chin hill farm 203 weranui oad waiwera...

CHIN HILL FARM, 203 WERANUI ROAD,

WAIWERA, AUCKLAND: ARCHAEOLOGICAL

ASSESSMENT

Report prepared for

Kauri Orewa Ltd and Development Advisory Services Ltd

By

Charlotte Judge (MA Hons)

Bernie Larsen (MA Hons)

January 2016

Clough & Associates Ltd.

[email protected]

321 Forest Hill Rd, Waiatarua

AUCKLAND 0612

Telephone: (09) 8141946

Mobile 0274 850 059 www.clough.co.nz

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.clough.co.nz/

Clough & Associates Ltd. Page i Chin Hill, Waiwera

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

Project Background ........................................................................................................... 1

Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 1

Historical Background .......................................................................................................... 5

Maori Settlement ............................................................................................................... 5

European Purchase ............................................................................................................ 6

Results ................................................................................................................................... 9

Existing Environment ....................................................................................................... 9

Archaeological Landscape ................................................................................................ 9

Archaeology of Chin Hill Farm ...................................................................................... 10

Information from Early Plans/Aerials ............................................................................. 13

Field Survey .................................................................................................................... 16

R10/924: Terrace/Pit ....................................................................................................... 20

R10/1406: Terraces/ Midden .......................................................................................... 21

R10/1412: Terrace .......................................................................................................... 23

R10/1413: Shell Midden ................................................................................................. 25

Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 27

Summary of Results ........................................................................................................ 27

Maori Cultural Values..................................................................................................... 27

Survey Limitations .......................................................................................................... 27

Archaeological Value and Significance ......................................................................... 27

Effects of Proposal .......................................................................................................... 28

Resource Management Act 1991 Requirements ............................................................. 31

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 Requirements .................................. 32

Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 33

Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 34

Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix: Site Record Forms ............................................................................................. 36

Clough & Associates Ltd. Page 1 Chin Hill, Waiwera

INTRODUCTION

Project

Background

The property owners of Chin Hill Farm, 203 Weranui Road, Waiwera are

proposing the subdivision of the property into rural lifestyle blocks (Figure 1–

Figure 3). The legal descriptions of the property are Pt Allotment 13, 106 and

259 Parish of Waiwera, Pt Lot 1 DP 22531, Lot 2 DP 22531, Pt Lot 3 DP

22181, Lot 4 DP 22181 and Lot 1 DP 24102. The proposal involves the

subdivision of the section into 35 lots with a single access point of the Hibiscus

Coast Highway (Figure 3). Thirty-two of the lots will have a building site and

associated access for residential development. The proposed access ways

generally follow existing farm tracks (Baxter Design Group 2016).

An archaeological assessment was commissioned by Josh Van Veen,

Development Manager for Development Advisory Services Ltd to establish

whether the proposed work is likely to impact on archaeological values. This

report has been prepared as part of the required assessment of effects

accompanying a resource consent application under the Resource Management

Act 1991 (RMA) and to identify any requirements under the Heritage New

Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA). Recommendations are made in

accordance with statutory requirements.

Methodology The New Zealand Archaeological Association’s (NZAA) site record database

(ArchSite), Auckland Council’s Cultural Heritage Inventory (CHI), District

Plan schedules and the Heritage New Zealand (Heritage NZ) New Zealand

Heritage List were searched to determine whether any archaeological sites had

been recorded on or in the immediate vicinity of the property. Literature and

archaeological reports relevant to the area were consulted (see Bibliography).

Early plans held at Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) were checked for

information relating to past use of the property.

A visual inspection of the property was conducted on 30 October and 4

November 2015 with the assistance of Ngati Manuhiri representative Lorena

Cardenas. The ground surface was examined for evidence of former

occupation (in the form of shell midden, depressions, terracing or other unusual

formations within the landscape, or indications of 19th century European

settlement remains). Exposed and disturbed soils were examined where

encountered for evidence of earlier modification, and an understanding of the

local stratigraphy. Subsurface testing with a probe and spade was carried out

to determine whether buried archaeological deposits could be identified or

establish the nature of possible archaeological features. Particular attention

was paid to the spur and ridge lines and creek banks (topographical features

where archaeological sites are often found to be located). Sites were

photographed and GPS readings taken and site record forms written or updated.

Continued on next page


INTRODUCTION, CONTINUED

Figure 1. Aerial map showing location of subject property (marked with arrow). Aerial source: Auckland

Council GIS 2015



INTRODUCTION, CONTINUED

Figure 2. Aerial showing legal property boundaries of subject property (outlined in blue). Source: Auckland

Council PAUP GIS 2015



Figure 3. Chin Hill Subdivision - Masterplan (Baxter Design Group 2016)


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Maori

Settlement1

The Mahurangi area was widely populated by Maori in pre-European times;

and several tribes and subtribes are associated with the land.

Ngati Whatua (a confederation of four tribes, including: Te Roroa, Te Uri-o-

Hau, Te Taou, and Ngati Whatua-o-Orakei) descend from the ancestor

Tuputupuwhenua, and are affiliated with the Manhuhu-ki-te-rangi canoe

which landed between the Hokianga and Kaipara Harbour. By the mid-18th

century, the southerly expansion of Ngati Whatua tribes had extended the

boundaries of the confederation from the Hokianga to the Tamaki Isthmus

(NZMCH 2006: 196-197). Control of the northern Kaipara and parts of the

eastern inland region, including Wellsford, was claimed by Te Uri o Hau, led

by Haumoewharangi, whose son Rongo and his descendants established Ngati

Rongo on the north-eastern Kaipara Harbour (NZMCH 2006: 198). Although

conflict occurred with other groups, close relationships were largely

maintained between the Ngati Whatua tribes, with tracks and portage routes

between the west and east coasts providing effective means of communication.

Intermarriage was also used to secure peace, notably in the marriage of

Moerangaranga (daughter of Rongo) and Ngawhetu (of Te Kawerau), which

forged important links between Ngati Rongo and Te Kawerau of the

Mahurangi.

Te Kawerau descended from the Tainui, Te Wakatuwhenua and Te Moekakara

canoes and migrated north from Kawhia in the early to mid-17th century. Led

by Maki, Te Kawerau occupied the Tamaki Isthmus before expanding as far

north as Te Arai Point. Maki resided in Mahurangi for a time before

continuing further north, leaving his son Ngawhetu behind to claim control of

the land between Whangaparaoa and Puhoi. The descendants of Ngawhetu

and Moerangaranga remained in the Mahurangi, and by the time of European

arrival were known variously as Te Kawerau and Ngati Rongo (Mackintosh

2005: 2).

Maori predominantly occupied temporary settlement sites throughout the

Mahurangi district and moved between their kainga (villages) in accordance

with the seasons. The coastal boundaries provided abundant marine resources,

while the inland forest offered hunting and resource gathering opportunities.

Rivers such as Puhoi and Mahurangi supplied plentiful fresh water, and sandy

soils near coastal areas were highly suited to kumara cultivation (Murdoch

1992).


1 Adapted from Farley, Burnett and Clough 2010.


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, CONTINUED

Maori

Settlement,

continued

Competition for control of one of the most highly prized resources of the

Mahurangi – the muru or small spotted shark, which could be dried and used as

a winter food source – led to protracted conflict between Te Kawerau and

Hauraki tribes in the 1700s. Known as the Marutuahu confederation, these

Hauraki tribes comprised Ngati Paoa, Ngati Whanaunga, Ngati Maru and Ngati

Tamatera. Battles continued intermittently throughout the 18th century, with

Marutuahu eventually gaining permanent control of the fishing grounds.

(Murdoch 1992).

Further warfare occurred in the 1820s and 1830s when raiding Ngaphui from

the north, armed with muskets, launched a series of attacks throughout the

tribal territories of Ngati Whatua and Te Kawerau. Maori of the Mahurangi,

armed only with traditional hand combat weapons such as mere and taiaha,

were swiftly defeated. Most fled the invasion, leaving the region virtually

deserted for several years. (Murdoch 1992).

By the mid-late 1830s small numbers of Ngati Whatua began to return to their

traditional occupation areas in the Kaipara and Mahurangi, eventually re-

establishing themselves in the districts. Te Kawerau/Ngati Rongo Maori of the

Mahurangi were now under the leadership of Te Hemara Tauhia. They settled

north of Wenderholm, at Te Muri, where a kainga (village), large gardens and

an orchard were established (Mackintosh 2005: 4-5).

European

Purchase

Missionaries and sawyers began appearing in the Mahurangi district by the

early 1830s; and with the arrival of Europeans Ngati Whatua and Te

Kawerau/Ngati Rongo tribes came under increasing pressure to relinquish the

land. Although several Ngati Whatua chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi in

1840 (including Te Roha from Te Uri-o-Hau) large tracts of land were lost

through Crown purchases, pre-1840 claims and Native Land Court proceedings

(NZMCH 2006: 199).

Further pressure was placed on Mahurangi Maori after the decision by

Governor Hobson to relocate the colonial capital southwards from the Bay of

Islands shortly after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. Hobson ordered his

Surveyor General, Felton Mathew, to investigate every inlet from the Bay of

Islands to the Firth of Thames, including the Mahurangi River, which was

surveyed in June 1840.




European

Purchase,

continued

In Mathew’s report of the Mahurangi he noted that:

‘…it would be highly desirable that the Government should obtain

possession of this harbour and a considerable portion of the surrounding

country. A settlement once formed here, would I have no doubt, rapidly

attain a very flourishing condition. Several Europeans lay claim, I

believe, to this portion of the country, but their titles, I am informed, are

of no value. And even among the native chiefs a dispute exists to the right

of ownership. The government should therefore have no difficulty in

taking possession of it. I did not see the slightest trace of native

inhabitants during the time I was in the place’. (Locker 2001:61-62)

When the Tamaki Isthmus was chosen as the site of the new capital, land in the

Mahurangi became even more essential to the Crown, as it was now one of the

main gateways to Auckland (Rigby 1998).

On 13 April 1841, the Crown acquired its first large tract of land in the area,

known as the Mahurangi Purchase. This included the Mahurangi and Omaha

Block (Deed No. 192) comprising 100,000 acres, ‘more or less’, with

boundaries stretching from Takapuna in the south to Te Arai Point in the north.

The land was not obtained from Ngati Rongo/Te Kawerau or Ngati Whatua,

but from Hauraki tribes who claimed ancestral control of the area from the 18th

century. The Mahurangi Purchase made Ngati Rongo theoretically landless,

and the sale was therefore disputed by their chief Te Hemara Tauhia before it

was finalised. The purchase was eventually settled in 1853 with the Puhoi (or

Te Hemara) Reserve granted to Ngati Rongo; the boundaries of which ran

‘from the south shore of the Pukapuka to Waiwera, and inland to the western

boundary of the [Mahurangi] Purchase’ (Rigby 1998; Turton 1877-78). See

Figure 4.




Figure 4. 1853

map showing land

acquired by the

Crown through

the Mahurangi

Purchase, with an

area set aside at

Puhoi for Ngati

Rongo (Hemara

Reserve). Turtons

Deeds


RESULTS

Existing

Environment

Chin Hill farm comprises an 183.8ha block of rural land that is currently held

in 8 freehold titles. The property is bounded by the Hibiscus Coast Highway

and small lifestyle blocks to the east, by SH1 northern motorway to the west,

by Waiwera River to the north and by the residential settlement of Hatfields

Beach to the south. The topography of the property is dominated by prominent

elevated ridgelines and spurs that drop down steeply into gullies. The property

is currently utilised predominantly as pastoral land with large blocks of native

bush.

Archaeological

Landscape

Previous archaeological survey of the area between Waiwera River and

Hatfields Beach has been sporadic and has been focused on specific small to

medium scale developments, providing a somewhat limited and misleading

picture of pre-European Maori settlement in the area.

Intensive surveying of the Wenderholm Regional Park located on the

peninsula that forms the north side of the Waiwera River does, however,

provide evidence of extensive pre-European Maori settlement concentrated on

the northern slopes and the flat tableland across the top of the peninsula, a

pattern that might also be expected along the southern shores of the Waiwera

River.

There are multiple sites recorded in the general area (Figure 5) which include

mainly shell midden sites representing the processing and consumption of

food, but several sites also contain food storage pits and habitation terraces.

The pits and terraces indicate longer term settlement in the area, rather than

seasonal camping, although both patterns of occupation would have occurred.



RESULTS, CONTINUED

Figure 5.

Distribution of

archaeological

(red circles),

built heritage

(blue squares)

and maritime

sites (purple

circles) recorded

in the Auckland

Council CHI

within the

Waiwera area.

Source:

Auckland

Council GIS 2015

Archaeology

of Chin Hill

Farm

No archaeological assessment is known to have previously been undertaken

within the Chin Hill Farm property. There are, however, three previously

recorded archaeological sites recorded within or close to the boundaries of

Chin Hill Farm. The sites comprise:

1. a shell midden site recorded adjacent to the eastern boundary

(R10/1097; CHI 15939)

2. a terrace/pit site recorded adjacent to the western boundary of the

property (R10/924; CHI 12066); and

3. a historic homestead site also recorded adjacent to the south-eastern

boundary (R10/781; CHI 10316) (Figure 6).

The NZAA site file also records one additional site immediately to the east of

site R10/924 (Figure 7). The site is recorded as R10/1164 and comprises a

shell midden exposed in the cutting for the motorway alignment (refer

appended NZAA site record).

Site R10/1097 (CHI 15939) is also recognised as a site and place of value to

mana whenua within the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) (ID 2769)

(Figure 8).



RESULTS, CONTINUED

Figure 6. Aerial

showing

distribution of

archaeological

sites recorded

within close

proximity to the

subject property

(outlined in

blue). Aerial

source:

Auckland

Council GIS 2015



RESULTS, CONTINUED

Figure 7. Map

showing

distribution of

archaeological

sites recorded

within the NZAA

database. Source:

ArchSite 2015

Figure 8. PAUP

GIS aerial

showing site of

value to mana

whenua (ID

15939) extending

into the eastern

boundary of the

property



RESULTS, CONTINUED

Information

from Early

Plans/Aerials

A map dating to the 1860s shows the general landscape to the north and south

of Waiwera River including the area now known as Hatfields Beach. The map

shows the general area of the property as being covered in bush. No further

details are provided (Figure 9).

A survey plan of ‘Waste Land bounded by Lots 107, 10, ? ?, 7 at Waiwera

Mahurangi’ (Figure 10) that also appears to date to the 1860s shows the

alignment of a road from ‘Wainui to Mahurangi’ in pink, traversing the

subject property. This is the same paper road alignment that is shown on

modern maps of the property. The plan also shows the area subdivided into

large blocks, many of which still retain the same legal boundaries.

An undated early plan shows the northern end of the subject property as being

covered in trees (Figure 11). An annotation along the western edge of the

property states ‘tea tree’, but it is unclear whether this is referring to the

coastal banks or the extent of the survey area. Interestingly, the plan also

marks the site of two ‘huts’ on the bank of the Waiwera River.

Figure 9. Detail of NZ Map 38 (1860s) showing the Waiwera area. Source: Auckland Libraries Sir George

Grey Special Collections



RESULTS, CONTINUED

Figure 10. Detail of SO 893 (c.1860s?). Note: an annotation on the original plan states that the road

alignment through Lot 235 is incorrectly recorded. Source: Quickmaps 2015



RESULTS, CONTINUED

Figure 11. Detail of plan SO 1052 (n.d.). Location of ‘huts’ is circled. Source: Quickmaps 2015



RESULTS, CONTINUED

Field Survey Field survey of the extent of the property was undertaken on foot on 30

October and 4 November 2015. The survey focused on the proposed

development areas as well as ridge and spur alignments and stream/creek banks

(topographical features where archaeological remains are most likely to be

found) across the extent of the property.

The property is currently in rough pasture with large areas of native bush

within the gullies. Long term farming of the property has resulted in the

degradation of many of the spur and ridge crests through vehicle and stock

movement which has resulted in the exposure of clay subsoils within these

areas (Figure 12).

Figure 12.

Looking south-

east over

southern end of

property showing

areas of exposed

soils down ridge

crests



RESULTS, CONTINUED

Field Survey,

continued

Four archaeological sites were identified within or on the boundaries of the

subject property as a result of the current assessment. These comprise

previously recorded terrace/pit site R10/924 as well as three new sites

including an extensive terrace/midden site (now recorded as R10/1406), a

single terrace (R10/1412) and a shell midden deposit (R10/1413) (Figure 13).

All of the sites are related to pre-European Maori occupation of the area. The

sites are all discussed separately below.

No evidence of previously recorded shell midden site R10/1097, which was

originally recorded close to the property boundary but within the neighbouring

block, was identified within the subject property.

A farm homestead was also identified at the northern end of the property

(Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15). The house is a state house style

bungalow with tiled roof, boxed eaves, windows grouped in threes and mitred

weatherboards to the corners. The house retains some earlier Bungalow-style

internal doors and architraves. It can be hard to date the construction of houses

based on architectural style, particularly in rural locations which tend to be

slower to adopt ‘new’ trends, but the house appears to date to the 1930s/40s

(Adina Brown, pers. comm. 2015).

No evidence was found of the ‘huts’ that were identified on plan SO 1052

(n.d.; Figure 11) along the banks of the Waiwera River. Weranui Road now

cuts along the edge of the Waiwera River at the point where the huts were most

likely located.



RESULTS, CONTINUED

Figure 13. Aerial

showing location

of sites and

features

discussed in the

text. Property

boundary is

shown in red.

Aerial source:

Auckland

Council GIS 2015


R10/1406

R10/924

R10/1412 R10/1413

R10/1097

Homestead


RESULTS, CONTINUED

Figure 14. North

(front) side of

house at the

northern end of

the property

Figure 15. East

side of house



RESULTS, CONTINUED

R10/924:

Terrace/Pit

R10/924 was relocated just outside the western boundary of the property

(Figure 13, Figure 16). The two main terraces recorded on the western side of

the knoll summit could not be located. This was probably due to the thick

(<700mm) kikuyu grass which made identifying topographic variation

extremely difficult. The terrace and pit recorded to the east of the two main

terraces were relocated at the end of an east-running spur (Figure 17).

Figure 16.

Identified extent

of site R10/924.

Boundary fence

shown in red

Figure 17.

R10/924



RESULTS, CONTINUED

R10/1406:

Terraces/

Midden

The site comprises at least three large poorly defined terraces (up to 50m long)

evident down the moderate sloping spur that overlooks the Waiwera River

(Figure 13, Figure 18–Figure 20). The site extends over an area of c.200m x

50m. Shell midden was identified in charcoal stained topsoil in patches over

the extent of the site. The densest exposure of shell is on the southern side of

the elevated knoll at the southern identified extent of the site (Figure 21). The

midden comprises cockle and pipi in a charcoal stained soil.

The site may extend into the neighbouring property to the east; however, recent

works undertaken for the construction of a building platform may have

modified previously unidentified features/deposits associated with this site.

Figure 18. Aerial

showing

approximate

identified extent

of site R10/1406



RESULTS, CONTINUED

Figure 19.

Looking east

over to site

R10/1406

(outlined)

Figure 20.

Looking north

from knoll over

site R10/1406

down to Waiwera

River



RESULTS, CONTINUED

Figure 21. Shell

midden eroding

out of southern

face of knoll at

R10/1406

R10/1412:

Terrace

The site comprises a small east-facing terrace measuring 12m x 5m, located on

the south-eastern side of a small knoll that is part of the main ridge running

northwest-southeast across the south of the property (Figure 13, Figure 22,

Figure 23). Probing determined the depth of topsoil to be between 150mm and

210mm thick, which varied across the terrace. No other archaeological

remains were identified in the immediate vicinity.



RESULTS, CONTINUED

Figure 22. Aerial

showing

identified extent

of site R10/1412

Figure 23.

Looking north

over terrace site

R10/1412



RESULTS, CONTINUED

R10/1413:

Shell Midden

A scatter of fragmented shell was encountered near the eastern boundary of the

property, approximately 25m south of the house at 859 Hibiscus Coast

Highway (Figure 13, Figure 24, Figure 25). The shell is located on a ridge that

runs northwest-southeast following the eastern boundary of the property. The

shell scatter was exposed in a small hole in the ground resulting from stock

movement (Figure 26). Further probing identified clusters of shell at 130mm

depth over an area 10m x 3m. No dense deposits were identified. The shell is

highly fragmented and appeared to be mostly cockle.

Figure 24. Aerial

showing

identified extent

of shell midden

R10/1413



RESULTS, CONTINUED

Figure 25.

Looking south-

east over site

R10/1413

Figure 26.

R10/1413 close-

up of exposed

shell deposit


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary of

Results

Four archaeological sites were identified within or on the boundary of the

Chin Hill farm property. Previously recorded pit/terrace site (R10/924; CHI

12066) is located just outside of the property boundary. A further three

previously unrecorded sites consisting of one terrace/midden site (R10/1406),

one terrace site (R10/1412) and one shell midden site (R10/1413) were

identified within the property.

Maori Cultural

Values

This is an assessment of effects on archaeological values and does not include

an assessment of effects on Maori cultural values. Such assessments should

only be made by the tangata whenua. Maori cultural concerns may encompass

a wider range of values than those associated with archaeological sites.

The historical association of the general area with the tangata whenua is

evident from the recorded sites, traditional histories and known Maori place

names.

The current assessment was undertaken with the assistance of Ngati Manuhiri

representative Lorena Cardenas.

Survey

Limitations

It should be noted that archaeological survey techniques (based on visual

inspection and minor sub-surface testing) cannot necessarily identify all sub-

surface archaeological features, or detect wahi tapu and other sites of

traditional significance to Maori, especially where these have no physical

remains.

Archaeological

Value and

Significance

The Chin Hill property and its immediate surrounds contain archaeological

sites comprising shell midden deposits related to short term encampments as

well as terraces likely related to more permanent seasonal settlement located

within the catchment between the Waiwera River and Hatfields Beach. The

sites form part of an extensive and significant pre-European Maori landscape

relating to the occupation of the greater Mahurangi area.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS, CONTINUED

Archaeological

Value and

Significance,

continued

The archaeological value of sites relates mainly to their information potential,

that is, the extent to which they can provide evidence relating to local, regional

and national history through the use of archaeological investigation

techniques, and the research questions to which the site could contribute. The

surviving extent, complexity and condition of sites are the main factors in their

ability to provide information through archaeological investigation. For

example, generally pa are more complex sites and have higher information

potential than small midden (unless of early date). Archaeological value also

includes contextual (heritage landscape) value. Archaeological sites may also

have other historic heritage values including historical, architectural,

technological, cultural, aesthetic, scientific, social, spiritual, traditional and

amenity values.

Of the three sites that are recorded within the boundaries of the property,

terrace/midden site R10/1406 is by far the most extensive and significant in

terms of information potential and potential amenity value. The terrace site

R10/1412 is an isolated feature, while the shell midden site R10/1413 is in a

highly fragmented condition. Both are considered to be of limited

archaeological value in terms of their knowledge potential.

The proposed works have been designed to avoid all known archaeological

remains on the property; therefore the sites have not been assessed further.

The proposed areas of works have no known archaeological value or

significance.

Effects of

Proposal

The known extent of site R10/924 will not be affected as a result of the

proposed works as it is located outside of the western boundary of the property

(Figure 16, Figure 27). Nor are any works proposed within close proximity to

site R10/1406 located at the northern end of the property (Figure 18, Figure

27).

Site R10/1412 is located to the west of proposed Lot 17 and outside of the

proposed area of works (Figure 27, Figure 28). The site should not be affected

as a result of the proposed works.

Site R10/1413 is located along the eastern boundary of the property, outside of

any proposed areas of works and should not be affected as a result of the

proposed works (Figure 27, Figure 29).




Effects of

Proposal,

continued

In any area where archaeological sites have been recorded in the general

vicinity it is possible that unrecorded subsurface remains may be exposed

during development. It is considered possible that unrecorded subsurface

archaeological sites in the form of shell midden or other indications of pre-

European settlement may be exposed during development and it is therefore

recommended that an Authority is applied for prior to the start of earthworks as

a precaution so that potential delays can be avoided should sites be exposed.

Archaeological features and remains can take the form of burnt and fire

cracked stones, charcoal, rubbish heaps including shell, bone and/or 19th

century glass and crockery, ditches, banks, pits, old building foundations,

artefacts of Maori and early European origin or human burials.

Overall, the proposed works have been designed to avoid all known

archaeological sites and the potential effects on any unidentified sites exposed

during works are likely to be minor.

Figure 27. Detail

of masterplan

showing locations

of archaeological

sites recorded

within the

property


R10/1413

R10/1412

R10/924

R10/1406



Figure 28. Detail

of master plan

showing location

of R10/1412

(North at left)

Figure 29. Detail

of master plan

showing location

of R10/1413

(North at left)


R10/1413

R10/1412



Resource

Management

Act 1991

Requirements

Section 6 of the RMA recognises as matters of national importance: ‘the

relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands,

water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga’ (S6(e)); and ‘the protection of

historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development’ (S6(f)).

All persons exercising functions and powers under the RMA are required under

Section 6 to recognise and provide for these matters of national importance

when ‘managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical

resources’. Archaeological and other historic heritage sites are resources that

should be sustainably managed by ‘Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any

adverse effects of activities on the environment’ (Section 5(2)(c)).

Historic heritage is defined (S2) as ‘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: (i) archaeological; (ii)

architectural; (iii) cultural; (iv) historic; (v) scientific; (vi) technological’.

Historic heritage includes: ‘(i) historic sites, structures, places, and areas; (ii)

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

(iv) surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources’.

Regional, district and local plans contain sections that help to identify, protect

and manage archaeological and other heritage sites. The plans are prepared

under the rules of the RMA. The Auckland Council District Plan – Operative

Rodney Section 2011 and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP,

notified September 2013) are relevant to the proposed activity. There are no

scheduled historic heritage places on the property on either the operative plan

or the PAUP. A Site/Place of Value to Mana Whenua (ID 2769) is located

near the eastern boundary, but does not extend into the property.

This assessment has established that the proposed activity will not affect any

known archaeological or historic heritage sites, but has some potential to affect

unidentified subsurface archaeological remains that may be exposed during

development. Any effects on unrecorded archaeological deposits or features

can be appropriately mitigated through archaeological investigation and

recording to recover information relating to the history of the

Waiwera/Hatfields Beach area.

If resource consent is granted, it is recommended that a condition requiring

monitoring within c.50m of recorded archaeological sites and the adoption of

an Accidental Discovery Protocol for the remainder of the works is included.

It is also recommended that an advice note regarding the provisions of the

HNZPTA is included, as an Authority under that Act will be required for any

modification and investigation of archaeological remains.




Heritage New

Zealand

Pouhere

Taonga Act

2014

Requirements

In addition to any requirements under the RMA, the HNZPTA protects all

archaeological sites whether recorded or not, and they may not be damaged or

destroyed unless an Authority to modify an archaeological site has been issued

by Heritage NZ (Section 42).

An archaeological site is defined by the HNZPTA Section 6 as follows:

‘archaeological site means, subject to section 42(3), –

(a) any place in New Zealand, including any building or structure (or part

of a building or structure) that –

(i) was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900 or is

the site of the wreck of any vessel where the wreck occurred before

1900; and

(ii) provides or may provide, through investigation by archaeological

methods, evidence relating to the history of New Zealand; and

(b) includes a site for which a declaration is made under section 43(1)’2

Authorities to modify archaeological sites can be applied for either in respect to

archaeological sites within a specified area of land (Section 44(a)), or to

modify a specific archaeological site where the effects will be no more than

minor (Section 44(b)), or for the purpose of conducting a scientific

investigation (Section 44(c)). Applications that relate to sites of Maori interest

require consultation with (and in the case of scientific investigations the

consent of) the appropriate iwi or hapu and are subject to the recommendations

of the Maori Heritage Council of Heritage NZ. In addition, an application may

be made to carry out an exploratory investigation of any site or locality under

Section 56, to confirm the presence, extent and nature of a site or suspected

site.

While no known archaeological sites will be affected by the proposed works, it

is possible that unidentified subsurface archaeological remains may be exposed

during development.


2 Under Section 42(3) an Authority is not required to permit work on a pre-1900 building unless the building is to be

demolished. Under Section 43(1) a place post-dating 1900 (including the site of a wreck that occurred after 1900) that

could provide ‘significant evidence relating to the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand’ can be declared by

Heritage NZ to be an archaeological site.



Heritage New

Zealand

Pouhere

Taonga Act

2014

Requirements,

continued

In order to avoid any delays should unidentified subsurface features be exposed

by the proposed works, consideration could be given to applying for an

authority under Section 44(a) of the HNZPTA to cover all works undertaken

for this project, as a precaution. This should be obtained before any earthworks

are carried out. Those sites that can be avoided would be protected under the

conditions of the Authority, and provision would be made for any additional

sites that might be exposed during development. The conditions of the

authority are likely to include archaeological monitoring of preliminary

earthworks in the vicinity of recorded sites, and procedures for recording any

archaeological evidence before it is modified or destroyed. This approach

would have the advantage of allowing any archaeology uncovered during the

development of the property to be dealt with immediately, avoiding possible

delays.

Conclusions Three previously unrecorded archaeological sites were identified within the

Chin Hill property as a result of the current assessment. None of the recorded

archaeological sites are located within the proposed development area and the

proposed development will therefore have no known adverse effects on

archaeological values.

However, there is some potential for previously unrecorded archaeological

deposits to be exposed as a result of the proposed works, as sites have been

recorded in the vicinity. Any effects on unrecorded archaeological deposits or

features exposed during development are likely to be minor and should be

mitigated through archaeological investigation and recording to recover

information relating to the history of the Waiwera/Hatfields Beach area.


RECOMMENDATIONS

It is

Recommended:

That the recorded sites R10/1412 and R10/1413 are temporarily marked

out or fenced off prior to the start of any earthworks in their vicinity to

protect them from accidental damage from heavy machinery.

That if any of the recorded sites cannot be avoided by earthworks or

associated activities such as planting and landscaping, an Authority must

be applied for under Section 44(a) of the HNZPTA and granted by

Heritage NZ prior to the start of any works that will affect them. (Note

that this is a legal requirement).

That because it is possible that additional unrecorded sites may be

exposed during earthworks, an Authority should in any case be applied

for prior to the start of works as a precaution so that appropriate

management procedures can be set in place and delays avoided once

works are under way.

That earthworks in the near vicinity of the recorded sites (within c.50m)

should be monitored by an archaeologist to establish whether any

unrecorded subsurface remains are present.

That archaeological discovery protocols should be developed to provide

for the possibility that archaeological remains may be exposed in other

areas. These should require that works cease in the immediate vicinity of

the find, until the remains can be assessed by an archaeologist and the

relevant organisations can be informed.

That in the event of koiwi tangata (human remains) being uncovered,

work should cease immediately in the vicinity of the remains and tangata

whenua, the Heritage NZ, NZ Police and Council should be contacted so

that appropriate arrangements can be made.

That since archaeological survey cannot always detect sites of traditional

significance to Maori, such as wahi tapu, the tangata whenua should be

consulted regarding the possible existence of such sites on the property.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Auckland Council Cultural Heritage Inventory, accessed at http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz and

https://chi.org.nz.

Brown, A., Z. Burnett, R. Clough. 2014. Historic Bathhouses, 37 Waiwera Place, Auckland: Heritage

Assessment and Options Report. Clough & Associates report prepared for Waiwera Property

Holdings Limited.

Farley, G., Burnett, Z. and R. Clough. 2010. SHI Puhoi to Wellsford Proposed Indicative Route: AEE

(Historic Heritage). Draft Clough & Associates report prepared for SKM Consulting Limited.

Heritage NZ. 2006. Writing Archaeological Assessments. Archaeological Guidelines Series No. 2. New

Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga (now Heritage NZ).

Judge, C. and R. Clough. 2010. Proposed Subdivision of Lot 2 DP95203, Weranui Road, Waiwera:

Archaeological Assessment. Clough & Associates report prepared for Cato Bolam Consultants

Ltd and BBI Investments Ltd.

Judge, C. 2013. 18, 32 & 42 Weranui Road, Waiwera, Auckland: Archaeological Site Damage

Assessment (R10/1222). Clough & Associates report prepared for the New Zealand Historic

Places Trust.

Locker, R.H. 2001. Jade River: A History of the Mahurangi. Warkworth: Friends of the Mahurangi Inc.

Low, J. and S. Macready. 2009. Archaeological Assessment of an Island near the Waiwera Toll Road

Bridge, Weranui Road, Rodney District. Clough & Associates report prepared for New Zealand

Transport Authority.

Mackintosh, L. 2005. Wenderholm Regional Park: Our History. Auckland Regional Council Heritage

Department, Auckland.

Murdoch, G. 1992. Tawharanui Regional Park: Management Plan. Auckland Regional Council,

Regional Parks Service.

New Zealand Archaeological Association ArchSite Database, accessed at http://www.archsite.org.nz.

New Zealand Heritage List, accessed at http://www.historic.org.nz.

NZMCH 2006. New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Maori Peoples of New Zealand, Nga Iwi

o Aotearoa. Te Ara – The Encyclopedia of New Zealand. David Bateman Ltd & Ministry for

Culture and Heritage, Auckland.

Rigby, B. 1998. The Crown, Maori, and Mahurangi 1840-1881: a historical report commissioned by the

Waitangi Tribunal. New Zealand: Waitangi Tribunal.

Shakles, R., C. Judge and R. Clough. 2012. Proposed Subdivision of Lot 2 DP428681, Weranui Road,

Waiwera: Archaeological Assessment. Clough & Associates report prepared for Cato Bolam

Consultants Ltd and New Zealand Asia Corporation Ltd.

Turton, H., 1877-78. Maori Deed of Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand. Government

Printers.

http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

https://chi.org.nz/

http://www.archsite.org.nz/

http://www.historic.org.nz/


APPENDIX: SITE RECORD FORMS

chin hill farm 203 weranui oad waiwera...

Documents