Publications

Heritage New Zealand Magazine Magazine Request Winter 2008 Autumn 2008 Summer 2007 Spring 2007 Winter 2007 Autumn 2007 Summer 2006 Spring 2006 Winter 2006 Autumn 2006 Summer 2005 Spring 2005 Winter 2005 50th Anniversary commemorative issue Autumn 2005 Summer 2004 Spring 2004 Winter 2004 Autumn 2004 Summer 2003 Spring 2003 Winter 2003 Autumn 2003 Summer 2002 Spring 2002 NZ Historic Places Magazine May 2002 February 2002 November 2001 August 2001 May 2001 February 2001 November 2000 August 2000 May 2000 February 2000

Membership of the Historic Places Trust entitles you to a range of unique benefits including a free subscription to Heritage New Zealand magazine.

From Heritage New Zealand, Winter 2005

1975-84: New Directions

by Shelley Richardson

A turning point came when the Trust acquired some legal muscle.

The third decade of the Trust’s life saw a significant shift
in its nature and preoccupations. The critical ingredient was the achievement of regulatory authority over archaeological sites, and the power to issue protection notices over buildings or sites classified “A” or “B”.The product of a New Zealand Archaeological Association campaign, bolstered by growing community awareness, legislative recognition became a catalyst for wider change. This was a decade of centralisation that tested the “fruitful tension” between
individual localities and Wellington.

Interior of Clark’s Mill, Maheno,North Otago, built 1865. Photo: PhotoNewZealand.com/Geoff Mason

Money Matters

The passage of the Trust-initiated Historic Places Amendment Act (HPAA) in 1975 gave the organisation the statutory power - but only over archaeological sites - it had previously lacked. Supported by its companion piece, the Antiquities Act 1975, which introduced restrictions on the sale of artefacts within New Zealand and their export abroad, it greatly strengthened the Trust’s powers to protect archaeological sites.

The critical feature of the new legislation was that no archaeological site more than 100 years old, on public or private land, whether registered or not, could be destroyed, damaged, modified or investigated without authorisation from the Trust. It also empowered the Historic Places Trust to establish and maintain a National Register of Archaeological Sites and to have important sites noted on land title certificates and Maori Court records, and listed in district planning schemes.

Damning the Clutha threatened Maori and Chinese sites. Photo: PhotoNewZealand.com/Andy Radka

All scientific investigations of archaeological sites came under the control of the Trust, and the destruction, damaging or modification of sites without the Trust’s consent was declared an offence and carried a fine “not exceeding $5,000”.The Trust was given legal authority to require that archaeological investigations were carried out before giving an authority to modify, damage or destroy the archaeological site.Costs of such investigations were to be recovered from the applicant. The Crown itself was bound by the provisions of the Historic Places Amendment Act.

Somewhat sarcastically, these powers were referred to internally as the Trust’s 21st birthday present, indicating the ambivalence with which the powers were held – good for archaeological sites, but nowhere near enough for other historic sites.

Giving effect to the new legislation depended on the Trust’s
ability to compile a comprehensive Register and do it quickly.
Prior to the Act, the most comprehensive recording of archaeological sites had been the preserve of the New Zealand Archaeological Association, and its file of 10,000 site records became the basis of the new Register. Even so, managing and protecting the national Register was made difficult by the limited resources at the Trust’s disposal. Until 1976, Jim McKinlay had been its lone archaeologist, although Director John Daniels was an archaeologist himself.

Three new staff were appointed but Government funding for
the initial implementation of the Act was limited to $58,000. Thus, when the Archaeological Section began its working life in a separate building in Thorndon Quay with Jim McKinlay as head of the unit and Dr Aidan Challis, survey archaeologist, responsible “for all aspects of the New Zealand Register of Archaeological Sites”, it faced a challenging task. Contracted archaeologists were employed, and to overcome a general shortage of trained site recorders the Trust held Site Recording Schools. Between 1,800 and 4,500 new site records were added annually to the NZAA
central file.And by 1982, in conjunction with Victoria University’s Computer Centre, a database with the details of some 30,000 sites had been created.

Theory into practice

Recording archaeological sites was easier than protecting them. Not surprisingly, the decade of the oil shortage and Think Big produced a spate of fuel and hydro-electricity projects that often possessed potential archaeological ramifications. The Trust’s first experience of these pressures under the new Act came with its excavations of the Ruahihi Pa in the Bay of Plenty (1977-78) as a condition of the Ruahihi hydro-electricity scheme.

When it became clear that the damming of the Clutha River would destroy evidence of Maori occupation and mid-19th century Chinese goldmining settlements, the Trust stationed a project archaeologist, Neville Ritchie, in Cromwell to monitor the Ministry of Works and Development’s activities and carry out a cultural study of the site.

Much of the archaeological work was North Island in its focus.It was here that the expansion of forestry, horticulture and urban sub-division for housing grew apace.The planting of exotic forests by private companies and the crop of the future, kiwifruit, were particular threats to Maori archaeological sites, especially in the Bay of Plenty, Coromandel and North Auckland areas.The rise in the international gold price stimulated mining activity around the
19th-century goldfield sites. Furthermore, unauthorised bottle
collecting on early mission sites, trading, whaling and sealing
stations was causing the Trust headaches.The Trust grew increasingly concerned about its inability to monitor these widespread activities and, in 1979, it stationed an archaeologist in Auckland.

Timeball Station, Lyttelton, opened to the public in 1978. Photo: NZHPT

The early years of the HPAA 1975’s operation saw the
Archaeological Section working out the legal complexities as it established its system of permits and authorities, designed to regulate scientific investigations of archaeological sites and site loss and damage. In the latter case, the Trust tried to work with applicants so that authorities could be granted. Yet, from the outset, the Trust expressed concern at the low level of applications for authorities, most of which came from Government and local agencies. It became convinced that the number fell far short of the incidence of actual site damage.

To overcome what it described as a low level of awareness of the Act and its obligations, the Trust launched a public education campaign in 1976. Pamphlets explaining the implications of the HPAA 1975 were distributed with rate demands and displayed on counters at local government agencies. Of even greater concern was the difficulty of dealing with unauthorised destruction or damage.The work involved collecting evidence to meet the legal requirements of the HPAA meant potential prosecutions often did
not proceed.

Three years after the Act had come into force, the Archaeological Section was forced to reassess its priorities. Although the Act under which they operated extended regulatory power to all New Zealand archaeological sites more than 100 years old, in practice, the monitoring of every threat to the nation’s heritage was beyond its resources.

Industrial noise

Nonetheless, the mid-1970s witnessed expansion into the field of industrial archaeology and the acquisition and conservation of industrial, commercial and agricultural structures. The nation’s industrial past had been sadly neglected. Geoffrey Thornton, Assistant Government Architect, Trust Board member (1971-1990), deputy chairperson between 1979 and 1990 and author of the definitive work on industrial structures in New Zealand, shaped the Trust’s attempt to recognise the working lives of New Zealanders. Increasingly, attention was paid to relics of New Zealand’s industrial past, from coal and goldmining sites to flour mills, engineering works and agricultural complexes.

The Trust’s purchase, in 1977, of Clark’s Flour Mill at
Maheno (built 1866-67) signified a new commitment and brought new enthusiasts to historic preservation. After five years of effort by the Trust, the Ministry of Works and Development and various Wanganui organisations, the remains of the Kawana Flour Mill at Matahiwi on the Wanganui River, dating back to the 1850s, were saved, if not preserved - it was rebuilt some distance from its original site. Hayes’ Engineering Works in Oturehua, Otago, a unique working example of an early engineering workshop, was purchased by the Trust in 1975 and, with the assistance of the Oturehua Historical Society, repaired and opened to the public.

The Trust’s purchase of the former Thames School of
Mines buildings in 1979 after several years of negotiations with the Thames Coromandel District Council saved the complex from the threat of demolition. Nothing illustrates the new emphasis better than the creative fusion of local initiative and Trust involvement that marked the genesis of the Brunner Mine and Industrial site in 1977. It was here, too, that we see a particularly successful example of the Trust’s entry into the more challenging sphere of site interpretation and explanation. (See Brian wood's profile above, right).

Jewels won and lost

In 1975, the Trust was delighted to secure the mission-related Stone Store at Kerikeri, constructed in the 1830s, largely of locally sourced stone, and continuing to be run as a retail store with a museum operating on the upper floor.A small schist post office built in 1886 with plaster quoins and window-dressings was acquired in the former Otago goldmining town of Ophir.With the assistance of Auckland City,Highwic (c.1862), a stately 15-roomed Domestic Gothic homestead set amongst 1.1 hectares of picturesque
grounds, was procured in 1978. The Trust established its national headquarters in Antrim House, once the Edwardian residence of Wellington footwear manufacturer and retailer Robert Hannah.

Adaptive re-use in action: Auckland’s Customhouse. Photo: Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki/John Fields

However, after 1977, by which time it owned 11 properties and was responsible for 39 others, the Trust began to adopt a more cautious approach to property acquisition. Wherever possible, the Trust preferred to offer existing owners technical expertise, conservation advice and the financial assistance to carry out necessary preservation work.This was particularly so where historic Maori meeting houses and other structures were concerned. Under the chairmanship of Apirana Mahuika, the Trust’s Maori Building Committee (established in 1970) worked alongside local Maori communities keen to tap into new conservation techniques.

A landmark in this process was a two-week school held at Manutuke in 1977, at which a team from the Dunedin Public Art Gallery, led by its director, Les Lloyd, and representatives of various marae explored ways of preserving and restoring meeting house carvings and art work.The following year, Lloyd held workshops at several marae that focused on the conservation of painted kowhaiwhai scrolls.

The achievements of the 1970s were considerable but
contemporaries were well aware that the Trust was losing the battle against developers who increasingly preferred demolition to sympathetic restoration and preservation. Trust officials summed up the problem: while legal powers now existed to protect archaeological sites, “the few existing procedures for saving buildings are quite inadequate”.

In support of this conclusion, it is possible to construct a litany of lost and threatened buildings: in Queenstown, Buckham’s brewery was demolished three days before a Queenstown Borough Council hearing to consider listing the brewery on the district scheme; in Wellington, there were protracted struggles to secure a future for a cluster of landmarks – Victoria University’s Hunter Building, the Public Trust Office, the First Church of Christ Scientist Sunday School and the city’s town hall.These and other
public struggles provide the backdrop for a campaign seeking
greater legislative protection for historic places

A new Act

The Historic Places Act that emerged in 1980 and came into effect on 1 February 1981, empowered the Trust to classify buildings of historical and architectural importance in four categories (A-D), and issue protection notices over buildings in the top two categories (A and B) subject to ministerial approval.Alteration or outright destruction of all or part of any building subject to a protection notice without the Trust’s consent was declared illegal.

Students repainting bricks on the annex to the pug mill at the Brunner mine. Photo: Brian Wood

The Trust was empowered to issue repair notices to buildings subject to protection notices and to initiate work at the owner’s cost if the need for repairs was ignored. In cases where negotiation was possible, the Trust could choose to enter into a contract with the owner or lessee for the protection, preservation and maintenance of an historic place under the terms of a Heritage Covenant, an agreement between the Trust and a property owner or lessee to preserve and maintain a historic site or building. Subjects of Heritage Covenants were also to be noted on land titles.

Furthermore, the Historic Places Act (1980) gave legal
recognition to the newly introduced concept of historic areas – those areas containing interconnected groups of historical features that were valuable collectively rather than individually. The Act also empowered the Trust to declare traditional Maori sites – places important for their “historical significance or spiritual or emotional association” with Maori – and provided for the Trust recommend proposals for their protection. This coincided with a more systematic aproach to assessing and conserving Maori built heritage.

Local councils were required to take into account the
desirability of protecting or preserving traditional sites declared in their districts. In practice, traditional sites were sometimes also archaeological ones and the overlap strengthened the prospects of preservation and protection.

The immediate consequence of legislative change for the ongoing work of the Trust was the increased significance of the Building Classifications Committee. Classifications now formed the basis of legal protection of buildings. On the eve of the Act’s passage, nearly 3,000 pre-1900 buildings had been identified for statutory classification, regional lists of these buildings were being produced and the Trust was preparing to notify owners. Although by no means all pre-1900 buildings and structures had been inspected and assessed, the Trust nonetheless decided that in view
of the increasing threat to later buildings the focus should be on buildings from the 1900-1940s period.

Despite being assisted by regional committee representatives in each area visited, the task of giving effect to this decision fell primarily upon the three permanent members – Geoff Thornton (chair from 1977) and the newly appointed (in 1981) Chris Cochran and Jim Gardner.Theirs was an enormous task.As well as identifying buildings of the 1900- 1940 period thought to be of national importance, the more
stringent criteria introduced by the Historic Places Act (1980) had to be applied to previously assessed 19th-century buildings. The requirement to give three months’ written notification of impending classifications to owners and their right to make representations delayed the process.Yet, with a generally positive response from owners and the assistance of contracted researchers, by 1984, 3,227 buildings had been classified.

The balancing act

The framework provided by the Historic Places Act and the
continuing financial constraints under which the Trust operated produced new and innovative solutions to the perennial heritage dilemma of preserving elements of the past without cramping the future. Purchasing properties as a way of saving them had ceased to be a viable option and, in 1982, the Trust imposed a moratorium on further purchases.

Mirroring international trends, the Trust promoted the strengthening and refitting of historic buildings as a viable economic alternative to demolition and replacement.

Furthermore, a landmark symposium, “New Uses for Old
Buildings”, in 1980, held in conjunction with Victoria University’s Department of Extension and School of Architecture, signalled the arrival of a new emphasis, the adaptive re-use of historic buildings.

The Trust acquired Ophir Post Office in 1976. Photo: NZHPT

It was a theme that struck a responsive chord amongst some property owners. In Wellington, the AMP Insurance Company resolved to conserve rather than replace its head office building in Customhouse Quay, regarded as a fine example of classical revivalist architecture. Auckland’s former Customhouse and the old University of Canterbury site also benefited from this approach.

Most commonly, the mechanism that facilitated adaptive re-use was a Heritage Covenant; an agreement to provide a property owner with assistance in return for the preservation of an historic site or building. Creative compromise was not always possible. In the early 1980s, a property boom in Auckland and Wellington produced what the Trust described as a demolition derby when their central business districts underwent redevelopment. And it was here that the first protection notices were issued.

In Wellington, orders were issued for the Public Trust Office
and Plimmer House, in Auckland, for the façade of the BNZ
building in Queen Street. Protection notices were also necessary to secure the futures of one of New Zealand’s few remaining Hoffman Kilns, in Palmerston North, and a former landing service building in Timaru.

Against these successes, however, there were a raft of failures. The Bulls Post Office was demolished in 1983 after the Minister of Internal Affairs refused to issue a protection notice for it. The same year saw much of the Dannevirke Railway Station destroyed despite fierce opposition from the Trust. The following year, preservation targets such as the Waimate County Council Chambers and the former Sisters of Mercy Convent in Palmerston North were demolished. The future of the Hunter Building,Victoria University’s first permanent building,was in the air as the Trust struggled to get the Minister of Internal Affairs’ consent to issue a protection notice. Historic buildings seemed everywhere under threat.

If European architectural heritage was in danger of falling
before the moderniser’s hammer, Maori structures were at
even greater risk to the ravages of time and comparative
neglect.The Historic Places Act 1980 that required the Trust
to identify and protect traditional Maori sites coincided with
a more systematic approach to assessing and conserving buildings.

Between 1982 and 1984, a survey of historic meeting houses
in key areas, such as the Bay of Plenty, the Wanganui River
region and the Ruatoki Valley,was conducted for the Trust by Maori artist Cliff Whiting. He found that, despite the workshop initiatives of the 1970s, seven meeting houses were in urgent need of major structural repairs, and precious internal painted panels recording aspects of Maori history were deteriorating rapidly.

In response, the Trust stepped up its meeting-house programme, held conservation workshops in areas where attention was especially urgent, and sought to raise awareness within Maori communities of the forms of assistance available. At the same time, it sought to ensure an effective use of resources by co-ordinating the
Trust’s programme with those of the Maori and South Pacific Arts Council and the Department of Maori Affairs.

The subsequent growing number of requests for preservation grants point to the effectiveness of the Trust’s efforts and to the scale of the problem.

Thirty is a dangerous age

On the eve of its 30th birthday, the Trust could look back over a decade of dramatic change. It had gained regulatory powers over archaeological sites and could issue protection notices over buildings classified A or B, and could recommend protection of traditional sites. The exercise of these powers stretched the capacity of the Trust to match the expectations that the new legislation engendered. The truth was that few archaeological authorities to modify, damage or destroy archaeological sites were declined, few protection notices were issued and there was a sense that the Trust was essentially toothless on the eve of its 30th birthday.

In 1981, the Trust’s Archaeological Section was forced to
concentrate on the preservation of “an adequate sample of
New Zealand’s archaeological heritage” rather than attempt to protect all archaeological sites. The following year, a wider reassessment of policies and objectives proved necessary. The difficulties revealed were those that might be expected of an organisation still largely dependent upon a voluntary base. Just how much work could continue to be carried out by Regional Committee members – the lifeblood of the Trust – and interested individuals with a variety of professional skills?

This was the central issue behind a review of the Trust’s keeping with the trend towards minimising state expenditure, the review sanctioned some growth in staffing levels and promoted greater focus upon better allocation of resources, strategic planning and a continuing emphasis upon what it called “public outreach”. It pointed towards a future that would require a greater fee-paying membership base. A four-month long membership drive in 1980 had drawn 1,000 new members.And in 1982 a fulltime publicity officer, Dr John Wilson, was appointed.The following year, he transformed the Trust’s newsletter into an attractive quarterly magazine – Historic Places in New Zealand.

The more vigorous presentation of heritage issues bore fruit:
between 1975 and 1985, the Trust increased its support base from 2,932 to 15,644 and established two new regional committees. Increases in staff numbers were modest.Over the decade, a staff of 13 had grown to just over 30. Despite apparently impressive increases in annual Government and Lottery Board grants, the gap between funding and expectation widened.

Moreover, the growth of head office was not always viewed
favourably by regional committees. In a context where reliance upon them seemed often to have increased rather than diminished, the more successful and well-established committees sometimes resented increasing direction from a Wellington bureaucracy. To Cantabrian Jim Gardner, whose experience of the Trust spans the past 50 years, the tension between locality and Wellington could readily be characterised as one between realism and idealism.

It was a tension tested by the centralisation that flowed or seemed initially to flow from the Historic Places Amendment Act (1975) and the Historic Places Act (1980). The future was to see the relationship between centre and region shift once more.

The frustration of the moment shared by all in 1985 was clear as the Trust warned that unless Government provided realistic funding it would be unable to “carry out the basic requirements of the Historic Places Act”.