Before Hearing Commissioners at Christchurch under: in the matter of: the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 a direction under section 16(4) to the Canterbury Regional Council to prepare a ‘Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan’ and in the matter of: Lyttelton Port Company Limited Submitter Statement of evidence of Katharine Jane Watson (Heritage) Dated: 11 May 2015 REFERENCE: JM Appleyard ([email protected]) ML Nicol ([email protected]) 1 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF KATHARINE JANE WATSON INTRODUCTION 1 My name is Katharine Jane Watson. 2 I have a Master of Arts in Anthropology from the University of Otago. I have worked as a consultant archaeologist in Christchurch for 15 years and am director of Underground Overground Archaeology Ltd. 3 In preparing my evidence I have reviewed: 3.1 The preliminary draft Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan (LPRP); 3.2 Appendix 9 of Lyttelton Port Company Limited’s (LPC) Information Package provided to Environment Canterbury on 13 November 2014 (Information Package), being the archaeological assessment prepared by Matthew Carter (then an employee of Underground Overground Archaeology Ltd) dated November 2014; 3.3 Appendix 4 of LPC’s Information Package, being the Cultural Impact Assessment prepared by Dyanna Jolly dated 10 November 2014; 3.4 The archaeological management plan prepared by Matthew Carter for the Lyttelton Port Reconstruction; and 3.5 The archaeological authority issued by Heritage New Zealand for the Lyttelton Port Reconstruction (HNZPT 2015/600). SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 4 I have been asked by LPC to present evidence on the archaeological assessment undertaken in respect of the works proposed by the LPRP, and to do by summarising the findings of the Report. This evidence accordingly relies on and incorporates the more detailed information that the Report contains. 5 My evidence discusses: 5.1 The impacts of the project upon the archaeological remains at Lyttelton Port (Port); and 5.2 The measures that will be employed to mitigate the loss of archaeological sits at the Port. 032716863/644871.5 2 6 Although this is not an Environment Court hearing (or a hearing being conducted under the Resource Management Act 1991), I note that in preparing my evidence I have reviewed the code of conduct for expert witnesses contained in part 7 of the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. I have complied with it in preparing my evidence. I confirm that the issues addressed in this statement of evidence are within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 7 There are 59 recorded archaeological sites on LPC land that are protected by the Historic Places Act 1993. 8 These archaeological sites have been assessed using Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga’s criteria and range in archaeological value from low to high. 9 An archaeological authority has been obtained from Heritage New Zealand, under section 14 of the Historic Places Act, which allows for the modification/destruction of 54 of these archaeological sites. The remaining sites have been excluded from the authority and permission has not been granted to modify them. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 10 The Port has been the site of human occupation since at least the 16th century, when Ngāti Mamoe settled in the area. Europeans arrived in the 1840s and set about establishing the Port that still operates today. 11 Matthew Carter carried out historical research and assessed the values of the archaeological sites within LPC boundaries, before assessing the impacts of the project on these values. 12 The archaeological assessment identified up to 10 sites of high archaeological value (some of these sites may have been destroyed, but it was not possible to establish this during the assessment, as it is not known whether or not extant structures were removed before within the Port was reclaimed). 13 The remaining archaeological sites were identified as being of low to medium archaeological value, and various recommendations were made to ensure that the archaeological information about these sites will be captured before the sites are modified. These methods include recording archaeological features prior to modification; stand over monitoring of earthworks by an archaeologist; and site visits during earthworks. 032716863/644871.5 3 14 On this basis, Heritage New Zealand issued an authority to allow 54 archaeological sites to be destroyed, damaged or modified. The authority is attached and marked “A”. 15 Five archaeological sites were excluded from the archaeological authority due to their high archaeological value, the fact that the reconstruction will not affect the archaeological site and/or because more information is required about the archaeological site. The sites excluded from the authority are: Battery Point Historic Area (which is listed by Heritage New Zealand), Henry Le Cren’s house and wharf, musket trenches, Polhill’s rifle range, and the graving dock (a Category 1 historic place). A separate archaeological authority will need to be obtained if any work is to take place that will affect these archaeological sites. 16 The archaeological authority requires that the archaeological sites for which it was issued are recorded and analysed using standard archaeological procedures, and that reports on the archaeological work are submitted to Heritage New Zealand (and other institutions) on a regular basis. 17 Of the archaeological sites identified, four are Māori archaeological sites. Procedures for archaeological work around these sites have been developed with Ngāti Wheke to ensure that correct tikanga Māori is followed during work in these areas. ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 18 The archaeological management plan prepared by Matthew Carter provides guidance to contractors with regard to archaeological sites, and to help them prepare the archaeology sections of their CEMP. 19 The management plan sets out: 19.1 The role of the contractor, and that of the archaeologist in relation to archaeological sites; 19.2 Where the high risk areas/sites are; 19.3 Where the low risk areas are (these areas do not require any further archaeological involvement); 19.4 Which areas are excluded from the archaeological authority; 19.5 The relevant regulatory requirements in relation to archaeological sites; 19.6 Construction activities that may impact archaeological sites; 032716863/644871.5 4 19.7 How to manage the accidental discovery of archaeological sites; 19.8 How to manage kōiwi; and 19.9 Mitigation measures for managing impacts on archaeological sites, including details on how and when to engage an archaeologist, and the advice they can provide. 20 The archaeological management plan has been approved by Heritage New Zealand and is a legally binding document. 21 The archaeological management plan has been included as a specific in the CEMP (the evidence of Kim Kelleher explains CEMP in more detail, and the CEMP forms part of the Information Package). 22 Repairing the paving in Yard 66 at the Port is currently underway and has successfully implemented the CEMP. Both an archaeologist and a cultural monitor are on site, monitoring the earthworks as required. PUBLIC COMMENTS 23 Some members of the public raised the possibility that the existing pile moorings in the Port have heritage values. Photographs indicate that these piles were installed in the 1920s (they were extant by 1926). As such, the piles are not an archaeological site protected by the Historic Places Act. 24 These pile moorings are part of the fabric of the maritime cultural landscape that is the Port, but have no other known/specific heritage values. In addition, this landscape is not a static entity. It has one that has evolved with time, responding to changing technologies, economics, politics, etc. The proposal to replace the moorings with a floating marina is simply another part of that evolution, and recreational boating will remain part of the Port’s story. Dated: 11 May 2015 __________________________ Katharine Jane Watson 032716863/644871.5 ATTACHMENT A
© Copyright 2024