Identifying, protecting and preserving New Zealand's historic heritage
is one of the most important resource management challenges facing the
country. Under the Resource Management Act, local authorities are responsible
not only for providing for the protection of historic heritage in their
region, district or city, but also for managing the effects on heritage
that arise out of the planning and resource consent process.
However, the way in which local authorities carry out their historic
heritage management role varies greatly throughout New Zealand.Those differences
are likely to become more apparent in light of the significant changes
brought about by the Resource Management Act 2003, and its raising of
heritage protection to a matter of national importance.
Although the full impact of those changes is yet to be seen, here is
a snapshot of how different local authorities are faring with a few key
heritage management tools and methods. This is neither a full list of
the many ways in which local authorities can fulfil their heritage-management
responsibilities nor a complete list of those local authorities that are
performing well in each of the five areas.
Incentive programmes for heritage
Incentives and grants are successful methods for local authorities to
help manage heritage by providing incentives to private owners to look
after their historic buildings. This is becoming an increasing priority
for a number of local authorities.The following examples show good practice
around the country:
Manukau City Council's Heritage Assistance Fund covers waiver of
resource consent fees and gives grants towards the protection of scheduled
heritage items.
Wellington City Council's Earthquake Risk Building Fund provides
financial and project-management assistance for earthquake strengthening
work.
Hurunui and Waimate District Councils have heritage funds despite
very small rating bases.
Environment Southland has a regional incentive fund contributed to
by the three district councils in the region offering low-interest loans
for heritage maintenance, retention and preservation.
Rules for protecting heritage
District plans must state the rules and other methods to be used to protect
historic heritage, and those rules need to be strong enough to manage
the effects of development. Two good examples of councils including such
rules are:
Hastings District Council, which allows for subdivision of heritage
properties by creating "conservation lots" that protect in
perpetuity the heritage item concerned.
Timaru District Council, which protects its Category A (of two categories)
sites by making their removal or demolition non-complying.
Providing heritage inventories
District and regional plans should include heritage inventories or schedules
comprehensively documenting the heritage of the area, including historic
features and places, and archaeological sites, as the following examples
demonstrate:
Auckland City Council and Rodney District Council have schedules
containing very useful background information and succinct explanations
of the historic significance of each listing.
South Taranaki District Council has undertaken a district-wide heritage
inventory project using local working parties assisted by professional
conservation advice and research assistance.
Kaikoura District Council has an extensive listing of archaeological
sites.
Christchurch City Council lists over 600 sites as well as special
areas.
Monitoring heritage
The effectiveness of heritage rules needs to be assessed annually through
a heritage-monitoring strategy.
Auckland Regional Council undertakes consistent and regular monitoring
of Auckland's archaeological sites.
Kapiti Coast District Council has a progressive and integrated heritage-monitoring
strategy identifying the extent to which the district's heritage features
are identified and protected.
Southland District Council uses community concept plans for key heritage
small towns as its baseline for ongoing heritage monitoring.
Meeting resource consent information requirements
Resource consent applications should contain a good standard of information
on the effects of proposals on heritage values. However, while many district
plans have extensive lists of information to be included with applications,
this is rarely, if ever, enforced.This is an area where councils need
to improve if they are to be able to make informed judgments on the effects
of proposals. Recognition, though, for Stratford District Council, which
ensures comprehensive information is provided when a resource-consent
application is submitted.
New Plymouth: a good all-round performer
New
Plymouth District Council deserves a special mention for its recent
heritage initiatives:
•
Financially supports the preparation of a number of conservation
plans for significant (Category I) heritage buildings
• Supports and funds the New Zealand Archaeological Association's
site upgrade project
• Consults the Trust on all building consents and resource
consents involving heritage buildings and archaeological sites
• Employs a historian to provide council advice on matters
relating to Maori land and alienation
• Developed Puke Ariki as a regional heritage museum
• Widely advertised Heritage Protection Fund with broad application
criteria covering all types of heritage.
Better protection for archaeology
Local
authority plans and regulations too often provide inadequate protection
for archaeological sites. Two councils that deserve special commendation
for their recent efforts to improve protection of archaeological
sites are:
•
Gisborne District Council, for building an alert layer into
its district plan to assist protection and raise public awareness
of Gisborne's rich architectural heritage.
• Tauranga District Council, for its detailed mapping
of local archaeological sites using GPS (Global Positioning System)
technology, and its comprehensive surveys of key archaeological
sites such as Mt Maunganui (pictured above) and the Tauranga Central
Business District.
