complex called for an eight-storey building with two basement levels for car parking – going down five and a half metres. Molloy decided to allow work to continue, but at a much reduced speed, to ensure any further remains found could be archaeologically recorded before they were destroyed by the construction work.

A 20-tonne digger was then called upon to scrape the whole site an inch at a time. Diggers are routinely used on archaeological sites to remove what’s called the overburden. Once cultural layers or features are encountered, excavation continues by hand.

“The digger operators were absolutely amazing, slowly stripping the top layers,” recalls Molloy. “We were working and I noticed some rectangular grey outlines, and what looked like ponga material. The digger-stripping operations were stopped and we started a careful excavation by hand. That was when it started getting quite exciting. There was definitely clear evidence of settlement.”

Molloy and her team of archaeologists had discovered the outline of a rectangular shape that could possibly have been a whare, with individual ponga walls clearly visible. Additional specialists were assembled, including Trust Maori heritage manager and cultural materials conservator Dean Whiting and Jack Fry, a contract materials conservator with specialist knowledge of resin consolidated materials.

The archaeological examination of the site involved recording and mapping all features, taking samples and photographing the entire area. The information obtained will help flesh out the body of knowledge already held on Te Aro Pa through pictures, stories and early settlement.

The nine-day archaeological investigation revealed a number of features, including drains, wooden piles, postholes, various rubbish pits, shell/animal bone midden, and the remnants of three ponga structures. Molloy says the remains represent three phases of settlement: Te Aro Pa, subsequent European occupation of the late 19th century and, lastly, features relating to the early 20th century bakery building.

One of the more perplexing finds was a collection of wine barrels, stacked on top of each other with the ends removed to create a tube. The barrel-tube was found buried two metres into the ground and had a cannon ball at the bottom. If there was ever an opportunity to let your imagination run wild, this was it. However, Molloy is hesitant to make any formal site interpretations until all material and information is analysed and her archaeological report is completed.

“There is a real danger of people taking features or artefacts out of context, and in the case of the cannon ball and tube, it probably had a utilitarian function; perhaps serving as a ‘weight’ to keep the barrel in position [on its brick platform, in the ground water]. I’m reluctant to make any presumptions about the site until the investigation process has concluded.”

As time moved on it became clear that these were sites of immense importance and efforts should be made not only to record, but to preserve them – despite the fact negotiations were only just starting. For Dean Whiting it was important to make the sites robust for any scenario that might eventuate.

“All of the remaining ponga material had degraded severely, in fact, much of it was only held together by the surrounding beach gravel, ranging from complete trunk sections of ponga to only the faintest smudge of ebbed material. Strength then relied on the integrity of the gravel, and as we observed, once dry it would crumble like a sand castle.”

Given that these sites needed to survive the vibrations, heavy machinery and dangers of a construction site, the ponga structures needed some extra strength. After some testing of similar gravel material on site a combination of resin consolidants was decided on.

These could strengthen the surrounding gravel material, but also allow reversibility should the ponga need to be treated further after the construction phase. With the sites stabilised, discussions about the fate of the Te Aro Pa remains and the apartment project itself began in earnest between the developer, local iwi, the Wellington City Council, and the Trust.

For Dowsett, the way forward was clear. “If the decision was made to close the site down – which was a very real possibility – there would be no financial compensation for myself, my workers or the developers. Sure, some developers have a reputation for being wide boys, and sometimes that’s absolutely warranted, but I was just concerned about looking after everyone involved in this project. I was flexible on everything else when it came to negotiating; my bottom line was protecting my boys.”

Meanwhile, Tenths Trust chief executive Liz Mellish’s options were not so clear cut. First, local Maori had to decide on the most culturally appropriate way of dealing with the remains, whether that be laying them back to rest, finding a way to preserve and display them in situ, or even lifting them. Buying the land was never an option for the Tenths Trust, coming with a price tag of around $15 million.

It soon became clear that the ponga structures could not be moved. The site was once part of the old shoreline in Wellington Harbour, with the ground consisting of loose beach gravels. Trying to separate, lift, transport, and contain more than 20 tonnes of intact site to a new location was far too risky and likely to fail.

Kaumatua from Taranaki, reflecting that iwi’s close affiliations to Te Aro Pa (see box “The History of Te Aro Pa”), were called in to help the Tenths Trust decide on a course of action, and eventually the decision was made to try to preserve and display the remains in situ.

For Mellish, the only way forward was to secure good relationships with the parties involved. “We had already developed a positive relationship with David Dowsett and had worked very hard at having good positive relationships with the developer. We were very mindful that work had been stopped on site just before Christmas and there were construction workers and their families that needed to be paid. We all had to think laterally to make a lot of this happen.”

One of the early, arguably lateral, decisions Dowsett made when the various groups sat down around the table was one he looks back on with a genuine glint in his eye – he kicked all of the lawyers out of the negotiations.

“At the start of discussions, everyone was wary of each other, covering themselves. I guess we all came in with an agenda. The problem is solicitors are not trained in resolution, they’re trained in conflict. Once we got rid of them we could get down to the truth. ‘Tell me what you want – no matter how bad – and then we can start working through some solutions.’ It was actually really easy in the end; we gained each other’s trust and knew no one was going to rip anyone off.”

With the work delayed on site, discussions on a solution to the question of preservation began – but the building design posed some significant problems.

Firstly, construction of the two-storey underground car park in the back section of the site meant destroying the back ponga structure. Secondly, the front two sites were surrounded by massive piles that were intended to be vibrated into the ground to support the foundations, a process that would surely destroy the fragile sites. And thirdly, with limited site access, the heavy machinery needed for construction would be driving over the sites.

Attention turned back to the building itself and whether a solution could be found in redesigning the apartment complex to accommodate the three ponga sites. Dowsett credits one of his workers, Bruce Paku, with the idea that allowed the whole project to continue and, indeed, led to its successful conclusion.

“Bruce had suggested asking the council for two extra floors – if we couldn’t build the basement levels down, then perhaps we could build up. But in the original application the council knocked a floor off – from nine to eight – so I wasn’t too hopeful. But I went to the council guy, and this was the most positive thing I’ve ever heard from council in 35 years in the building trade. He said, ‘Why not?’ ”

The building now went from 27 metres high to 36.6, adding three new floors to the complex. The cost of the building also increased by $4 million but the developer now had the extra floors to help recover costs. And what about all those people who had already purchased an apartment off the plans and been inconvenienced by the lengthy delays? They all moved three floors up free of charge – with the value of their apartments increasing accordingly.

But the new plan called for a complete redesign of the building, which would also include provision on the ground floor for three steel box structures to house the three ponga structures under glass enclosures. The two front structures would be accessible to the public, with the back one enclosed in a private room. The Trust was able to support the preservation work and construction of the protective steel boxes with a grant from its National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund.

Once the decision to build the extra floors was approved, the developer renewed its resource consent, and prepared engineering reports for the totally new building. To avoid damaging the ponga structures by driving massive piles into the ground – as was originally planned – Dowsett and his team proposed building their 11-storey building on a “raft” of 700mm thick concrete that would float on the surface of the site with ground anchors located in the corners. The concrete slab weighed 1500 tonnes. “We kept coming up with solutions time after time,” says Dowsett.

“We would run ideas past everyone and it ended up being a really good process to go through. I’m really pleased with the way the Tenths Trust, NZHPT and us have worked together to find a solution that everyone could live with. Everyone moved on their position – getting the initial trust was the key. It was a win-win for everyone.”

Mellish couldn’t agree more. “David understood the value of the find – this could not have happened without the relationship we had with him. We really learned a lot about each other. The project got quite frustrating at times, and that’s when it was important to have a good rapport with people like David, (Wellington Mayor) Kerry Prendergast and the Historic Places Trust. My philosophy is to work smart – I’m trying to build relationships that will still be in place 100-200 years from now.”

And as for the resulting apartment complex, which comes complete with publicly accessible, glass-encased displays showing the two front ponga structures and an interpretation panel, Mellish couldn’t be happier.

“It’s almost impossible to express how important this is to Maori,” she says. “We know our own stories – they’re articulated through our oral traditions – but to have this find is truly special. It just reinforces that the history of Wellington – and the rest of New Zealand – is not just about buildings, but also about Maori heritage, which is just below the surface.”

As a final show of good will between the parties, Dowsett and Mellish have “struck a deal” which will allow the Tenths Trust to take possession of the back unit of the bottom floor, housing the third ponga structure. The new apartment building, christened Bellagio Ataahua, and the public interpretation spaces for the sites, are expected to be open by May.

Permission must be sought from the Alexander Turnball Library before any reproduction of this image.