MISSION HOUSE Mangungu

CONSERVATION PLAN for Heritage Pouhere Taonga

Mission House Mangungu

CONSERVATION PLAN

Report Prepared by

CHRIS COCHRAN MNZM, B Arch, FNZIA CONSERVATION ARCHITECT 20 Glenbervie Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand Phone 04-472 8847 Email [email protected]

for

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Antrim House, 63 Boulcott Street Wellington 6011

Draft for public comment 8 June 2018 Mangungu Mission Station, 1838, before fire destroyed the original mission house (top right) on 19 August 1838, as seen by the eight-year-old Emma Hobbs. Copied from the reproduction hanging in the drawing room of the Mission House

Front cover photo, the Mission House in 2010, from the north-west. Photo, Margaret Cochran Back cover photo, the memorial cross marking the re-establishment of the Wesleyan mission in New Zealand in 1827, seen against the waters of the Harbour. Photo, Margaret Cochran Contents

PROLOGUES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Commission 2 1.2 Ownership and Status 2 1.3 Acknowledgements 3 2.0 HISTORY 5 2.1 History of the Mission House 5 2.2 Chronology 25 2.3 Sources 27 3.0 DESCRIPTION 29 3.1 The Site 29 3.2 Description of the House Today 30 4.0 SIGNIFICANCE 34 4.1 Statement of Significance 34 4.2 Inventory 36 5.0 INFLUENCES ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 68 5.1 Heritage New Zealand’s Objectives 68 5.2 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 69 5.3 Resource Management Act 71 5.4 Building Act 2004 72 5.5 Appropriate Standards 74 5.6 Threats and Risks 76 6.0 POLICIES 79 6.1 Background 79 6.2 Policies 81 6.3 Building Implications of the Policies 85 APPENDIX I 87 Icomos New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value. APPENDIX II 98 Measured Drawings and Topographical Survey PROLOGUE

Because the Mangungu Mission House and station is some distance from the regular tourist and holiday destinations in the , its significance is little appreciated. However, a reading of the missionary journals and the extensive secondary literature (some of which is listed in the bibliography) makes it clear that the Hokianga Mission station is second only to the three original sites in the Bay of Islands (Rangihoua, and ) in its significance in the mission , and in the history of early contact between European and Maori. The first mission site in has little remaining save a commemorative monument and a plaque in the local church. It was very short-lived. The recommencement of the mission at Mangungu in the Hokianga was very much more significant. Probably a crucial factor was the role of the Hokianga as a significant centre of trading and timber exporting before the missionaries arrived. Also, it greatly extended the impact of the missionaries to the other side of Northland, at a time when the Anglican Church Missionary Society (CMS) were still moving very cautiously on expanding their activities, although strong links of local Maori with those in the Bay of Islands within Ngapuhi meant that the Christian message had already been brought to the area by missionaries and Maori evangelists of the CMS. The actual history of the mission at Mangungu is quite mixed, with a series of clashes between missionaries, and very uneven developments, especially surrounding the highly controversial role of William White, the short life of Rev Bumby, and the coming and going and return of John Hobbs. Eventually, as a result of a comity agreement with the CMS, the mission was encouraged to extend itself down the West Coast as far as southern , and stations were established in the Manukau, Kawhia and Taranaki. Furthermore, the decision of Bishop Pompallier to establish his mission in Hokianga increased religious tensions in the area. In the end Hokianga ceased to be part of the strategy of this mission, and its resources were sharply cut after the British Wesleyan Methodist Connexion passed responsibility to the Australasian Wesleyans; they placed more focus on reaching the European settlers. Yet from this mission sprang some very strong traditions of Maori Methodists, including Patuone and , and this tradition continued through Rua Rakena, a noted twentieth century Methodist minister from Ngapuhi. In summary, the return of the Mission House to Mangungu means that it is now a powerful symbol of a very significant aspect of the earliest links between Europeans and Maori in New Zealand. We are immensely fortunate that a 170 year old building survives, and it deserves recognition alongside the buildings at Kerikeri, Waitangi and Russell as the living record of another aspect of the ways in which modern New Zealand came into existence. This building deserves the highest level of protection and care.

Peter Lineham Professor of History, Massey University PROLOGUE

I am very grateful to heritage New Zealand for moving the Mangungu mission house back onto its original location. It means a lot to know that the house that our great, great grandfather co-built and lived in is back on the land that is such an important place in New Zealand history. Along with family, I attended the 2012 commemoration of the signing of the at Mangungu. It was a beautiful day and the singing of Maori hymns in the chapel, then the bone-chilling haka and waiata on the lawn outside, were very moving. I was impressed and amused by how young some of the group were. We picnicked under the oak trees; being under the same trees that John Hobbs had planted near the house was quite grounding for me – it made the 174 years between us seem not that long. During the picnic, we saw six or more waka paddling down the river from the northwest. The crews were singing and doing choreography with their oars … it was stunning. I have a photo of my wife Linda taken there in 1985; we didn’t know it then but she was newly pregnant with our first son. We were there with my father (who is also named John Hobbs), my mother, my grandmother and my aunt Rene Hobbs, all since passed away; the women were standing together on the grass bank beside the mission house with the Chapel and the beautiful Hokianga harbour behind them. This photo is dear to me as my mother passed away only a few months later. Rene had worked for the Maori Methodist Mission, devoting her life to Maori communities mainly in the Waikato. She was so happy to be at Mangungu that weekend, she was proud of and inspired by the work of her ancestor. Rene never married and spent a lot of time with us as children; she would keep us informed of Hobbs history and would rap us on the knuckles if our Maori pronunciation was not correct. I think we would all be the poorer for it if the Mission house, chapel and land had been forgotten. I personally know much more about my family history thanks to those who value the past. I have been proud to learn that John and Jane Hobbs were noble, courageous and resourceful people and am so pleased that they are honoured, their work not forgotten, at this special place. Thank you. Jeffrey Hobbs, Tomarata Great great grandson of John and Jane Hobbs Mission House, looking north-east from the verandah. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Mangungu Mission House is amongst the oldest buildings in the country, being built in 1839, and is one woven into the story of the early period of contact between the indigenous people of Aotearoa and the European settlers. It is closely associated with the introduction of Christianity to New Zealand, and with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. It stands today on a site of great historical importance and natural beauty, an important example of early European architecture in New Zealand, able to teach us much about history, cultural exchange, building technology and pioneering enterprise. Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga have cared for the building since 1972 and it is visited by the public. This conservation plan describes its history, defines its cultural heritage values, and sets policies for its future management. These advocate for a continuing high level of care, and for some modest changes to make the building more valuable as a place in which visitors can understand more fully our history and culture.

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Commission This Conservation Plan for the Mission House, Mangungu, is the result of a commission dated 9 September 2009 from Gordon Hewston, then Regional Manager Heritage Destinations North, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (now Heritage New Zealand. The plan includes a history of the Mangungu Mission, and of the house itself; a description of it as it stands today; an assessment of its cultural heritage significance, and policies for its future management. It broadly follows the standard heritage New Zealand format for conservation plans (see Guidelines for Preparing Conservation Plans, NZHPT, 2000), although with some variation in detail. Conservation standards are those set out in the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value; the technical content of the plan meets the requirements of the New Zealand Building Code. This report deals with the house itself, and does not include the church, other buildings or structures on the land, or extend to the remarkable collection of objects within it, nor the garden and wider setting. These elements are of high heritage value. The contents are the subject of a separate report Mangungu Mission Collection prepared by Rebecca Apperley, Heritage Advisor Collections, March 2014, which deals with the ownership, provenance and significance of items in the collection, which presently totals 484 objects. A report covering the garden and setting is to be separately commissioned. The archaeology of the site has been recently examined in two reports by Archaeological Solutions Ltd, which are referred to and referenced later in this report. The repair and maintenance of the Mission House is dealt with in a separate document, Mangungu Mission Station, Mangungu, Northland, Condition Report, NZHPT (Salmond Architects, May 2001). This includes an assessment of the condition of the building and recommended repairs, many of which have since been carried out. Details of minor repairs that were identified during the survey for the conservation plan (which was carried out on 6 and 7 May 2010) have been supplied separately to Heritage New Zealand.

1.2 Ownership and Status The Mission House is part of the Mangungu Mission Station, Motukiore Road, Horeke, Hokianga Harbour, Northland. The legal description of the land is Pt OLC 78 Blk XI Mangamuka SD (CT NA776/23, North Land District), being a portion of Old Land Claim No 78, and comprising 3.6437 hectares. It is owned by the Te Taha Maori Property Trust, and is leased to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga for a term of 99 years from 1 May 1972; the rental is 10 cents per annum. The use to which the premises may be put is ‘the maintenance preservation and management of the demised premises exclusively as a place of historic interest.’ Heritage New Zealand manages the property and opens it to the public as a house museum according to the terms of the lease; this conservation plan is to form an integral part of the management regime for the house. The building is listed as a Category 1 historic place under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014; it is also scheduled on the Plan. Sections 5.2 and 5.3 outline the implications of these listings. 2 The Church The church on the land is owned by the Te Taha Maori Property Trust, and it is presently excluded from the lease. It was originally the Methodist Church at Kohukohu, shifted across the water and sited below the Mission House. Discussions are presently being held about the possibility of new uses for the church in a partnership arrangement between the Trust and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, ‘on the basis that Heritage New Zealand then includes the church property in its lease arrangements for the Mission House’ (letter from Greg Wright, Executive Director, Methodist Church of New Zealand to Heritage New Zealand, 17 June 2016). The Cemetery The cemetery / urupa to the east of the property, identified in the Far North District Plan as the Mangungu Public Cemetery, is owned by the Far North District Council and is managed by a local committee. There are 62 burials in the old cemetery and 50 in the public cemetery, 112 in all, of which 71 are marked. Among notable people buried there is James Reddy Clendon, the first US Consul in New Zealand, and Samuel Butler, the son of the Rev John Butler of the Mission Station at Kerikeri; the earliest grave is 1829. The Wharf Further out to the east, there is a 60 metre long timber wharf, built in the 1980s. This is owned by the far North District Council and is maintained by the Far North Holdings Limited. It provides very ready access from the Hokianga Harbour to the Mission House site. e.

1.3 Acknowledgements Acknowledgement for help in the preparation of this plan is made to various staff members of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT), among them Gordon Hewitson, Belinda Burgess, Priscilla Pitts, Atareiria Heihei and most recently Calum Maclean, also: Helen McCracken, for preparing the history, section 2.1. Russell Murray, Conservation Architect, for preparing the measured drawings, and Margaret Cochran, for photography. For assistance with research: Jo Smith, Archivist, Methodist Church of New Zealand Archives, Christchurch. Jill Weeks, Archivist, Methodist Church of New Zealand Archives, Auckland. Keith Guyan, Onehunga Co-operating Parish Administrator. Erica Oflaherty, Auckland City Archives. Elaine Marland, Information Services Advisor, Heritage New Zealand. For comments on a draft of this document: John Stacpoole, in a letter to the author dated 9 July 2010 (copy deposited with Heritage New Zealand). The brief for the plan called for a number of reviews as the text was finalised; the document was in turn reviewed by the Technical Review Committee of Heritage New Zealand; the Heritage List / Rarangi Korero Committee, and the Maori Heritage Council.

3 It was then made available for public comment, and was finally reviewed by the Heritage New Zealand Board. Various changes were made as result of this consultation process. This Conservation Plan is funded by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. It is based on site survey work carried out by the author in May 2009. Note: the initials NZHPT (New Zealand Historic Places Trust) appear in some places in text and footnotes, where this name is appropriate to the historical context. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga became Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) on 14 April 2014, prior to the enactment of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 on 20 May 2014.

The site of the first Methodist mission station, established in June 1823, near the present day town of ; State Highway 10 and several buildings at the northern end of the town can be seen in the background. View looking north-east, 2011.

4 2.0 HISTORY

This section is in two broad parts: a history of the Mangungu Mission and the Mission House to the present day (Section 2.1)1, and a chronology of important dates throughout its 175 year history (Section 2.2). A list of sources is included.

2.1 History of the Mission House This section was written by Helen McCracken.

The establishment of a Mission in New Zealand Mangungu was the second Wesleyan Methodist Society Mission Station to be established in New Zealand. The Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society (WMS) was part of a general Protestant evangelical movement in and parts of Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. The first such society was the London Missionary Society that formed in England in the 1790s, and many others were soon to follow. Missions were established in Africa, Asia, the Americas and the Pacific. In 1818 Samuel Leigh (a Methodist stationed in Sydney) visited New Zealand. On his return to England he gained the support of the WMS to establish a mission in New Zealand. However, it was not until 1822 that Leigh, along with William White and and families, arrived at Rangihoua, one of the stations established by the Church Missionary Society (CMS) in the Bay of Islands. In June 1823 the missionaries along with Luke Wade (a layman) established a mission station to the north at Whangaroa under the protection of the Ngati Uru rangatira and brothers Te Puhi and Ngahuruhuru. Two months later, in August 1823, the initial missionary party was joined by Nathaniel Turner and John Hobbs, and with the help of , acquired land at Whangaroa. In 1826 when , the great Ngapuhi warrior, wanted to return to Whangaroa he asked Ngati Uru to help him defeat Ngati Pou. When they refused, Hongi and his war party turned on Ngati Uru. In the resulting conflict members of Ngati Uru, who had been left behind by Te Puhi when he fled to the Hokianga, sacked the Whangaroa mission station in January 1827.2 The missionaries fled to the south to seek refuge amongst their friends in the CMS at Kerikeri. During their escape the Ngapuhi chief Patuone had briefly protected them from attack by a war party heading to Whangaroa.3 The Wesleyan missionaries returned to Australia and the station at Whangaroa was abandoned. Six months later the Wesleyans returned to New Zealand hoping to re-establish the mission, but this time they chose the Hokianga, which was considered a more favourable place for a mission in New Zealand at the time.4 On 20 October 1827 John Hobbs (with

1 Limitations. This history of the Mangungu Mission House is based primarily on secondary sources, of which there are many. It is not intended as a definitive history of the Mission House; its purpose is to provide sufficient context for the assessment of the cultural heritage significance of the house and the conservation plan’s policies and work recommendations. Where there have been significant changes to the house, these have been mentioned in the text; a more detailed description of changes is given in section 2.2. 2 Ballara, Angela. ‘Patuone, Eruera Maihi ? – 1872’. Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007, URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/ 3 Ibid. 4 T M I Williment, John Hobbs 1800-1883, Wesleyan Missionary to the Ngapuhi Tribe of the Northern New Zealand, 1985, p. 71.

5 his new wife Jane, née Broggref ) sailed from Port Jackson. They were accompanied by the Wades, Kezia Bedford, who had sailed from England with Jane and who had offered her services as a school mistress for the new mission, and Hika. Also accompanying them on their journey was the noted artist Augustus Earle. Stack had already left for New Zealand a month before Hobbs and his party. However, he journeyed first to the Bay of Islands to visit the CMS missions before proceeding to the Hokianga to join the main party.

Re-establishing the mission in the Hokianga The Hokianga Harbour on the west coast of Northland reaches far inland. Its full Maori name is Hokianga-nui-a-Kupe in recognition that this is the place where it is believed Kupe departed for Hawaiki.5 Many of the voyaging traditions also refer to the Hokianga as being a place where many of the early waka landed. The fertile landscape was fought over many times. The Hokianga is where the significant ancestor of Ngapuhi, Rahiri, forced Ngati Awa to leave the Hokianga. After this Ngapuhi established Whiria Pa at Pakanae.6 From as early as 1800 the occasional European sailing ships visited the Hokianga in search of suitable timber for spars. By the 1820s this trade had become substantial. In 1826 Patuone visited Sydney where he invited traders to set up in the Hokianga, even offering to leave his son as an assurance that they would be safe. As a result a timber mill and shipyard were established at Horeke.7 On their arrival at the Hokianga, Hobbs and Wade sought out these shipbuilders at Horeke who had agreed to support the mission. They then visited Patuone who it was believed was favourable to having missionaries live with him. With his help Te Toke was identified as the site of the new mission and negotiations began to acquire the land. In this Wade and Hobbs were assisted by Stack and the CMS missionaries Henry Williams, Richard Davis, Charles Davis and William Puckey who had accompanied Stack from the Bay of Islands for this purpose.8 They purchased the land at Te Toke in December 1827, and the deed was signed by Patuone and his brother Tamati Waka Nene. However, the new location of the mission soon proved to be unsuitable. It was subject to flooding and vulnerable to attack.9 Eventually the site of Mangungu was chosen. Mangungu means close-knitted or woven; broken, chipped or crushed (perhaps in reference to the rough nature of the land); uncooked or underdone; an incarnation or ritual in connection with the cultivation of kaimoana, or gitty, grinding.10 The site had the advantage of a deep-water anchorage, a hill site with good views of anyone approaching and it was closer to Maori settlements than Te Toke. Various disturbances encouraged the missionaries to move to Mangungu in March 1828. On 2 April 1828 the Wesleyans signed a deed with Ngatume and Wharekoa acquiring 24 hectares of land for £190 worth of trade goods. This was to be further augmented in

5 Claudia Orange. ‘Northland places – Hokianga district’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 2-Mar- 09, URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/northland-places/11 6 For an account of Ngati Awa in the North, see http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document//Volume_15_1906/ Volume_15,_No._4/Ngati-Awa_in_the_North,_by_A._G._Yarborough,_p_221-223/p1 For a brief story of Rahiri see http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/ngapuhi/page-3 7 Ibid. 8 Williment, 1985, pp.72-73. 9 Williment, 1985, pp.77-81. 10 'Ma' means by means of, in consequence of, by way of; ‘ngungu’ means to deflect, ward off, defend, protect, shield. These meanings were supplied by Te Kenehi Teira.

6 September 1829 with land acquired on both sides of the settlement.11 It is believed that at the time of the initial purchase, Jane Hobbs planted a number of Kentish acorns on the site. The trees that grew from these acorns still exist today.12 Construction began immediately with a house for the Hobbs family. Later a schoolroom/ chapel was built and it included a residence for Stack. To undertake this building programme a saw-pit was constructed with enough room for four pairs of sawyers. The inhabitants of the mission were also compelled to build a kiln when 4000 bricks being imported from Sydney were lost when the ship carrying them sank. By 1829 1800 bricks had been produced to construct the chimneys.13 Hobbs, who had trained as a builder/ carpenter, oversaw much of the construction. His abilities were to prove to be of great value to both the Wesleyan and CMS settlements. Eventually the settlement consisted of a garden and other outbuildings (see the Emma Hobbs sketch of 1838 opposite the Contents page). In May 1829 a graveyard was added to the settlement when two men from the Roselyn Castle drowned. Only one of the bodies was recovered. The ship’s captain requested that the body be buried at the Wesleyan settlement. The missionaries were given money to erect a headstone in memory of both sailors. This cemetery was to be the final resting place of missionaries and their families (particularly young children) and local residents.14 Early in February 1830 White, who had returned to England in 1826 to look for a wife, arrived in New Zealand with his new spouse Eliza (née Leigh) to take up the position of Superintendent of the Mission. White and Hobbs did not see eye to eye on a number of issues, to the extent that the CMS were asked to intervene. In that year Jane Hobbs became ill and was taken to Kerikeri to be cared for by the CMS missionaries. On his visits to the Bay of Islands, John Hobbs helped his hosts with whatever he could. He installed a brick chimney in William William’s house, drew up a plan for the , and, it is believed, also helped with the construction of the CMS house at Te Waimate.15 Although the Hokianga Mission continued to grow, with the first Maori converts in 1831, the differences between White and Hobbs saw Hobbs and his family leave New Zealand in 1833. They were reassigned to the mission in Tonga. White proved to be an unpopular superintendent. The Hokianga had become the main centre for the extraction of kauri timber in the Far North, and many European traders were eager to purchase land. Members of the Maori community, fearful that many of these traders were unscrupulous and that they would lose their land, approached White. He prevented further land dealings by buying land, which he then returned to Maori. They then felled the timber and sold it through his agency, which in turn funded the initial outlay by White. White also encouraged what he saw as acceptable Europeans to settle near the mission, and gave them privileged access to the mission store. This was

11 Mangungu Mission-station, 1 September 1829, Hokianga District. Hokianga, New Zealand, in .H. Hanson Turton, Maori Deeds of Old Private Land Purchases in New Zealand, From the Year 1815 to 1840, with Pre-Emptive and Other Claims, pp. 223-224. 12 Williment, 1985, p. 81-82. Mita Harris believes these are the original oaks. 13 Williment, 1985, p.84 14 Williment, 1985, p.198. 15 Tuesday, 27 May 1828 – Mr. Hobbs, who is remaining with me on account of Mrs. H.’s expected confinement, proposed to pull down an old wooden chimney which is in the Beehive, and build it up with brick – accordingly preparations were made and down it came. Collected the rough materials and commenced the foundation, with Mr. H. He is a good thorough workman. Henry Williams, The Early Journals of Henry Williams, 1826-1840, Editor Lawrence M. Rogers, Pegasus Press, 1961, Christchurch, p.131

7 seen as a direct threat to the other traders, including Lieutenant Captain Thomas McDonnell at Horeke, who had set up stores in the Hokianga. White was also unpopular with his fellow missionaries who objected to the commercialisation of the mission and resisted buying land other than that which was required for a station. In 1836, following accusations of adultery with Maori women, White was recalled to England and eventually, in 1838, was dismissed from both the ministry and the mission.16 In his place Nathaniel Turner was sent from Sydney. By the time Nathaniel Turner arrived there were 15 chapels or outstations associated with Mangungu17 and mission stations at Kawhia, Whaingaroa (Raglan), Kaipara and Manukau. At Mangungu a chapel had been built and a printing press set up by Rev. Rev John Hobbs, 1800-1883. William Woon. Methodist Church – Clergy, 1/2-022079-F, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington The return of Hobbs and the building of the Mangungu Mission House In February 1838 the Hobbs family left Tonga bound for Hobart. However, their less than seaworthy vessel sprang a leak and the pump failed. The ship altered course to the nearest port, the Bay of Islands. Here the Hobbs were looked after by their old friends the CMS missionaries. On hearing of their arrival Nathaniel Turner journeyed to Paihia, and convinced Hobbs to visit the mission at Mangungu. Soon after this a Special District meeting was held to make a formal request to the WMS to allow Hobbs to stay. On 23 March 1838 the Hobbs left Paihia (but without their youngest child who had died only five days before) and returned to the Hokianga.18 In August 1838 the Turners’ house caught fire. Although the family were able to get out of the house alive, the building and virtually all their possessions were destroyed. The Turners were re-housed with other families in the settlement. However, the pressure on accommodation was felt by all and a Special District meeting was held at which it was decided to build a new house for the Turners as soon as possible. According to the minutes of the special meeting it was resolved: That a substantial and commodious Mission house, for [Turner’s] accommodation be forthwith erected on the Mangungu Station, There being no building worthy to be called a house on the settlement.19

16 M.B. Gittos, ‘White, William 1794 – 1875’. Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007, URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/ 17 Methodist Jubilee’ Star, 8 January 1890. 18 Williment, 1985, pp. 115-118 19 Patricia Adams, Research Paper on Mangungu – Research Reports, 12010-022, 1, 1/01/1973, 1/04/1974, Property Management, Heritage New Zealand Antrim – Store. Citing Report by Turner on Fire 28 Aug 1838, published in the Missionary Notices, April 1839, pp.54-56, ATL. 8 Hobbs drew up the plans and ordered the timber.20 Some of the timber came through a subscription raised by some Hokianga residents, while the CMS made a donation of £40. The new home was designed with the idea of not only accommodating the Turners, but also providing shelter for the numerous visitors who came to the settlement. Hobbs engaged Wise (ship’s carpenter), four other Europeans and ‘some Maori helpers’ to build the new dwelling. It was located higher up the hill from the other residences, and the first structure to be built was that of the carpenter’s shop. Later this became the Mission House kitchen and also a place for domestics to sleep. It is not clear how long it took to build the house. It appears that pressure on accommodation was such that the Turners moved into an unfinished house in April 1839.21 Very little information exists on the how the house looked both externally or internally. An undated sketch of the back of the house published in Morley’s history of the Methodist Church in New Zealand suggests that it was a single storey timber building, the rear first floor dormers being absent at this time.22 It appears that a verandah wrapped around at least three sides of the building and was roofed under the continued slope of the main roof. The verandah may have extended right around the building but at some date was filled in to create additional accommodation, as shown by the presence of windows underneath what would be an extension of the roof. A single chimney projects out of the centre of the roof, suggesting that the main fireplace(s) was located in the middle of the building. At the back of house are a number of outhouses, of which the kitchen/domestic accommodation has already been mentioned. It has been suggested that the other buildings were the Mission Store and study/workshop.23 Internally it is most likely that the house had a parlour and a dining room, and a number of bedrooms (possibly four).24 The walls of the rooms were probably unlined. When Edward Jerningham Wakefield, the principal agent for the New Zealand Company, wrote of a visit to Mangungu in 1839, he commented that ‘the buildings were of kauri timber which works up very well. The rooms lined with this wood carefully planed, had the neat appearance of a workbox.’ 25 Above the rooms a large roof space, most likely accessed by a ladder and trap door, provided storage. The Turners did not live in the new house for long. The previous month Rev. Bumby had arrived in New Zealand to replace Turner as the Chairman of the New Zealand Mission. At that time Bumby reported to his superiors in London that: A new mission house is in the course of erection, in a more eligible situation & when finished will be more substantial and commodious than the old one.26

20 See Adams pp.11-16 for discussion on Hobbs as the architect of the Mangungu Mission House. 21 Adams, p.5 22 Although the image is only identified as ‘Mission Station’ Mangungu, Patricia Adams gives a detailed discussion in her research paper on why this image would more than likely be the 1838/39 Mission House designed by Hobbs. See Adams, pp. 11-15. 23 Fenwick Barrett to John Daniels, NZHPT, 3 July 1972: “In a sketch of the Mangungu Mission house by Morley, the house is shown as single storied & the verandahs were roofed under the continued slope of the main roof, there appeared to be verandahs on three sides.” Mangungu General – 1970-1972, Heritage New Zealand Antrim – Store, 12010 019, Vol.1. 24 For a discussion on the possible internal arrangement of the house see Adams pp.33-36. 25 Williment, 1985, p.122 26 Bumby, Mangungu, to General Secretaries 10/4/1839, W.M.S. Archives, Micro MS Coll 3 reel 20, Alexander Turnbull Library, quoted in Adams, p.5. 9 The Turners stayed long enough for Bumby to complete a journey to the south. They left New Zealand in August 1839 after which Bumby and his sister, who had travelled to New Zealand to keep house for her brother, moved into the mission house. The Bumbys are credited as being the first people to introduce the honeybee to New Zealand. They brought from New South Wales two straw kips of bees, and the hives were established at Mangungu.27 As there were only two of them, and given the pressure on accommodation, the Bumbys shared the house with the Rev. and Mrs Creed and for a short time with Rev. and Mrs Samuel Ironside. According to documents of the time the Creeds ‘lodged’ with the Bumbys, whereas the Ironsides had ‘apartments under the same roof’, implying that there was sufficient space in the house to have a separate area for the latter couple.28 It was customary at this time for ‘several hundred Maori to gather each Saturday evening to prepare for Sunday services’.29

Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi at Mangungu Perhaps the most important political event to occur at the mission station was the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840. Four days after the initial signings of the Treaty at Waitangi, Hobson and his party travelled inland, pausing to stop the night at the CMS settlement of Te Waimate, where he collected six more signatures. The following day the party arrived in the Hokianga. Accompanying them were the CMS missionaries Richard Taylor and . The party was met by a flotilla of waka and other vessels which carried them down the river to Mangungu, where the Wesleyan mission house was to provide accommodation. On 12 February 1840, an estimated 2000 to 3000 Maori primarily associated with the mission gathered in front of the mission house. A table and chairs were set up on the verandah for the official party. With Hobbs acting as interpreter, Hobson explained the reason for his visit and read out the Treaty, after which a great deal of discussion ensued. The meeting lasted all day. Sixty four rangatira representing many of the hapū of Te Rarawa and Ngāpuhi around the Hokianga Harbour signed Te Tiriti, the te reo Maori version, that day. Some like Tamati Waka Nene and Patuone had already signed on 6 February at Waitangi. On the day following the signing Hobson hosted a full day of celebration at Horeke. At this celebration around 3000 men, woman and children took part in a feast. Hobson then returned to the Bay of Islands. 30

Decline of the mission at Mangungu In June 1840 Bumby was drowned while on a trip to Hauraki. His sister continued living in the house, and later married the Rev. Gideon Smales. In 1841 Hobbs was re-appointed to the leadership of the Mission at Mangungu. By this time the Hobbs had a large family and

27 Joan Druett, Exotic Intruders, Heinemann, 1983, Auckland, p.254 28 Adams, p. 34, citing Orton Journal, 19/2/1840 Micro MS ATL; Letters, 1826-1841 written to his wife, extract quoted by Mitchell Reference Librarian in letter to writer [Adams], 18/12/1973. 29 Orange, p. 61. 30 Claudia Orange, The Treaty of Waitangi, Allen and Unwin Port Nicholson Press, 1987, pp.61-66.

10 Mangungu, the Wesleyan station at Hokianga, 1840 or 1841. Sketch by Richard Taylor, showing the mission house bottom right. Taylor, Richard, Sketchbook. 1835-1860, E-296-q-145-2, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington

Mangungu Mission Station, 1850s. From 'The history of Methodism in New Zealand', Rev Dr William Morley, McKee & Co, 1900; artist unknown. PUBL-0205-001, Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington

11 the Smales and the Creeds were required to leave the main mission house to make room for the Hobbs. This apparently was not an amicable move as there were reports of disputes over items of furniture. The Hobbs were to be the last Mangungu family to live at the mission house. For a time a friend of the Hobbs, Dr Richard Day, lived in the house. In 1841 Lady Jane Franklin (noted traveller), and second wife of Sir John Franklin, the lieutenant-governor of Tasmania and Arctic explorer, visited the Hobbs family. In later life Emma Hobbs (later Kirk) wrote of the visit: The weather was very bad but her defences of waterproofing being so effectual Lady Franklin did not mind it at all. It was winter and even an egg was not to be had. The very plain cakes mother had to offer she said were the nicest of things of the kind she had ever eaten. She asked about our reading and said she would send us books (her daughter had put aside) which she did. A plain kindly women she expressed herself much pleased with everything and to us the visit was an interesting event.31 There is also an account of the Mission Station at Mangungu being the place where the first Teetotal Society in New Zealand was formed, in 1842. During the disturbances of the Northern Wars of 1845–1846,32 the Woons33 and Hobbs families along with Dr Day were evacuated to Auckland. John Hobbs remained at the mission. The Hobbs family was only absent for a month, but by the time of their return they were the only family left at the mission as the Woons had been reassigned to another mission in Taranaki.34 Up until the mid-1840s all new Wesleyan missionaries involved in the Maori mission spent time at Mangungu before moving on to other districts, along with trained Maori helpers. However, during the 1840s much of the Maori and European population in the Hokianga moved away or never returned after the hostilities were over. With the establishment of towns such as Auckland and Wellington, the Wesleyan’s sphere of interest moved away from the Far North to the significantly larger populated centres to the south. In 1844 Rev. Walter Lawry arrived in New Zealand to take up the position of the General Superintendent of the mission based in Auckland. Mangungu remained the home of the Superintendent of the local Hokianga circuit. Eventually this too would change, as the headquarters for the Hokianga circuit moved to Waima and then to Rawene.35 Even the chief Patuone moved from the Hokianga to the Bay of Islands at this time. Finally in April 1855 the Hobbs family left the Far North and the mission station which had for many years been the principal station of the Wesleyan Missionary Society in New Zealand was to all intents and purposes closed. Even before they left, it seems that plans had been made to shift the Mangungu Mission House south to the newly established Wesleyan congregation at Onehunga. John Hobbs died in Auckland in 1883.

31 Emma Kirk, Wesleyan Missionary Station at Mangungu, Alexander Turnbull Library, p. 11 32 For the Northern Wars of 1845-1846, see http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/new-zealand-wars/page-2 33 Rev. William Woon was the mission’s printer. See http://www.methodist.org.nz/files/docs/mcnz%20admin%20 office/refresh/2013/martyrs%20sunday%20additional%20resource.pdf 34 Adams, pp. 7-8. 35 New Citizen, (Magazine of the Methodist Church of New Zealand), 2 June 1977, on Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 4, 2/05/1977, 21/04/1978, Property Management Mangungu, Heritage New Zealand Antrim – Store

12 The move south (1850s) – Onehunga Between 1847 and 1852 members of the Royal New Zealand Fencible Corps and their families settled in the now south and eastern suburbs of Auckland, namely Onehunga, Otahuhu, Panmure and Howick. They had been brought to New Zealand to act as a military reserve in case of conflict between colonial settlers and Maori. They were provided with a cottage and one acre of land, which would be theirs following the completion of seven years service. In the 1840s, the Wesleyan / Methodist Church petitioned Governor Grey to allow them to establish a church in Onehunga. However, it was not until 1850 that a small chapel was built on the corner of Grey Street and Queen Street, on land gifted by the Governor Grey. The Onehunga church was the main church of the Manukau circuit. In 1854 Rev. Thomas Buddle, who had lived at Mangungu for a time, was appointed to be the head of the Methodist church of the ‘European work in the Manukau area. Initially the Rev. and his wife and their large family lived in a Fencibles cottage.36 However, in 1855 the mission house at Hokianga was dismantled and transported by boat to Onehunga to be located on an adjoining section to the church to become a parsonage. Very little is known about the move. It is known that a contract for the ‘taking down and freight’ was let shortly after Buddle left for the first conference of the Australasian Methodist Church which began in Sydney in 1855. However, the move was not completed until October 1855. The move was confirmed in the minutes of the Annual District Meeting of the Auckland District held in November 1855. It appears that there was some difficulty in the rebuilding of the house and it was another eight months before the Buddle family could take up residence.37 During the time it was a parsonage a small staircase was built to access the attic space, which was converted into rooms with the addition of dormer windows on either side of the house. A lean-to was also constructed at the back of the property, which most likely contained the kitchen/scullery. The fireplaces were moved from the middle of the house to the side walls. It is also most likely that the entire floor of the house was replaced with machine sawn, planed timber following the move.38 One of the first people to stay in the house in its new location was George Brown (1835- 1917). Brown was the son of George Brown, barrister, and his wife Elizabeth, née Dixon, sister of the wife of Rev. Thomas Buddle. While in Auckland Brown became a preacher and eventually decided to dedicate his life to missionary work. Brown was to become a prominent Methodist missionary. He was the first to establish a mission in New Britain, Papua New Guinea and later, as general secretary of missions for Australasia, played a key roll in the establishment of a mission to the Solomon Islands.39 Another noted resident was Sir Thomas Rainsford Bavin (1874-1941). Sir Thomas was the son of the Rev. Rainsford Bavin, and Emma, the third daughter of Rev. Thomas and Elizabeth Buddle. The Rev. Bavin was the minister at Onehunga during the years 1887-1888,

36 http://www.nzfenciblesociety.org.nz/ 37 Adams, p. 8 38 Note comment from Fenwick Barrett to Pat Adams, 5 May 1973. Entire floor of Mangungu Mission House consists of machine sawn and planed timber – replaced after the move to Auckland. Mangungu – Research Reports, 12010- 022, 1, 1/01/1973, 1/04/1974, Property Management, Heritage New Zealand Antrim – Store. 39 Niel Gunson, ‘Brown, George (1835 – 1917)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 3, Melbourne University Press, 1969, pp 256-257.

13 before being transferred to Sydney in 1889. His son Thomas was to become a prominent lawyer and politician in Australia, including premier of New South Wales (1927-1930).40 In 1903 the Rev. W. Slade was appointed the head of the circuit. By this stage the parsonage needed extensive repairs and the decision was made to build a ‘more modern’ house. The new parsonage was completed by 1905. It is assumed that the first parsonage (originally the Mangungu Mission House) was leased at this time. By 1917 the second parsonage was considered too big and needed to be closer to the church. It was not until April 1920 that the land and the second parsonage were sold. (The latter was be repurchased in 1931 by the Methodist Women’s Missionary Union as a hostel for Maori girls.) In 1921 the Mangungu Mission house was sold to the tenants Misses L (Mary Louisa) Carver and Annie Elizabeth Carver for removal to 135 Grey Street. The Carvers were ‘active and supportive members’ of the church.41 According to the Centennial History of the Onehunga Church, published in 1950: Stories are still told of the adventurous journey of 500 yards, which occupied nearly a fortnight, while the old house was drawn slowly by traction engine along the road on well-greased skids, the Carver family living their normal life in it, and the mother supplying morning and afternoon tea to the workmen engaged. It is pleasing to state that the Misses Carver still enjoy the solid comfort of this house, 30 years after its removal.42 As part of the move the chimneys were demolished, and the front verandah and back lean- to were taken off the building and rebuilt at the new site. In later years a sun-porch was built on across a part of the verandah.43 Also living with the sisters was their mother Mary Carver (nee Hunt, later Mrs Friend and Mrs Pickering.) Mrs Mary Carver lived with her daughters until her death in August 1942. Annie Carver died in February 1968 and Mary Carver died in November 1969.44 On the death of Mary Carver the house was left to the Methodist Church of New Zealand ‘upon trust to preserve and manage and use the same as a building of historic interest readily accessible to the public under proper conditions….’ However, if the Church did not want the property it was to be sold to benefit the Methodist Overseas Mission’s work in the Solomon Islands.45

40 John McCarthy, ‘Bavin, Sir Thomas Rainsford (1874 – 1941)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 7, Melbourne University Press, 1979, pp. 214-216. 41 Keith Guyan, Administrator, Onehunga Co-operating Parish, to Helen McCracken, email correspondence, 13 May 2010. 42 Frank E. Leadley. Flowing tide, 1850-1950 : a brief outline of the Onehunga Methodist Church and its influence through one hundred years, Onehunga, N.Z, Centenary Committee of the Onehunga Trustees, 1949 (p. 13) 43 See John Daniels, NZHPT, to N Carlton, 1 June 1972, Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 1, 22/07/1970, 8/12/1972, Property Management, NZHPT- Antrim Store 44 Rev. Welley A Chambers, Papers (uncatalogued) Mangungu file, Methodist Church Archives of New Zealand Connexional Archives, Christchurch. According to this source Mrs Mary Carver in South Australia in 1858. She married Henry Carver in 1878 at Sale Plains, Victoria. By 1879 they were living with Mary’s brother Thomas Hunt in Onehunga. 45 Probate records for Carver, Mary Louisa [Archives reference: BBAE 1570 2207 4092/1969], Archives New Zealand, Auckland

14 Preparing for the shifting of the house to its third site in 1921. From the Heritage New Zealand Collection, National Office, negative B1710

As above, preparing for the shifting of the house in 1921. From the Heritage New Zealand Collection, National Office, negative B1702

15 The shift underway. From the Heritage New Zealand Collection, National Office, negative B1707

Rear view of the house, date not known, but probably 1921. From the Heritage New Zealand Collection, National Office, negative B1706

16 The house at 135 Grey Street, Onehunga, 1928. Photographer, James D Richardson

135 Grey Street, 1939, after the closing in of the end of the verandah. Photographer, James D Richardson

17 Mangungu as an historic place From the late 1960s, possibly before the last Carver sister died, the Hokianga Historical Society had approached the Wesleyan Historical Society to gain its support to relocate the Mangungu Mission House back to the Hokianga. Following the death of Mary Carver sister, the Methodist church investigated preserving the house, but the costs of immediate repairs and renovation were considered too high. In June 1970, the Hokianga Historical Society called a public meeting to gauge public support for relocating the house back to the Hokianga. It was argued that the Bay of Islands had a significant number of heritage buildings, but that the Hokianga with an equally long history had very few. It was felt that the Bay of Islands was experiencing a tourist boom but not the Hokianga. It was considered that there needed to be several major tourist attractions to supplement the Waipoua Forest and the Kai lakes and that a restored Mangungu Mission could reach the status of Pompallier or even Waitangi. The outcome of the meeting must have been positive as eventually the Methodist Church agreed to sell the house for £25 for relocation back to the Hokianga. 46 The project was to be undertaken in four stages beginning with the re-establishment of the mission house at Mangungu and the conversion of the settlement into a historical and religious centre. Then the grounds were to be planted as a memorial to John Hobbs, John Edgerley and other early orchardists and horticulturists of the Hokianga.47 Visitors were to be encouraged to the area by providing launch steps and a picnic area, combined with a revitalisation of the harbour ferry service. Finally it was hoped to build a chapel for locals and visitors, to ‘to mark the early co-operation between Anglican and Methodist missionaries.’48 As with the previous moves, this shift required the demolition of the lean-to at the back of the house and the removal of the chimneys and verandah. The whole upstairs portion was lifted off the building in one section and then cut in half. The remaining section was then also cut in half. The four sections were then loaded onto trucks and transported by road to Northland. The move was possible due to generous public spirit, with much of the cost of the move and the labour being donated by members of the public.49 Those who donated their services included James Daven Removals, Davidson Construction, Carlton Cranes (all of Auckland), Caltex Oil NZ Ltd., S.G.Bignell and Sons (Whangarei) and D Holdaway (Horeke).50 The house was then sited on land within the boundaries of the mission settlement but not on its original site as this information was not known at this time.

46 Rev. Wesley A Chambers Papers (uncatalogued) Mangungu file, Methodist Church Archives of New Zealand Connexional Archives, Christchurch. 47 John Edgerley (1814-1846) was an English-born botanist who arrived in New Zealand with Lieutenant Thomas McDonnell (recently appointed honorary British Resident in New Zealand). Edgerley lived at McDonnell’s settlement of Horeke as his gardener / botanist between 1835 and 1841. His garden contained a number of exotic plants, and he is reputed to be the person who introduced the Norfolk Pine to New Zealand. Edgerley returned to England where he married Sarah Newnham. He left England with his new wife in 1842 and settled in Newmarket, Auckland. He is regarded as one of the first nursery-men of Auckland. He sent/took a number of samples of New Zealand plants to the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew. He died in 1849. Edgerley Road in Epsom is named after him. Australian National Herbarium, http://www.anbg.gov.au/biography/edgerley-john.html accessed 3 May 2010; John Edgerley, pioneer, plant collector / botanist / nurseryman 1814 – 1849 http://dannax.co.cc/edgerleyi/ , accessed 3 May 2010 48 Fundraising letter Mangungu Project, Hokianga Historical Society, 6 February 1971. 49 See John Daniels, NZHPT, to N Carlton, 1 June 1972, Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 1, 22/07/1970, 8/12/1972, Property Management, Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store 50 Northern Advocate, 19 May 1972, Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 1, 22/07/1970, 8/12/1972, Property Management, NZHPT- Antrim Store

18 Mangungu in the intervening years 1854–1972 Although the mission station at Mangungu had been ‘abandoned’, the Wesleyan Church still maintained a presence there, and it continued to be a place of gathering for services. In 1858 the Governor visited the mission station where: an immense number of Natives received him with a war dance and a salute of musketry. Some hours were occupied in listening and replying to speeches, all of the most loyal description; and we learn that a Native address of an unusually gratifying character was presented to his Excellency. The proceedings closed with the offer of a present consisting of five bullocks and a quantity of potatoes, which, after being returned by the Governor, were consumed by the party assembled.51 Fifteen years later, in 1873, the annual report for the Wesleyan Society noted that a number of Maori were returning to the missions and that Rev. William Rowse, based at Utakura, in the Hokianga, had held a gathering at the ‘old mission station’ at Mangungu.52 In 1905 the Wesleyan Church sold most of the mission land (known as the Mangungu Block or Old Land Claim 78). The church retained ownership of a small area (10 acres, 4.047 hectares) of land including the cemetery. In 1927 the Methodist Church erected a monument in the form of a cross as part of the centennial celebrations marking the re- establishment of the Wesleyan mission in New Zealand in 1827 and the people who served at Mangungu. (Rev. White’s name was absent from the plaque. His descendents successfully argued for his inclusion and in May 1977 his name was added to the list.)53 The cross also acknowledged the role of Patuone and his brother Tamati Waka Nene in the establishment of the mission. The shaft of the cross was made of granite and the base made from rocks taken from the site of the Pakanae mission. Beside the cross was placed the Mission bell, which would have summoned the faithful to service. 54 (The bell was later removed and placed inside the restored Mangungu Mission House for safekeeping.) In 1945 the cemetery was subdivided off and sold to the Hokianga County Council. 55

Restoration of Mangungu by the NZHPT The reinstatement of the Mangungu Mission House was to be paid for by the NZHPT and the local Hokianga community.56 Immediate work that needed to be undertaken was the rebuilding of the chimneys, the relining of the rooms and the supply of electricity (underground) to the house.57 Although

51 His Excellency’s visit to the Bay of Islands, Daily Southern Cross, 22 January 1858, p.2 52 Wellington Independent, 10 June 1873, p.2 53 Northland News, 5 May 1977. 54 Laws, The Methodist Mission to New Zealand. First years at Hokianga 1827-1836, Wesley Historical Society, April 1945, p.35. 55 See SO13529, SO13816, SO 2259, DP30152, CT 776/23, CT 541/62, CT NA831/240, North Auckland Land Registration District, LINZ. 56 $3,000 allocated by NZHPT to reinstatement (Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 1, 22/07/1970, 8/12/1972, Property Management, Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store.) Plus c. $2000 for local community. (See article from Northland Age 27 June 1972 Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 1, 22/07/1970, 8/12/1972, Property Management, Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store) 57 John Stacpoole to John Daniels, Director of NZHPT, 1 June 1972 outlining some of the urgent work needed on building. Chimneys to be rebuilt, rooms to be relined, power bought underground. Mangungu – General, 12010- 019, 1, 22/07/1970, 8/12/1972, Property Management, Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store

19 the NZHPT assumed responsibility for the restoration of the house, its management was to be the role of a specific trust consisting of representatives of the Hokianga Historical Society, NZHPT, the local council, and local iwi. The lack of information about the appearance of the house resulted in the NZHPT delaying restoration work until such time as more was known.58 Patricia Adams, NZHPT researcher, spent over a year researching archives, communicating with the descendents of the missionaries at Mangungu and consulting with historians. The thorough and considered document that Adams produced concluded that very little was known about the internal appearance of the building when it was the mission house at Mangungu. The NZHPT Board decided that the building was to be restored to the form in which it was taken over at Onehunga, with the exception that the iron roof was to be replaced by shingles and that the kitchen and bathroom facilities were not to be reinstated. It was agreed that some latitude would be permitted in regards to the rear wall in order to achieve a reasonably presentable appearance. The Board also agreed that the NZHPT would retain the use of the two bottom rooms for displays about New Zealand Wesleyans. Use of the upper storey was yet to be decided upon.59 Further research also concluded that the mission house was probably sited on a flat area of land near the monument. However, it was decided not to resite the house here, factors being the presence of the monument, that was soon to be joined by a church, and the cost.60 The major work on the restoration began July 1975.61 Much of the work was undertaken under the supervision of the Whangarei Office of the Ministry of Works. By April 1976 it was estimated that 90% of the outside work had been completed. This work included the construction of new windows (presumably at the back of the house).62 At the same time as the restoration was underway the NZHPT entered into negotiations to acquire the remaining land that the Methodist Church still owned at Mangungu. Initially the Church (in the form of the Methodist Home Mission and Church Extension – Investment Funds Board) generously offered the land as a gift. However, this was changed as it was realised that gifting the land would not meet the conditions requested by the Church Building and Loan Fund Committee (who controlled the sale of church land) that the place remain an historic place. Eventually it was decided to change the arrangement to a 99-year lease ‘perpetually renewable at annual pepper-corn rent providing the property remains an entirely historic place.’63

58 23 June 1972 – request by Stacpoole for research into house. Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 1, 22/07/1970, 8/12/1972, Property Management, Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store 59 19-20 June 1974, NZHPT Board decision, Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 2, 9/01/1973, 30/07/1975, Property Management – Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store. 60 A.D. Macintosh to F Barrett, 20 December 1974, Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 2, 9/01/1973, 30/07/1975, Property Management – Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store. 61 John Daniels to F Barrett, 28 July, 1975, Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 2, 9/01/1973, 30/07/1975, Property Management – Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store. 62 Work Estimate PWD – 4 April 1976, Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 3, 1/08/1975, 29/04/1977, Property Management – Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store. 63 18 October 1976. Barry Jones, Superintendent of the Methodist Home Mission and Church extension – Investment Funds Board to John Daniels. Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 3, 1/08/1975, 29/04/1977, Property Management- Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store.

20 The re-assembly of the house at Mangungu, July 1972. From the Heritage New Zealand Collection National Office,, negatives A 1166/1(a) and 2(b)

21 On 30 April 1977 the Mangungu Mission House was dedicated and reopened with much ceremony. Those present included NZHPT Board members, NZHPT staff, members of the Methodist Church, Anglican Church, descendants of the first Missionaries, members of the local Maori population, local Members of Parliament Matiu Rata and Neil Austin, members of the Wesley Historical Society and the Hokianga Historical Society.64 As part of the ceremonies the 99-year lease was symbolically handed over to the NZHPT. (Symbolically as the lease had yet to be signed.)65 Extensive efforts had been made by the NZHPT to invite as many of the descendents of the first missionaries as possible, even sending invitations to England. One of those descendents, Mrs. P Q Daleford of Palmerston North (great grand daughter of Hobbs), donated the dining room table and a set of four chairs which had been in the house at the time of the signing of the Treaty at the Hokianga. It is believed that this is the table on which the Treaty was signed.66 The Whangarei Native Forest and Bird Society planted a pohutakawa tree on the site to commemorate the event. (This was the second pohutakawa they had planted on the site since the re-establishment of the house at Mangungu.)67 In the same year as the opening of the Mission House, the Methodist church at Kohukohu was shifted to Mangungu and restored as a chapel for the local community. For its efforts the NZHPT was awarded a Tourism Design award for ‘meritorious restoration’ from the Minister of Tourism H. R. Lapwood. With the decision made that the Mission House should not be lived in, attention turned to finding suitable accommodation for a curator other than the PWD huts that had been placed on site during the restoration of the house. In October 1978 an Army Hut from Walton Street Whangarei was donated by the Army and shifted onto the Mission site.68 The first permanent curators were Margaret and Barry Exton; they had earlier been appointed as temporary curators. By 1982 there were little funds available to complete all the renovations to the Mission House. In particular, the proposed back porch was deferred ‘… but a landing and steps were put in to end the dangerous situation of having a door opening into space.’69

64 Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 3, 1/08/1975, 29/04/1977, Property Management – Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Storee 65 Lease not signed by 8 October 1979, Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 5, 1/05/1978, 14/12/1979, Property Management – Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store 66 16 May 1977, Northland Holiday on Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 3, 1/08/1975, 29/04/1977, Property Management – Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store 67 16 May 1977, Northland Holiday on Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 3, 1/08/1975, 29/04/1977, Property Management – Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store 68 Northern Advocate, 12 October 1978 Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 3, 1/08/1975, 29/04/1977, Property Management – Heritage New Zealand – Antrim Store 69 John Stacpoole to Commissioner of Works, 25 May 1982. AATJ 889 ACC W5509 132 32/9336/20.

22 170th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. On 12 February 2010 over 500 locals and guests attended the 170th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi at Mangungu. As part of the celebrations 12 waka taua including Ngatikimatawhaorua were involved in a ceremonial salute. It was the first time the 62-year old ‘Ngatoki’ had been on the Hokianga since 1948. The events, held over two days, also included a re-enactment by Horeke Primary School of the debate and signing of the Treaty. Guests included members of the NZHPT Board and Maori Heritage Council, as well as a number of members of parliament, and kaumatua and kuia from around Tai Tokerau. As part of the koha for the day the NZHPT presented a bronze hand bell to the community for use with marae and church activities.70

Occupants of the house during the period 1839-1855 Turner and family – August 1839 Bumby and sister, 1839-1840/1 Rev. and Mrs Creed Rev. and Mrs Ironside Gideon Smales 1840-1841 Hobbs and family 1841-1855

Ministers who may have lived in the house while at Onehunga Thomas Buddle (1856-1860) John Crump (1861) William Rowse (1862) James Wallis (1863 -1865) John Warren (1866-1868) John Smith (1869-1871) Robert S. Bunn (1872-1875) William J. Watkin (1876-1877) John Law (1878-1880) George Bond (1881-1883) James A. Taylor (1884-1886) Rainsford Bavin (1887-1888) John S. Rishworth (1889-1891) Henry Bull (1892-1894) William J. Williams (1895) Samuel Lawry (1896-1899) (Son Wilford Melville Lawry (1894-1980) noted Christchurch Architect) Cornelius Griffin (1900-1902) William Slade (1903-1906) Carver family 1905(?)-1965

70 NZHPT Information release 15 February 2010, www.historic.org.nz.

23 John Hobbs (1800 –1883), Architect John Hobbs was born in England in 1800. His father Richard Hobbs was a coachbuilder and a maker of agricultural implements, skills he was to teach his son. In 1816 John Hobbs was admitted as member of the Wesleyan Society and three years later he became a lay preacher. In 1822 Hobbs immigrated to Van Diemens Land (Tasmania). A year later he journeyed with fellow Wesleyan missionary Nathaniel Turner and CMS missionaries Samuel Marsden and Henry Williams, and their families, to New Zealand. Hobbs and Turner then joined the Wesleyans at their mission station at . Here Hobbs constructed mission premises, and became adept at speaking Te Reo Maori. In 1827 the Wesleyan mission station at Whangaroa was sacked and the missionaries were forced to flee first to the Bay of Islands and then back to Sydney. In Sydney Hobbs was joined by Jane Broggref whom he married on 14 August 1827. Following his ordination he returned to New Zealand with Jane, this time to lead a new mission at Hokianga. After acquiring the land at Hokianga, Hobbs and his fellow missionaries Wade and Stack set about constructing premises and establishing an extensive garden (orchards etc.) Hobbs’ skills were of great use to not only to the Wesleyan Mission but also to other settlers, including the CMS missionaries. In 1828 he installed a brick chimney in William William’s house at Paihia, and in 1832 he drew up plans for the Stone Store at Kerikeri. It is also believed that Hobbs helped with the construction of the CMS house at Te Waimate.71 Hobbs was also capable of drawing up plans for boats.72 In 1830 William White arrived. The two men did not get on and eventually White managed to have Hobbs reprimanded by the Secretary of the CMS. As a result Hobbs requested a transfer and in June 1833 left with his wife and young family for Tonga. In 1838 Hobbs returned to New Zealand to find that White had been dismissed and that he had been vindicated. In 1838 Hobbs constructed a new mission house. Hobbs was to play an important role in the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840. The Hobbs remained at the Hokianga until 1855 when rheumatism and a problem with increasing deafness, plus a decline in the number of people living in the Hokianga, forced John to leave and settle in Auckland with his wife and family. He died in June 1883. 73

71 Williams, p.131. 72 Adams, p.11 73 Williment, T. M. I. ‘Hobbs, John 1800 – 1883’. Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007, URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/

24 2.2 Chronology Timeline of important dates and major physical changes to the Mangungu Mission House. 1827 Mission Station established at Mangungu; first raupo huts constructed. August 1838 Main Mission house occupied by the Turners burnt down. Mission store also destroyed. (Adams p.5) September 1838 Construction begun on new house under the supervision of John Hobbs. (Adams, p.5) Kitchen and servants’ quarters built first and used as a temporary carpenter’s workshop. (Adams, p.5) April 1839 Turners move into new house (although considered to be unfinished at this time). House built of timber with shingled roof. (Adams, p.5, p.6) Post Portion of verandah filled in to create additional accommodation. completion(?) Other buildings constructed at rear of property, including store/ 1839-1854 study/workshop and possibly a second kitchen closer to house. January 1841 Smales moved out of mission house and Hobbs family move in. (Adams p.7) 1849 [Noted at Annual District Meeting held at Auckland October 1849 -that Mission House at Mangungu requiring to be newly shingled and other extra repairs the sum of £30 is recommended to meet expense. Adams, p.29, quoting WMS Archives, Micro MS, Coll 3 reel 5, ATL.] Jan 1855 Contract for the dismantling and freighting of the house to Onehunga let. (Adams, p.8.) April 1855 Hobbs family left the Hokianga for Auckland (Note that one son and one daughter already in Auckland since Feb 1855) (Adams, p.8) Sept-Oct 1855 House ‘dismantled’ and loaded on a schooner, transported to Onehunga. (Adams, p.8) Resited on 77 Grey Street. Entire floor of the house was replaced with machine sawn, planed timber. (Comment from Fenwick Barrett to Pat Adams, 5 May 1973. Entire floor of Mangungu Mission House consists of machine sawn, planed timber – replaced after move to Auckland? Mangungu Mission House, Research 1973-1974, Heritage New Zealand Antrim – Store, 12010 022.) Rooms of house reorganised? (Adams, p.33) June/July 1856 Buddle family moves into house. (Adams, p.8) 1855-1921 Small staircase built to access the attic space, latter being converted into rooms with the addition of dormer windows on front and rear sides of roof. Lean-to constructed at the back of the property and most likely contained the kitchen/scullery. Fireplaces moved from the middle of the house to exterior ‘side walls’. New windows inserted in several rooms

25 1921 House moved to 135 Grey Street, Onehunga. Verandah and back lean-to rebuilt. Fireplaces also demolished and rebuilt after the move. 1928-1939 Sun-porch built on end of verandah. 1969 Death of Mary Carver, ownership passes back to the Methodist Church. May 1972 Building shifted by road to Mangungu. House held together by ‘wire’ until repairs could be made. 1975 Major restoration work begun by NZHPT. 1976 Iron removed and shingles laid on the roof. Work Estimate (PWD – 4 April 1976, Mangungu General, Heritage New Zealand Antrim – Store, 12010 019, Vol. 2) By April 1976 restoration 90% completed. Work Estimate PWD – 4 April 1976 (Mangungu General , Heritage New Zealand Antrim – Store, 12010 019, Vol. 2) Walls relined, rear of house ‘made good’, verandah rebuilt, house (re)wired for electricity, chimneys rebuilt using bricks from courthouse and Empire Hotel; timber from the hotel was salvaged and used in the restoration. 30 April 1977 House re-dedicated and opened to public. October 1977 Fire protection – construction of a tank, pump, hose reel shelter, financial authority issued. (17 October 1977, Mangungu General Heritage New Zealand Antrim – Store, 12010 019, Vol. 3) 1982 Landing and steps built on the back of the house. This is the last change to the form of the building. 2001 Condition report prepared by Salmond Architects. 2005 Roof re-shingled.

26 2.3 Sources

Alexander Turnbull Library Adams, Patricia, d 1996, Mangungu Mission House, 1974, 87-193 Kirk, Emma 1828-1906, Wesleyan Missionary Society station at Mangungu 1898 (1957), qMS-1113 Archives New Zealand Carver, Mary Louisa, Probate records, BBAE 1570 2207 4092/1969, Archives New Zealand, Auckland Methodist Church Archives of New Zealand Archives, Christchurch. Chambers, Rev. Welley A., Papers (uncatalogued) Mangungu file, Methodist Church Archives of New Zealand Archives, Christchurch. Heritage New Zealand – Antrim House Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 1, 22/07/1970, 8/12/1972, Property Management Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 2, 9/01/1973, 30/07/1975, Property Management Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 3, 1/08/1975, 29/04/1977, Property Management Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 4, 2/05/1977, 21/04/1978, Property Management Mangungu – General, 12010-019, 5, 1/05/1978, 14/12/1979, Property Management Mangungu – Research Reports, 12010-022, 1, 1/01/1973, 1/04/1974, Property Management Antrim Dewey Shelves, at: 266 MET. Acc.No: (LIB 907) Mission House, Mangungu : Alterations and additions / Ministry of Works. -- NZ: Ministry of Works, 1/4"=1'; 59 * 42cms; 2 sheet/s; Roof Plan; Floor Plans. (Location: Antrim Plans and Drawings, at: Plan Box HD 3 A. Acc.No: (PAD 342) Mission House, Mangungu : Curator’s cottage 1978. 1:200; 84 * 59cms; 1 sheet/s; Site Survey. Building Name: Mission House, Mangungu. (Location: Antrim Plans and Drawings, at: Plan Box HD 3 A. Acc.No: (PAD 346) Mission House, Mangungu : Landscape plan / O’Hagan, Peter. 1979. Various scales and sizes; 5 sheet/s; Grounds; Landscaping; Elevations; Sections. Building Name: Mission House, Mangungu. (Location: Antrim Plans and Drawings, at: Plan Box HD 3 A. Acc.No: (PAD 344) Mission House, Mangungu : Old Soldier’s and Historic Cemetery / Public Works Department. -- NZ: Public Works Department, 1946. 20 links=1"; 74 * 59cms; 1 sheet/s; Site Survey. Building Name: Mission House, Mangungu. (Location: Antrim Plans and Drawings, at: Plan Box HD 3 A. Acc.No: (PAD 345) Mission House, Mangungu : Proposed Mangungu Jetty – Hokianga Harbour / Hokianga County Council. 1989. 1:100; 84 *59cms; 3 sheet/s; Elevations; Sections; Structural. (Location: Antrim Plans and Drawings, at: Plan Box HD 3 A. Acc.No: (PAD 340) Mission House, Mangungu : Re-siting of batches / Ministry of Works. -- NZ: Ministry of Works, 1977. 1:50; 59 * 42cms; 1 sheet/s; Elevations; Floor Plans. (Location: Antrim Plans and Drawings, at: Plan Box HD 3 A. Acc.No: (PAD 343)

27 Mission House, Mangungu : Restoration : Caretakers cottage / Ministry of Works. -- NZ: Ministry of Works, 1979. Various scales; 42 * 30cms; 14 sheet/s; Site Survey; Floor Plans; Sections; Detail; Elevations; Structural; Electrical. (Location: Antrim Plans and Drawings, at: Plan Box HD 3 A. Acc.No: (PAD 341) Mission House, Mangungu : Restoration – Caretakers cottage / Ministry of Works. -- NZ: Ministry of Works, 1979. 42 * 30cms; 14 sheet/s; Floor Plans; Site Survey; Sections; Detail; Drainage; Electrical. (Location: Antrim Plans and Drawings, at: Plan Box HD 3 A. Acc.No: (PAD 348) Mission House, Mangungu : Restoration drawings / Ministry of Works. -- NZ: Ministry of Works, 1974. 1/4"=1'; 42 *30cms; 2 sheet/s; Floor Plans; Sections; Elevations. (Location: Antrim Plans and Drawings, at: Plan Box HD 3 A. Acc.No: (PAD 347) Archaeological Geometric Survey and Assessment of Mangungu Mission Station, Hokianga, May 2011, and Archaeological Geometric Survey II of Mangungu Mission Station, Hokianga, June 2012, prepared by Archaeological Solutions Ltd. Newspapers Northern Advocate Northland News Wellington Independent Published Druett, Joan, Exotic Intruders, Heinemann, 1983, Auckland Laws, The Methodist Mission to New Zealand. First years at Hokianga 1827-1836, Wesley Historical Society, April 1945, Leadley, Frank E., Flowing tide, 1850-1950: a brief outline of the Onehunga Methodist Church and its influence through one hundred years, Onehunga, N.Z, Centenary Committee of the Onehunga Trustees, 1949 McCarthy, John ‘Bavin, Sir Thomas Rainsford (1874 – 1941)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 7, Melbourne University Press, 1979, pp 214-216. Orange, Claudia, The Treaty of Waitangi, Allen and Unwin Port Nicholson Press, 1987. Turton, H. Hanson, Maori Deeds of Old Private Land Purchases in New Zealand, From the Year 1815 to 1840, with Pre-Emptive and Other Claims. Wade, W.R. Journey in the Northern Island of New Zealand, Capper Press, Christchurch, New Zealand. Williams, Henry, The Early Journals of Henry Williams, 1826-1840, Editor Lawrence M. Rogers, Pegasus Press, 1961, Christchurch Williment, T.M.I., John Hobbs 1800-1883, Wesleyan Missionary to the Ngapuhi Tribe of the Northern New Zealand, 1985 Williment, T. M. I. ‘Hobbs, John 1800 – 1883’. Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007, URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/ http://www.nzfenciblesociety.org.nz/ Http://www.historic.org.nz

28 View from near the Mission House, looking west out across the Hokianga Harbour.

3.0 DESCRIPTION

This section is a description of the site, and the house as it stands today. It should be read in conjunction with the measured drawings in Appendix II.

3.1 The Site The Mangungu Mission House occupies a site of great natural beauty, on a promontory of the southern side of the inner reaches of the Hokianga Harbour. It looks out to the north- west, up a long arm of the harbour; the town of Kohukohu is directly west on the far shore, although it is not quite visible from Mangungu. Shifting clouds and light across the water make an entrancing spectacle whatever the weather. There are just two buildings in the vicinity of the house. The church stands prominently in the centre of the view across the harbour, in association with the memorial cross; they are sited on the same ridge but are lower than the Mission House, forming the foreground of the view out. Around to the side of the house, to the south-west, stands the Curator’s Cottage. This is a single storey building, with verandah, an entirely appropriate companion to the Mission House. An integral part of the setting is the cemetery, on sloping ground between the Mission House and the road. This forms the foreground to the house from the north-east, in views up from the road. Another important element is a timber wharf, jutting out into the harbour from amongst the mangroves opposite the entrance to the drive up to the house.

29 View to the east, cemetery in the foreground and wharf beyond.

This is strongly symbolic of the importance of sea-travel in the 19th century – and from its outer end it provides an all-encompassing view of the mission site. Together these features form an important heritage landscape, with elements spanning from the time of early settlement in the 1830s (the earliest marked grave in the cemetery is 1829) to the present day. The character of the setting is still strongly rural, an open expanse of mown grass around the buildings giving way to grazed land with clumps of trees up the hillside beyond. Other buildings are well away, so that modern elements in the landscape are discreet and the place today is strongly evocative of its origins.

3.2 Description of the House Today Style The Mission House can be described as Georgian in style. This style, popular in Britain in the late 18th century, is classical in its symmetry, simple in its form and detail, and surprisingly well suited because of these characteristics to the demands of construction in an early Colonial environment. In its original form, such as we know of it, and certainly in its present-day form, the building shows the good manners of the style, unadorned and simple. There is nothing superfluous. Inside, plainness is again to the fore, with the joinery being subtly embellished (with fine panel mouldings to the doors, moulded skirtings and architraves, and simplified Doric details to the fire surrounds) to lift the otherwise severely plain finish. The proportions of the rooms, and the natural lighting, gives them an atmosphere of quiet elegance.

30 The built setting of the Mission House, the Curator’s Cottage off to the right.

The house shares these characteristics with several others – including the Mission House at Kerikeri (1822), at Te Waimate (1832) and the Elms in (1847) – such that these houses form a small but distinctive group of their own in New Zealand’s architectural history, called the ‘Mission Style’74.

Plan The ground floor plan of the house is a simple arrangement of a formal room on the right hand side of the central hall (with two windows facing north and one west)75 and two bedrooms on the left side (each with a single window facing north). At the end of the hall is the large dining room, with a small room opening off it at either end. A narrow stair leads from the kitchen to an attic floor with a hall and two bedrooms; these are lit by dormer windows, two each on the north and south sides. The plan of the house can be readily understood from the measured drawings in Appendix II.

Structure The structure of the house is a conventional timber frame. Evidence of the early period of construction can be seen in the sub-floor space where two of the original pit-sawn timber bearers remain (under the main north and south walls). These measure 175 × 175mm, sawn as 7" square. Timber studs 125 × 75mm / 5" × 3" at approximately 630mm / 2' 1" centres are housed into the bearers with mortice and tenon joints, these being fixed with 18mm diameter dowels.

74 See Old New Zealand Houses, Jeremy Salmond, Reed Methuen, 1986, p.80. 75 The main elevation is taken to be north for the simplicity of description, although in fact it faces more north-west.

31 Floor joists are set out at the same centres as the studs and rest directly on the bearers; they measure 225 × 75mm / 9" × 3" and support 135mm (cut out of 6" wide boards) tongue and groove flooring. Everything below the bearer level is modern – radiata pine jack studs resting on pre-cast concrete piles. These were built when the house was moved onto the site in 1972. The roof is framed with 170 × 70mm / 5" × 3" rafters at 600mm / 2' 0" centres, and is fully sarked with boards of varying widths, say 95 – 195mm wide / 4" – 8”. This is a conventional roof for the time, compared with the Mission House at Kerikeri where the roof framing was based on trusses spanning the width of the building. First floor joists are 150 × 60mm / 6" × 2 ½" at approximately 600mm / 2' 0" centres, while the partitions at this level are made of vertical boards with studs only around the door openings. Timbers found in the building are thought to be mainly kauri (framing, weatherboards and finishing timbers), also totara (framing).

Cladding The roof is clad in kauri shingles. While the original roof was shingles, there was corrugated iron on the main roof (and the verandah roof ) for much of the 20th century. The front wall of the house is clad in flush boarding, the profile possibly tongue and groove, while the other three walls are clad in plain lapped weatherboards, approximately 185mm cover, nominally 8" × 1". Joinery is generally large double-hung windows, six panes to each sash, and doors are six- panelled. Skirtings, architraves and cornices commonly have beaded edges, the architraves being made up of two pieces to give a 35mm thickness.

Interior Interior wall finishes to the ground floor rooms are scrim and paper, and date from the 1976 work of the NZHPT. All interior joinery has been painted; the only unpainted timber is found in the flooring (at both levels) and in the staircase. The sloping ceilings of the rooms in the attic are timber lined, the boards with a beaded edge, and whitewashed. The walls, very low to the floor, are lined with pit-sawn sarking boards which were originally covered in scrim and paper (now gone). There are remnants of wallpaper on the partition wall between the hall and bedroom 3. The upstairs hall has been lined as for the ground floor rooms, in 1977.

Services Mains supply electricity is laid on to the house (underground), and is reticulated to provide power outlets for lighting. This was installed at the time of the relocation. There is no plumbing. A fully automatic fire sprinkler system provides reliable fire protection for the building from a tank behind the house, with sprinkler heads in all spaces.

32 John Hobbs' high level of craftsmanship is evident in the joinery (door D2 above left, has very fine panel beading); in furniture (the kauri cupboard in the nursery, top right, is a beautifully made piece), and in the structural framing of the house (left, the sub-floor framing, showing the mortice and tenon joint of an original stud to the bearer).

33 4.0 SIGNIFICANCE

This section summarises the cultural heritage values of the Mission House, first in general statements, then room by room. Assessment criteria are those used for registration purposes in the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, and include ‘aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, technological, or traditional significance or value’ (section 66). Here they are grouped under the four headings of historic, social, aesthetic and scientific value as recommended in Guidelines for Preparing Conservation Plans (NZHPT, 2000). An inventory of elements and spaces is included. Tangata whenua and other values are also discussed.

4.1 Statement of Significance The Mangungu Mission House is a building of very great heritage significance, being amongst the oldest mission houses in the country and one woven into the story of the early period of contact between the indigenous people of Aotearoa and the European settlers. It is held in high regard, standing as it does as a symbol of the interaction of the two peoples and of the birth of a modern nation. The importance of the place is recognised by its listing as a Category 1 historic place under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act, meaning it is a place of ‘special or outstanding historical or cultural heritage significance’; by its ownership by Heritage New Zealand on behalf of the people of New Zealand, and by its scheduling on the Far North District Plan.

Historic Value Values associated with particular events or uses that happened at the place, and which have importance for their impact on the community. Mangungu was the site of the second Wesleyan Methodist Society mission station to be established in New Zealand; the Mission House was built in 1839. It is associated with events of great national importance, including the introduction of Christianity to New Zealand; the introduction of European technology and methods of agriculture, and the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840; it was the place where the greatest number of signatures were added to the document. The place is very significant because it witnessed the beginnings of a bi-cultural nation. Its subsequent history is an interesting one representative of the country’s regard for the usefulness of well-built timber buildings, as well as of our attitudes to heritage.

Social Value Values associated with the use of the place; what it means to people, and the spiritual, artistic, traditional or political values that the place may embody. The influence of the Wesleyan Methodist Society and its activities in the Far North and beyond on New Zealand life and culture has been far-reaching in cultural, religious and social ways, and the Mangungu Mission House stands as an important monument to their

34 activities. Its construction by European carpenters and ‘Maori helpers’ is acknowledgement of an early working relationship between European settlers and Maori. After the closing of the mission, Mangungu was for a long time a neglected and forgotten place. However, the usefulness of the building, first as a Methodist manse in Onehunga (1855 – 1921), then as the Carver home (1921 – 1972), ensured that the house survived into the modern period. It is also an important place in illustrating attitudes to historic preservation in New Zealand. The NZHPT, with the support of the community and the Howick Historical Society, not only moved the building back to its original location in 1972 but has made substantial modifications to it to aid the understanding of visitors.

Aesthetic Value Values associated with the formal qualities of the fabric of the place and its setting; with style, form, scale, colour and texture, and with one’s emotional response to the aesthetic qualities. The aesthetic qualities of the place are extremely high, for the beauty of the setting of the Hokianga Harbour and the rural landscape of hills and trees. Nearby buildings, cemetery and the wharf provide a cultural context that is entirely appropriate. The formal architectural qualities of the building are of equal aesthetic value. It has a self- assured character on its imposing site, formal and symmetrical, yet open and approachable with a full width verandah. Its colonial Georgian character means that the house stands as a benchmark in New Zealand architecture – simple, unadorned, fit for its purpose.

Scientific Value Values associated with building materials and technology, with structure and services, and with evidence of past use, especially as may be revealed using archaeological techniques. The building has technological significance as a rare building from the 1830s in New Zealand; although there has been considerable change, a significant amount of its original fabric remains undisturbed. A study of its structure can reveal much about the early use of timber and methods of timber construction. Because it is a well-built structure, it stands as an important exemplar of house construction in New Zealand from the earliest days of European settlement. The technological value of the building derives from the main construction and finishing materials, especially the timber framing. A high level of trade skill is evident in the structure and finishing details of the building, more particularly in the light of much of the timber being by pit-sawn, and finished by hand. Previous investigation has proven that potential archaeological values are high, given the importance of the site in terms of Maori occupation, and the establishment of the Mission in the early contact period between Maori and Pakeha; the value is enhanced by the fact that the site, despite some modern modification, has remained relatively undisturbed. For a full discussion of archaeological values, see Archaeological Geometric Survey and Assessment of Mangungu Mission Station, Hokianga, May 2011 and Archaeological Geometric Survey II of Mangungu Mission Station, Hokianga, June 2012, both prepared by Archaeological Solutions Ltd for NZHPT. These

35 reports find that the site has high significance under all relevant criteria, and that overall ‘the site has high, national significance.’76

Tangata Whenua Specialist advice for this section was sought by Atareiria Heihei, Heritage New Zealand, Kerikeri. She spoke with the Chairman of the Motukiore Marae Committee, Stephen Taylor; the approved statement of the Marae Committee follows.77 ‘The Maori values of the Mangungu Mission House (the building) are limited. The house is symbolic of the contact between tangata whenua and the Missionaries in Hokianga, however tangata whenua have a strong association with the whenua on which the Mission House stands, and the urupa connected to the site. The signing of Te Tiriti by the largest gathering of Rangitira at Mangungu is of great significance and remains a focal point to this day with the gathering of tangata whenua at Mangungu of the 12th of February every year in commemoration of that event.’ The 1829 deed of sale when the Mangungu land was transferred to the Wesleyan Mission Society was signed by four Māori including Ngaro, Raumate (Raumati), Taupuhi and Warekaua (Wharekawa). The hapū with acknowledged mana whenua over this area today is Te Ngahengahe, from the nearby Arohamauroa Marae at Motukiore; Ngāti Toro (Utakura and Rāhiri) also have a strong association with the area. Both of these hapū are part of the Ngāpuhi confederation.

Other Values Although not formal criteria included in the Heriatge New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act, it is useful to consider several other matters. Authenticity The level of authenticity of the building is reasonably high. There have been alterations throughout its life, and some of these have been ‘undone’ by the NZHPT after the move of 1972, but the form of the building and much of the fabric is original. Rarity Buildings in New Zealand that pre-date the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) are very rare. Others include: 1822 Kerikeri Mission Station, Kemp House 1832 Stone Store, Kerikeri 1832 Te Waimate Mission House 1834 Busby’s (or Treaty) House, Waitangi 1835 Christ Church, Russell c. 1837 Kohi Kohi’s Cottage, Riverton All these buildings are listed as Category 1 historic places under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.

76 Page 33 of the first of the two referenced reports. 77 See email from Atareiria Heihei to Natalie McCondach, and from Natalie McCondach to Priscilla Pitts, both 9 July 2013, also a letter from Stephen Taylor on behalf of the Marae Committee dated 2 July 2013.

36 4.2 Inventory Following is an inventory of the exterior elements and internal spaces of the building. The reason for making this room by room assessment is so that future changes (whether repair, restoration or adaptation) to the fabric of the building can be carried out with least impact on heritage values.

Elements and Spaces Each element and space is assigned a cultural heritage value, and the meanings of the assigned values are: Heritage Value 1 (HV 1) This means the element or space is of exceptional cultural heritage value. It is generally assigned to spaces that date from the early period of WMS ownership. Heritage Value 2 (HV 2) This means the element or space is of some cultural heritage value. It is generally assigned to spaces that date from the Onehunga period of use by the church and the Carver family. Heritage Value 3 (HV 3) This means the element or space is of little cultural heritage value. It is generally assigned to spaces that date from the period of NZHPT ownership. No Heritage Value (NHV) This means the element or space is of no cultural heritage value, or that it detracts from the cultural heritage value. It is assigned to elements or spaces that are inappropriate in such an important heritage building. (There are in fact no elements or spaces that fall into this category.)

Fabric Fabric is described, and dates are assigned where possible. Generally, the heritage value of fabric is as follows: Heritage Value 1 This means the fabric is of exceptional cultural heritage value. It is generally assigned to fabric that dates from the early period of WMS ownership. Heritage Value 2 This means the fabric is of some cultural heritage value. It is generally assigned to spaces that date from the Onehunga period of use by the church and the Carver family. Heritage Value 3 This means the fabric is of little cultural heritage value. It is generally assigned to fabric that dates from the period of NZHPT ownership. No Heritage Value (NHV) Fabric of no cultural heritage value is fabric of recent origin that plays no part in establishing the heritage value of the building.

37 Negative Heritage Value (Neg) Fabric of negative cultural heritage value is fabric of recent origin that detracts from the value of the building because it is inappropriate in such an important heritage building.

Notes It should be understood that in some cases there is repair material of a later date incorporated in the element. Unless such repairs have been extensive, or badly executed, they are judged to have little negative impact on the heritage value of the element. Some elements of the building, the verandah for instance, were completely rebuilt in 1977. In this case, the element as a whole has a heritage value of 1 while the fabric that it is made up of has a value of 3; this is because the verandah is of fundamental importance to the building, while the fabric, being modern, is of limited heritage value. Dimensions given for joinery items and dressed boards are accurate to the nearest 5mm. For sawn timbers, dimensions should be treated as indicative only, since in some circumstances they vary considerably along the length of the member, and between members.

Drawings For the disposition and names of the rooms, see the measured drawings in Appendix II. Doors are identified according to the space in which they are first encountered (after one has come through the front door), rather than with the room they open into.

38 EXTERIOR ELEMENTS Roof Heritage Value 1 Description There is a steep-pitched hipped roof over the main body of the house, sheathed in timber shingles. There are two dormer windows with gable roof forms on each of the north and south-facing slopes. The verandah roof joins the house underneath the eaves, so is separate from the main roof; it is likewise hipped at each end. All roof slopes are sheathed in timber shingles, and the ridge and hips are weather-proofed with cover boards. Fabric Main roof Timber shingles HV 3 Dormer roofs Timber shingles HV 3 Verandah roof Timber shingles HV 3 Gutters Copper HV 3 Downpipes Copper HV 3

Roof viewed from the south-west.

39 Verandah Heritage Value 1 Description The verandah runs across the front (north) elevation of the house, and its roof is supported on a regular row of six verandah posts. Decking boards run parallel to the house. The verandah was completely rebuilt in 1977. Because of the siting of the house atop a steep rise, a full length handrail was built with four steps up at the west end of the verandah; this is noted as being at variance with what was likely to have been the original arrangement, steps up in front of the entrance door, central to the front elevation.74 Fabric Roof framing 100 × 50 rafters on centreline of posts with two in HV 3 between; 75 × 50 purlin, one row at mid-span Posts 100 × 100 timber posts, stop-chamfered HV 3 Handrail 65 deep × 42 wide, rounded top face, supported by 20 × HV 3 20 balusters Decking 135 × 20 boards, parallel to the house HV 3 Baseboards 200 × 25 plain boards HV 3

78 Letter from John Stacpoole to the author, 9 July 2010.

Verandah from the west, and from the east end.

40 North Elevation Heritage Value 1 Description The north elevation has, at ground floor level, a central door with sidelights, with two double hung windows on either side lighting bedrooms on the left and the drawing room on the right. At first floor level there are two dormer windows set in the roof; these have gable roofs, and weatherboarding on the cheeks that run parallel with the roof slope. All the joinery is arranged symmetrically. The elevation is clad in flush weatherboards, with solid corner stops (and is thus distinct from the other three elevations which have lapped weatherboards). Fabric Weatherboards 185 cover × 20(?) flush weatherboards; 72 × 45 corner HV 1 stop at east end Joinery, Ground Floor Door D1 885 × 1975 × 40, six panel, flush beaded outside, plain HV 1 Front door recessed inside Window W1 825 × 1750 inside frame, 6 + 6 pane sashes, no sash cords HV 1 or pulleys Window W2 Matching W1 HV 1 Window W3 Matching W1 HV 1 Window W4 Matching W1 HV 1 Joinery, First Floor Window W13 800 × 1305, double-hung on cords, 6 + 6 pane sashes, no HV 1 sash cords or pulleys Window W14 Matching W13 HV 1

North elevation.

41 Detail of the front door, D1.

42 Detail of north elevation window W3.

43 West Elevation Heritage Value 1 Description The west end elevation has two double-hung windows and is otherwise quite plain. It is clad with lapped weatherboards; these have a vertical cover board and scribers dividing the elevation into two equal parts, evidence of the cutting of the building for the 1972 move. The brick chimney rising through the roof is a prominent feature of the elevation. Fabric Weatherboards 170 cover × 20, lapped boards HV 1 Baseboards 200 × 25 plain boards HV 3 Chimney Recycled bricks HV 3 Joinery Window W5 Matching W1 HV 1 Window W6 Matching W1 in size, 3 pane fixed + 9 pane side-hung HV 2 sashes

West elevation.

44 South Elevation Heritage Value 1 Description The south or rear elevation has the back door, three double-hung windows and a fourth small window set high in the wall of the dining room. It is clad with lapped weatherboards with solid corner stops. A small landing with steps gives access to the back door; this was built in 1977. At first floor level there are two dormer windows set in the roof; these have gable roofs, and weatherboarding on the cheeks that run parallel with the roof slope, matching those of the front elevation. Fabric Weatherboards 170 cover × 20, lapped boards; 100 × 48 corner stop at HV 1 west end and 72 × 45 corner stop at east end Baseboards 200 × 25 plain boards HV 3 Steps Landing, steps and handrail in timber HV 3 Joinery, Ground Floor Door D8 830 × 1890 × 38, six panel, flush beaded outside, plain HV 1 recessed inside matching D1 Window W7 Matching W1 HV 1 Window W8 Fixed sash, 3 pane HV 2 Window W9 Matching W1 HV 1 Window W10 Matching W1 HV 1 Joinery, First Floor Window W15 Matching W13 HV 1 Window W16 Matching W13 HV 1

South elevation.

45 East Elevation Heritage Value 1 Description The east end elevation has two double-hung windows and is otherwise quite plain. It is clad with lapped weatherboards; these have a vertical cover board and scribers dividing the elevation into two parts, evidence of the cutting of the building for the 1972 move. A small door set in the baseboards gives access to the sub-floor space. Fabric Weatherboards 170 cover × 20, lapped boards HV 1 Baseboards 200 × 25 plain boards HV 3 Joinery Window W11 Matching W8 HV 3 Window W12 Matching W18 HV 1

East elevation.

46 INTERIOR, GROUND FLOOR Hall Heritage Value 1 Description The hall is the central circulation space in the house. It is entered via the front door on the main (north) elevation, and has internal doors to the drawing room (right), bedroom (left) and through to the dining room and back door (straight ahead). Natural light comes from the fanlight and side-lights to the entrance door. Fabric Floor 135mm timber tongue and groove boards HV 1 Walls Scrim and paper HV 3 Skirtings 205mm moulded timber skirting HV 1 Architraves 135 × 35mm moulded timber architrave (in 2 parts) HV 1 Ceiling Board and batten HV 1 Cornice 60 × 15mm beaded board, flat to ceiling HV 1 Joinery Door D2 855 × 1952 × 38, six panel, small panel moulding HV 1 Door D3 845 × 1945 × 38, six panel, matching D2 HV 1 Door D7 850 × 19650 × 38, six panel, matching D2 HV 1 Services Fire protection Ceiling mounted sprinkler heads NHV

Hall, looking south from the front door. Detail of front door sill, D1.

47 Drawing Room Heritage Value 1 Description This is the main formal room of the house. The main feature is the fireplace on the south wall, quite distinctly off-centre on this wall. Natural light comes from two-north- facing windows (shaded by the verandah) and one on the west wall. It is an elegant and spacious room. Fabric Floor 135mm timber tongue and groove boards HV 1 Walls Scrim and paper, painted finish HV 3 Skirtings 205mm moulded timber skirting HV 1 Architraves 135 × 35mm moulded timber architrave (in 2 parts) HV 1 Ceiling Board and batten HV 1 Cornice 60 × 15mm beaded board, flat to ceiling HV 1 Fireplace Surround Timber, Doric columns either side HV 1 Hearth Recycled bricks HV 3 Services Fire protection Ceiling mounted sprinkler heads NHV

Detail of fireplace.

48 Living room looking west from the doorway.

Looking back to the doorway.

49 Bedroom 1 Heritage Value 1 Description This room opens off the hall, and gives access through to the nursery in the north-east corner. It is a plain room, with one window facing north under the verandah. Fabric Floor 135mm timber tongue and groove boards HV 1 Walls Scrim and paper HV 3 Skirtings 205mm moulded timber skirting HV 1 Architraves 135 × 35mm moulded timber architrave (in 2 parts) HV 1 Ceiling Board and batten HV 1 Cornice 60 × 15mm beaded board, flat to ceiling HV 1 Joinery Door D4 745 × 1950 × 32, six panel, matching D2 HV 1 Services Fire protection Ceiling mounted sprinkler heads NHV

Bedroom 1,looking north-west, hall door on the left.

50 Nursery Heritage Value 1 Description The north-east corner room is a small one, thought to be the nursery. It has a door opening through to the parlour, and it benefits from two windows, one each on the north and east elevations. Fabric Floor 135mm timber tongue and groove boards HV 1 Walls Scrim and paper HV 3 Skirtings 205mm moulded timber skirting HV 1 Architraves 135 × 35mm moulded timber architrave (in 2 parts) HV 1 Ceiling Board and batten HV 1 Cornice 60 × 15mm beaded board, flat to ceiling HV 1 Joinery Door D5 855 × 1960 × 38, six panel, matching D2 HV 1 Services Fire protection Ceiling mounted sprinkler heads NHV

Nursery looking south, bedroom 2 beyond.

51 Bedroom 2 or Parlour Heritage Value 1 Description The south-east corner room is likewise a small one, thought to be a bedroom but perhaps originally the parlour. It has a door opening through to the nursery and to the dining room, and it benefits from two windows, one each on the east and south elevations. Ministry of Works drawings of 1974 show that it was planned to have this room much bigger, and to have a fireplace on the south wall. Marks in the flooring indicate that indeed a fireplace occupied this space at some time. This is possibly how it was during the Carver occupation. Fabric Floor 135mm timber tongue and groove boards HV 1 Walls Scrim and paper HV 3 ‘Wesleyan-Methodist Missionary’ papers Skirtings 205mm moulded timber skirting HV 1 Architraves 135 × 35mm moulded timber architrave (in 2 parts) HV 1 Ceiling Flush boarding HV 1 Cornice None HV 1 Joinery Door D6 800 × 1955 × 38, six panel, matching D2 HV 1 Services Fire protection Ceiling mounted sprinkler heads NHV

Detail of ‘Wesleyan-Methodist Missionary’ papers pasted on the sarking of the east wall of Bedroom 2.

52 Bedroom 2 looking south-west, kitchen door on the right.

Looking south-east.

53 Dining Room Heritage Value 1 Description This space is the functional centre of the house, with access from the hall, a room at either end, a staircase to the first floor at the west end, and a back door to the outside on the south wall. Two windows provide natural light. Ministry of Works drawings of 1974 show that it was planned to have this room at about half its present size.75 Fabric Floor 135mm timber tongue and groove boards HV 1 Walls Scrim and paper HV 3 Skirtings 205mm moulded timber skirting HV 1 Architraves 135 × 35mm moulded timber architrave (in 2 parts) HV 1 Ceiling Flush boarding HV 1 Cornice None HV 1 Cupboard Cupboard under the stairs has traces of early wallpapers HV 1 Joinery Door D9 850 × 1960 × 38, six panel, matching D2 HV 1 Door D10 630 × 1935 × 15 ledged door, three vertical tongue and HV 1 groove boards, to cupboard under the stairs Services Fire protection Ceiling mounted sprinkler heads NHV

79 ‘The decision to omit the planned (Carver?) partition, forming a separate stairhall was made on site. [… the staircase in a large dining area] works well for todays visitor’s but in a house without plumbing in the missionary period it may have led to embarrassment…’. Letter John Stacpoole to the author, 9 July 2010.

54 Dining room looking west, back door on the left.

Looking north-east, hall door on the left.

55 Study Heritage Value 1 Description The south-west corner room is entered from the dining room through a door beneath the stairs. It has a suitable study character, with windows facing south and west, while the north wall has a small but handsome fireplace, back-to-back and matching (though smaller) the one in the living room. Fabric Floor 135mm timber tongue and groove boards HV 1 Walls Scrim and paper HV 3 Skirtings 205mm moulded timber skirting HV 1 Architraves 135 × 35mm moulded timber architrave (in 2 parts) HV 1 Ceiling Flush boarding HV 1 Cornice None HV 1 Fireplace Surround Timber, Doric columns either side HV 1 Hearth Recycled bricks HV 3 Services Fire protection Ceiling mounted sprinkler heads NHV

56 Study from the doorway, looking south-west.

Study fireplace, looking north-west.

57 INTERIOR, FIRST FLOOR Staircase Heritage Value 1 Description The stairwell is a narrow space completely filled by the staircase, which has two winders at the bottom and is otherwise a straight run of 17 risers. It is open to the dining room at the bottom, and it opens out to the first floor hall, benefitting from light from one of the south-facing dormers in this space. Fabric Floor Treads of the stair HV 1 Walls Vertical boarding HV 1 Skirtings None Architraves None Ceiling As for first floor hall, tongue and groove boards HV 1 Cornice None Joinery Staircase 17 riser staircase: 240 going × 195 rise; 20 nosing; 760 HV 1 width o/a stringers; 90 × 75 newel post and 65 50 handrail on the flat. Services Fire protection Ceiling mounted sprinkler heads NHV

Looking up the staircase. Looking down the staircase.

58 Detail of stair.

59 First Floor Hall Heritage Value 1 Description The form of this space, as for the others on the first floor, is determined by the roof shapes, as the ceiling follows the complex geometry of the hipped roof and the dormer windows. The hall is lit by one of the south-facing dormers, and gives access to the three other spaces on the floor. Fabric Floor 205mm timber tongue and groove boards, Oregon? HV 1 Walls Scrim and paper HV 3 Skirtings 145 moulded timber skirting HV 1 Architraves Small plain boards, or none HV 1 Ceiling Tongue and groove boards HV 1 Cornice None Joinery Door D11 760 × 1945 × 15 ledged door, three vertical tongue and HV 1 groove boards Door D12 750 × 1900 × 15 ledged door, matching D11 HV 1 Door D13 800 × 1942 × 15 ledged door, matching D11 HV 1 Services Fire protection Ceiling mounted sprinkler heads NHV

First floor hall looking west.

60 Looking south-east, stair newel post on the right.

Looking north to bedroom 3 on the left, and bedroom 4 on the right.

61 Bedroom 3 Heritage Value 1 Description This room is straight ahead at the top of the stairs; it is long and narrow, and is lit by a dormer window on the north side. It has an intricate form, with very low walls, and the ceiling following the complex geometry of the roof. Fabric Floor 205mm timber tongue and groove boards, Oregon? HV 1 Walls Pit-sawn sarking, shred of scrim and paper on the partition HV 1 wall to the hall Skirtings None Architraves None Ceiling Tongue and groove boards, painted HV 1 Cornice None Services Fire protection Ceiling mounted sprinkler heads NHV

Details of early wallpapers in bedroom 3.

62 Bedroom 3 looking west, the dormer window on the right.

Looking east.

63 Bedroom 4 Heritage Value 1 Description This room, at the east end, is lit by dormer windows on the north and south sides. It too has an intricate form, with very low walls, and the ceiling following the complex geometry of the roof. Fabric Floor 205mm timber tongue and groove boards, Oregon? HV 1 Walls Pit-sawn sarking HV 3 Skirtings 145 moulded timber skirting HV 1 Architraves Small plain boards, or none HV 1 Ceiling Tongue and groove boards, painted HV 1 Cornice None Services Fire protection Ceiling mounted sprinkler heads NHV

Looking back (west) towards the hall.

64 Looking east from the doorway.

Bedroom 4, looking south, from the north dormer window.

65 Outside face of door D13.

Detail of hardware on the inside face of door D13.

66 Attic Heritage Value 1 Description This room is the roof space in the south-west corner. It is unlined, with the roof framing exposed, although the floorboards carry through so that it was clearly intended for some use, no doubt a store. The brick chimney rises through the space. Fabric Floor 205mm timber tongue and groove boards, Oregon? HV 1 Walls Partition wall to stair, boarded HV 1 Skirtings None Architraves None Ceiling Unlined Cornice None Roof structure Sarking 90 – 190 × 25; rafters 120 × 70 @ 600 centres; HV 1 hip rafter 130 × 60; ceiling joists 150 × 60 @ 600 centres (varies) Services Fire protection Ceiling mounted sprinkler heads NHV

The attic space, showing the south-west hip of the roof, and the chimney on the right.

67 5.0 INFLUENCES ON CONSERVATION

This section deals with matters that will influence how the Mangungu Mission House is treated in the future, including the objectives of Heritage New Zealand, legislative and legal requirements and appropriate conservation standards to be met.

5.1 Heritage New Zealand’s Objectives These words were provided by Amy Hobbs, formerly Heritage Destinations Project Supervisor, Heritage New Zealand. The purpose of this Conservation Plan is to ensure that the record of historical continuity that it represents from 1838 to the present, is conserved as intact and as truthfully as possible. It sets out to establish realistic and achievable policies for the continuing use, maintenance, repair and restoration of the Mangungu Mission House. The policies set out in this section derive from an understanding of the building’s provenance, its present condition and the assessment of cultural significance, as recorded in Section 4. The conservation policies of this Conservation Plan have been underpinned by the following objectives: • To assess the historic and cultural values of the Mangungu Mission House to understand the significance of the building and provide a framework for the development of conservation policies; • To provide conservation policies which will guide Heritage New Zealand’s decision making and management of the Mangungu Mission House relating to its use, maintenance, repair, restoration, interpretation, education and promotion to allow it to be enjoyed by present and future generations; • To identify and clearly articulate the historic uses and heritage fabric of the Mangungu Mission House which include four distinct phases; • Where change or adaptation is required, the Conservation Plan should advocate for the exploration of options, and guide decision making to identify the solution that has the least impact on heritage fabric and cultural heritage value of the Mangungu Mission House; • To ensure that the protection of Maori heritage values in relation to the Mangungu Mission House is underpinned by conservation policies that meet the needs of Maori in a culturally appropriate manner; • To ensure that all property operations are informed by sound conservation policies and an understanding of historic heritage and cultural values; including fostering public interest, enjoyment and involvement through interpretation, education and promotion. The opening of the Twin Coast Cycle Trail from Opua in the Bay of Islands to Horeke on the Hokianga Harbour, a distance of 87 kilometres, has meant increased visitation to the Mission House, and this is likely to increase as the trail becomes more popular. In response, discussions are underway about the possibility of building new public toilets and modifying the church for a new and more active use. Consideration of these matters is beyond the scope of this Conservation Plan, although the siting and design of new public

68 toilets is a sensitive issue that must take cognisance of the values of the Mission House and its curtilage, and the church has inherent conservation values that should be defined before changes are undertaken.

5.2 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act The purpose of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act (HNZPTA) 2014 is ‘to promote the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand’ (section 3). In achieving the purpose of the Act, all persons performing functions and exercising powers under the Act must recognise: (a) The principle that historic places have lasting value in their own right and provide evidence of the origins of New Zealand’s distinct society; and (b) The principle that the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of New Zealand’s historical and cultural heritage should – (i) Take account of all relevant cultural values, knowledge, and disciplines; and (ii) Take account of material of cultural heritage value and involve the least possible alteration or loss of it; and (iii) Safeguard the options of present and future generations; and (iv) Be fully researched, documented, and recorded, where culturally appropriate; and (c) The principle that there is value in central government agencies, local authorities, corporations, societies, tangata whenua, and individuals working collaboratively in respect of New Zealand’s historical and cultural heritage; and (d) The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu, and other taonga. Heritage New Zealand maintains the New Zealand Heritage List / Rarangi Korero, and acts in a variety of ways to ensure the preservation of heritage.

Heritage Listing Part 4 of the HNZPTA, ‘Recognition of places of historical, cultural, and ancestral significance’ makes provision for a New Zealand Heritage List / Rarangi Korero. The purpose of the New Zealand Heritage List is to ‘inform members of the public about historic places …, to inform the owners of historic places … as needed for the purposes of this Act, and to be a source of information about historic places … for the purposes of the Resource Management Act 1991’ (Section 65.) Any place may be entered on the List provided that Heritage New Zealand ‘is satisfied that the place or area has aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, technological, or traditional significance or value.’ (Section 66; part 3 of this section.) The Mangungu Mission House is included in the New Zealand Heritage List as a Category 1

69 historic place; it was entered on 1 September 1993, item number 75. Category 1 means that it is a ‘place of special or outstanding historical or cultural significance or value’. An important implication of the listing is that any work requiring a building consent (or an application for a project information memorandum) will trigger a statutory notification to Heritage New Zealand under Section 39 of the Building Act 2004. Thus in the case of work on the Mission House that requires a building consent, Heritage New Zealand would have dual roles as applicant and reviewer.

Conservation Plans Section 13 of the HNZPTA lists one of the functions of Heritage New Zealand as being to ‘manage, administer, and control historic places, buildings, and other property owned or controlled by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga or vested in it to ensure their protection, preservation, and conservation’. To this end, Heritage New Zealand may adopt a conservation plan for any of its own properties (section 19). If it does so, it shall first publicly notify the availability of a draft plan for inspection and comment, and ‘must consider any comments received and review the draft (conservation plan) before adopting it as a statement of general policy’ (section 17). Heritage New Zealand ‘must not act inconsistently with a … conservation plan adopted under section 19 unless the Board resolves on reasonable grounds that an action may be taken that is inconsistent with a … conservation plan’ (section 20).

Archaeological Sites The HNZPTA contains a consent process for any person intending to do work that may modify or destroy an archaeological site. The Act defines an archaeological site as any place that was ‘associated with human activity that occurred before 1900’ and which ‘may provide through investigation by archaeological methods, evidence relating to the history of New Zealand’ (section 6). Any person intending to undertake work that may ‘modify or destroy the whole or any part of an archaeological site’ must first obtain an authority from Heritage New Zealand for that work. An authority is required by any person who ‘knows, or ought reasonably to have suspected, that the site is an archaeological site’, whether or not it is ‘an archaeological site or is entered on (a) the New Zealand Heritage List … or (b) the Landmarks list’. An authority ‘is not required to permit work on a building that is an archaeological site unless the work will result in the demolition of the whole of the building’. In issuing an authority to carry out work, conditions can be imposed by Heritage New Zealand. (See sections 42 to 53.) Certain below ground works at the Mission House (such as re-piling, should this be required), would require an archaeological authority. Another function of Heritage New Zealand is to act as a heritage protection authority under Part 8 of the Resource Management Plan 1991 (see below).

70 5.3 Resource Management Act The Resource Management Act 1991 is concerned with the sustainable management of natural and physical resources; it aims to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse affects of development on the environment. The Act identifies (section 6) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development as a matter of national importance, and defines historic heritage 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: archaeological, architectural, cultural, historic, scientific, technological’ and includes sites, structures, places and areas; archaeological sites; sites of significance to Maori, including wahi tapu, and surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources. The Act establishes the framework for the preparation and administration of district plans ‘to assist territorial authorities to carry out their functions in order to achieve the purpose of this Act’ (section 72). A district plan may include rules which ‘prohibit, regulate or allow activities’ (section 76) in order to achieve the plan’s objectives. Section 88 of the Act requires an application for a resource consent on a listed heritage item to include an assessment of any actual or potential effects of the work and lists matters to be considered in the Fourth Schedule of the Act. These can include ‘any effect on those in the neighbourhood, and where relevant, the wider community’ and ‘any effect on natural and physical resources having aesthetic, recreational, scientific, historical, spiritual, or cultural, or other special value for present or future generations.’

Far North District Plan Under the Far North District Plan, the Mission House, Motukiore Road, Horeke is scheduled in Appendix 1E, site number 206. It is protected to the extent that its demolition or removal is a ‘prohibited activity’ (section 12.5.6.4 Prohibited Activities). A change to the District Plan would be needed to alter this level of protection. Minor repairs and maintenance are permitted activities under section 12.5.6.1.2. As noted above, demolition or removal of the building is prohibited. Other activities require resource consent either as a discretionary or restricted discretionary activity, depending on the scale of effects. Assessment criteria are set out in section 12.5.7 and include in part (n) 'the policies of any conservation plan and heritage inventory relating to the heritage resource.' The site is part of the General Coastal zone; permitted activities are set out in section 10.6.5.1 of the Plan.

Heritage Orders Under section 187 of the Act, a heritage order can be sought for an historic building (not necessarily a listed historic building) by a heritage protection authority. A heritage order is a provision made in a district plan to protect ‘any place of special interest, character, intrinsic or amenity value or visual appeal, or of special significance to the tangata whenua for spiritual, cultural, or historical reasons’, also ‘such area of land surrounding that place

71 as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of ensuring the protection and reasonable enjoyment of that place’ (section 189). A heritage order can be sought by a Minister of the Crown, a territorial authority, Heritage New Zealand, or by a specially approved heritage protection authority (sections 187 and 188). The effect of an order is to prevent the owner changing the place in a way that would ‘nullify the effect of the heritage order’ unless with the consent of the heritage protection authority (section 193 and 194). Such orders are rarely sought, and generally only as a last resort where an important structure is threatened with severe alteration or demolition. In the case of the Mission House of course, a heritage order is not necessary.

5.4 Building Act 2004 The Building Act 2004 controls all matters relating to building construction. The following matters are of particular relevance when considering repairs, maintenance and alterations to existing and historic buildings. Several do not apply to the Mission House, or are unlikely to, but are included here for completeness.

Repair and Maintenance (Schedule 1 Exempt Building Work) A building consent is not required for ‘any lawful repair and maintenance using comparable materials’. However, all work is required to comply with the Building Code. This means compliance with durability requirements (clause B2): for structural elements, not less than a 50 year life; for secondary elements which are difficult to replace, 15 years; and for linings and other elements that are easily accessible, 5 years. In dealing with heritage buildings, it is appropriate to aim for a 50 year life for all elements.

Principles to be Applied (Section 4) Assessment of building work subject to the Act is required to take into account, amongst others things, ‘the importance of recognising any special traditional and cultural aspects of the intended use of a building’, and ‘the need to facilitate the preservation of buildings of significant cultural, historical or heritage value’ (sub-sections d and l); also ‘the need to facilitate the efficient and sustainable use in buildings of materials and material conservation’ (sub-section n).

Historic Places (Section 39) When a territorial authority receives an application for a project information memorandum or a building consent for a listed historic place, historic area or wahi tapu, it must inform Heritage New Zealand.

72 Building Consents (Section 40 – 41) It is an offence to carry out building work not in accordance with a building consent, except for exempted buildings and work as set out in Schedule 1 of the Act. (These include certain signs, walls, tanks etc, as well as repairs and maintenance.) Section 41(c) allows for urgent work, such as emergency repairs, to be carried out without a consent, but such work is required to obtain a Certificate of Acceptance directly after completion.

Compliance Schedule and Warrant of Fitness (Sections 100 – 111) A compliance schedule is required for a building that has specified systems relating to means of escape from fire, safety barriers, means of access and facilities for use by people with disabilities, fire fighting equipment and signage. Such systems must be regularly inspected and maintained, and an annual building warrant of fitness supplied to the territorial authority. The purpose of the warrant of fitness is to ensure that the systems are performing as set out in the relevant building consent. A copy of the warrant of fitness must be on public display in the building.

Alterations to Existing Buildings (Section 112) Alterations to existing buildings require a building consent, which will be issued by the consent authority if they are satisfied that after the alteration the building will ‘comply, as nearly as is reasonably practicable and to the same extent as if it were a new building, with the provisions of the building code that relate to: (i) means of escape from fire; and (ii) access and facilities for persons with disabilities, and continue to comply with the other provisions of the building code to at least the same extent as before the alteration’. Alterations that do not comply with full requirements of the building code may be allowed by the territorial authority if they are satisfied that: ‘(a) if the alteration were required to comply … the alteration would not take place; and (b) the alteration will result in improvements to attributes of the building that relate to (i) means of escape from fire; or (ii) access and facilities for persons with disabilities; and (c) the improvements referred to in paragraph (b) outweigh any detriment that is likely to arise as a result of the building not complying with the relevant provisions of the building code.’ Similar provisions apply to the change of use of a building. In reference to Section 112 (i) above, building code requirements for means of escape from fire can be met by following Clause C2 of the Building Code.

73 Access (Sections 117 – 120) In carrying out alterations to any building ‘to which members of the public are to be admitted … reasonable and adequate provision by way of access, parking provisions and sanitary facilities must be made for persons with disabilities’. In reference to Section 112 (ii) and Sections 117 – 120 above, building code requirements for access and facilities for persons with disabilities can be met by following NZS 4121: 2001 Design for Access and Mobility – Buildings and Associated Facilities. This has sections on the dimensions and design of ramps, entrances, doors, toilet facilities etc.

Dangerous, Earthquake-prone and Insanitary Buildings (Sections 121 – 132) A dangerous building is one likely to cause injury or death, whether through collapse or fire. An earthquake-prone building is one that will have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake and would be likely to cause injury or death. An insanitary building is offensive or likely to be injurious to health because of its condition or lack of appropriate facilities. A territorial authority can, if it judges a building to be dangerous, earthquake prone or insanitary, require work to be done to reduce or remove the danger or to render it sanitary.

5.5 Appropriate Standards The most appropriate conservation standards for use in New Zealand are those set out in the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value. (ICOMOS stands for the International Committee on Monuments and Sites.) The Charter has been formally adopted by Heritage New Zealand and a number of territorial authorities. Given the significance of Mission House, it is recommended that all relevant requirements of the Charter be followed. Important conservation principles contained in the Charter and that are relevant in the case of Mission House are explained below. The full text of the Charter is included in this report as Appendix I.

Carry Out Regular Maintenance Regular maintenance is essential to the long life of heritage buildings. If maintenance is not carried out on a planned basis, repairs become progressively more difficult and expensive, and fabric of heritage value can be lost, thus diminishing the significance of the building. A well maintained building will survive the effects of earthquakes, storms and other natural disasters better than one that is poorly maintained.

Repair Rather than Replace When repairs are necessary, cut out and replace only decayed material. It is better to have fabric that is worn and carefully patched than modern replica material, however faithfully copied.

74 Repair in Compatible Materials In carrying out repairs, materials matching the original should always be used if they are available. Work to a higher technical standard is good practice in some circumstances, and may be required by the Building Code.

Restore with Care Restoration of lost features, or reconstruction (utilising new material), should only be carried out if the heritage value of the place is enhanced, and there is clear evidence of the original form and detail. Such evidence could come from original drawings, early photographs or elements relocated to other parts of the building. Detailed examination of the fabric of the building can often reveal information that is not available from other sources.

Keep Change to the Minimum Where alterations are carried out, change should be the minimum necessary to suit the new functional requirements. There should be the least possible loss of building fabric of heritage value.

Make New Work Reversible Where possible, new work should be reversible, so that change back to the present form remains a possibility should this be required in the future. This can sometimes be difficult, particularly with major work such as earthquake strengthening. Recycle or store early fabric that has to be removed, and make new junctions with the old fabric as lightly as possible.

Respect Alterations Additions and alterations to heritage buildings can have historic or aesthetic significance in their own right. Returning a building to its original form is recommended only when the significance of the original structure is outstanding and later alterations have compromised its integrity.

Document Changes Changes should be fully documented in drawings and photographs, with the latter taken before, during and after conservation work. New materials should be identified by date stamping.

Respect the Patina of Age Patina, the visible evidence of age, is something to protect carefully. Buildings should look old as they mature, as age is one of the qualities we value them for.

Respect the Contents and Setting The contents and setting of a heritage building can often have heritage value in their own right and both should be regarded as integral to the building.

75 5.6 Threats and Risks There are a number of threats and risks to the Mangungu Mission House that require management in order to protect and maintain its heritage values for the future. These include:

Earthquake Risk: Although built in the generally earthquake resistant material of timber, the Mission House could be damaged in a serious earthquake. Possible modes of failure are the building being shaken off its foundations, or the frame being distorted and timber members broken. The building is currently considered safe in an earthquake event, which is itself highly unlikely in this seismically quiet part of the country. Action: The security of the structure is dependent on it being well maintained, being monitored regularly, and being repaired when any faults are uncovered.

Fire Risk: Being built in timber, the Mission House is vulnerable to fire, and this is perhaps the greatest threat to the building as it has the capacity to seriously damage or even completely destroy it. The building is nevertheless protected by an automatic fire sprinkler installation, making serious damage extremely unlikely. Action: The fire protection systems must be constantly monitored and regularly maintained.

Decay processes Risk: The effects of sun, water, hot and cold temperatures and wind on building fabric inevitably leads to weathering and can lead to decay and loss of heritage fabric. Action: Rates of decay will be minimised by regular monitoring, maintenance and repair, and this is the single most important aspect of looking after the Mission House well. Quality of management and execution is very important.

Adaptation Risk: Adaptation works to suit a place for new uses can impact adversely on heritage values. Action: Work specifications must be based on adequate research and sound conservation principles so as to minimise the adverse effects of any changes. Properly skilled workers should be employed and work supervised to ensure that approved plans are followed and standards met.

Visitor impacts Risk: High visitor numbers, causing wear and tear, has an effect on heritage fabric, and can eventually cause serious damage (as, for example, to floorboards). In addition, valuable artefacts are liable to be stolen by unscrupulous visitors. Action: The impact of visitors should be monitored and areas that are being damaged, or are assessed as liable to damage, should be protected. Timber flooring is particularly vulnerable. The security of artefacts must be constantly monitored and improved where a risk is perceived.

76 Visitor hazards Risk: Dangers posed by hazards at an historic place may require interventions that could be harmful to the building. The most significant visitor hazards at the Mission House are the outside steps and the staircase inside, as well as low ceilings upstairs. Action: Generally, the hazards that exist are simply those of everyday life, and apart from staff alerting aged or disabled people to them, no other action is recommended. A temporary ramp for access to the verandah could be considered.

Vandalism Risk: The building could be subject to vandalism, such as the theft of copper spoutings and downpipes, tagging, breaking of glass etc. Action: This risk can be lessened by strategies such as improved lighting, surveillance and frequent monitoring.

Trees and vegetation Risk: Nearby trees do not presently pose a risk of affecting the building’s foundations, or of branches falling on the building in the event of a storm. Leaves and twigs filling and blocking gutters present a maintenance issue. Action: These risks are best managed by ensuring the good health of nearby trees and by judicious pruning and trimming of any that are close; any trees that pose a higher than normal risk should be considered for removal.

Storms and severe weather Risk: Severe weather, in particular high winds and heavy rain, pose a risk to the building of damage and flooding, although it is in a relatively sheltered location. Action: Keeping the building in good repair and well maintained, and gutters and drains clear, will ameliorate this risk. There should be a contingency plan in the event of storm damage, and this should include materials and tradesmen being available on standby, especially to repair roofing.

Information loss Risk: The loss, destruction or lack of access to archival sources such as early letters and documents, plans and photographs is a threat, since it reduces our understanding of the history of the place. Action: Records should be recorded as to their location, and copied as appropriate, and this has now generally been done.

Loss of purpose Risk: Loss of purpose is a risk to most heritage places. It can lead to a lack of income, cessation of maintenance, deterioration, vandalism, and eventual demolition. The Mission House has had a viable use as a visitor destination, but a continuation of this use will require conscious effort by Heritage New Zealand, as the place is not well known nationally and is in a relatively remote part of Northland.

77 Action: Heritage New Zealand is committed to maintaining and expanding the level of use of the building, and such actions must be continued and strengthened.

Lack of public support Risk: The long term preservation of an historic place requires public understanding, support, and involvement. If this is absent it may be difficult to sustain a suitable use and the required level of core funding. Action: Heritage New Zealand should continue to encourage public interest in the well- being of the building, both locally and nationally, and to educate the public about the issues surrounding the conservation of this important historic place.

78 6.0 POLICIES

This section sets out a rationale and appropriate policies to guide future work on the Mangungu Mission House, its management and interpretation.

6.1 Background The act of restoration – returning a place as nearly as possible to a known earlier state by re-assembly, reinstatement and/or the removal of extraneous additions80 – is not to be undertaken lightly. Professor J C Beaglehole, then Deputy Chairman of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, said this when opening the Mission House at Te Waimate81 in 1966: ‘… exactly what point in history are we to go back to in our restoration …? And how do we know exactly what the place was like at any particular moment? Only when we begin to study the history of a house do we begin to find out how difficult it is to answer that last question. Of course we had descriptions, and drawings…. But when you want to work from such descriptions and drawings, you find, inevitably, that they don’t take you far enough. Drawings are not to scale, they’re ambiguous, they break down at some critical point, they’re contradicted by some other drawing. Descriptions fade out just when you want them to be precise. Then there is the evidence carried by the house itself, as you lift a decayed board or take down an obviously twentieth-century bit of timber. All over any old house are the evidences of change, if you know how to interpret them; but some evidence will be gone forever. Your house is, as it were, an historical document written out in wood and saw-cuts and nail holes and random roughnesses; and just as it is impossible for the ordinary historian to say about the past, This is precisely and dogmatically how things happened, these are the facts – so it is impossible for the historian of our house, reconstructing it, to say, This is exactly what the house was like when Clarke lived in it, or Selwyn lived in it …’ The Mangungu Mission House already stands as an exemplar of the difficulties Beaglehole enunciates. The written and graphic records of the house in its original form are very sparse, the best source of information being the fabric of the house itself. Even this is limited in its usefulness, since some marks are inexplicable, some are clear as to their purpose but not as to time, others are hidden. When a house has occupied four different sites, it has inevitably lost some of the fabric that indicates the layering of time: foundations will have been completely renewed four times, and chimneys will have been taken down and perhaps rebuilt – or perhaps not. It is not uncommon when shifting buildings to leave behind not just the elements that are difficult to shift, such as chimneys, but also lean-to structures that add to the challenges of moving and might have been less well built than the main structure. It is known for certain that such elements were discarded in the various moves of the Mission House.

80 Definition from the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage value. 81 Leaflet of the NZHPT, speech delivered 4 Dec 1966.

79 Four Stages Thus the essence of the house is not one of long slow change, as it is in the case of Kemp House at the Kerikeri Mission Station founded by the Church Missionary Society. It is one of quite dramatic dislocation. Mangungu has four quite distinct phases – indeed four quite distinct sites – in its 175 year life. 1. Mission House, Mangungu, 1839 – 1855 Constructed by the Wesleyan Missionary Society, the house served for 16 years as the main building of the Mangungu Mission Station. 2. Methodist Manse, 77 Grey Street, Onehunga, 1855 – 1921 For 50 years (1855 – c.1905), the house served as a Methodist manse in Onehunga. From c.1905 until it was sold by the church in 1921 it was rented. 3. Private Home, 135 Grey Street, Onehunga, 1921 – 1972 For nearly 50 years the house was the private home of the Carver family, until the death of Mary Carver in 1969. 4. House Museum, Mangungu, 1972 to the present day For over 40 years the building has been in the ownership of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, now Heritage New Zealand, on behalf of the people of New Zealand, and is open to the public as a museum. It should be noted that the house now, back in Mangungu, is nevertheless not on the site that it originally occupied, although that site is nearby. David Hamer, considering the initial history, the survival and the preservation of historic monuments, says82 : ‘The historian is interested in the history of this entire sequence or continuum and the process by which ingredients from each stage in it have fused ultimately to create the phenomenon of a preserved building. The historian’s conclusion is certain to be that what has emerged and exists today, is very different from anything that actually ever existed at any previous given point in history!’ If this position is accepted, and all change is treated equally, then the difficulties of any further restoration are avoided, and the building can tell a story that is 175 years long.

Restoration to the WMS Period Actions of the NZHPT during the period 1972 – 1977 have seen the house presented as it may have been during the first phase of its life. However, the building as it stands today also includes significant work that dates from the first period of occupation in Onehunga, that is the development of the roof space with the construction of a staircase, partitions and dormer windows. They are today a very distinctive feature of the house. Thus the early Onehunga period is acknowledged in the form of the building.

82 ‘Historic Preservation in Urban New Zealand: An Historian’s Perspective’ in New Zealand Journal of History, Vol 31, No 2, October 1997.

80 Acknowledgement of the Carver Family Changes made by the Carver family are now difficult to identify. Photographs show that the right hand end of the verandah was filled in at one time, although there is no evidence of this in the fabric of the building today. The lean-to they rebuilt after the move of 1922 has left no trace, and other internal changes are likewise unknown.

Authenticity The authentic Mangungu Mission House must be accepted as the one that stands today, as representative as it will ever be of its long and peripatetic life. While in its early life it played host to events and people of importance, for a long time it served the humble purpose of housing a Methodist minister, and then a family that belonged to the congregation. Today it functions as a house museum, and has done so for more than 35 years, and it is the repository of a significant collection of taonga.

Summary These considerations lead to the policies set out in the following section. No precise period is chosen to which the house is to be restored; instead, the house is to demonstrate a continuum of 175 years of a peripatetic life. While fabric of 1838 is regarded as having exceptional cultural heritage value, and later fabric of somewhat less importance, this does not mean that the later fabric will necessarily be sacrificed. No fabric should be removed unless it is threatening the stability of the building or is in irreparable condition.

6.2 Policies Policies for the management and treatment of the Mangungu Mission House are as follows.

1 Use The use of a building is simply the functional purpose(s) to which it is put. The Mangungu Mission House shall continue in use as a house museum, available to be visited and enjoyed by New Zealanders and overseas visitors. Only in the (presently unforeseeable) circumstance of this use ceasing to be viable, will other compatible uses be considered. A compatible use is one that does not require alterations that would reduce the cultural heritage significance of the place, and is essential to the usefulness and survival of a heritage place.

2 Maintenance Maintenance means the protective care of a place. The house shall be regularly maintained according to sound principles and practices. A maintenance plan will be prepared and followed. Maintenance shall include, as well as the day-to-day and regular work, long-term strategic work that will ensure, as far as possible, the survival of the building in perpetuity. Fire protection and structural stability are regarded as of paramount importance.

81 3 Repair Repair means making good decayed or damaged fabric. Repairs to the fabric shall be carried out according to sound principles and practices. In particular, repairs shall be carried out in a manner that respects the original fabric, using materials that match the original or early materials as closely as possible in strength, texture and colour; details should match adjoining work. The minimum amount of decayed material shall be replaced, commensurate with a sound repair. In all maintenance and repair work, it is important to protect the patina, the visible evidence of age, of adjacent materials.

4 Restoration Restoration means returning a place as nearly as possible to a known earlier form. No particular period is chosen to which the house is to be restored. Instead, it is to be presented as evidence of a continuum of some 175 years. Alterations made throughout its history are judged to have heritage value. The layering of history that is evident in the built fabric of the house shall therefore be retained, illustrating early changes carried out by the Methodist Church, changes made by the Carvers (should such changes exist), and the actions of the NZHPT, over the whole of its life. The exceptions to this are: • Where there are inexplicable confusions, or • Where changes are so patently at odds with the age and character of the house that they should be re-built for the sake of authenticity. In these cases, restoration should be considered. Restoration, where carried out, must be based on clear evidence of the original form and detail; this information can come from early photographs, drawings, or detailed examination of the fabric of the building. Levels of change in the fabric of the place that are appropriate for the different levels of heritage value (as defined in section 4) are set out below. The intention is that those parts of the building that are identified as having high heritage value should be retained and conserved to the greatest extent possible. Appropriate conservation processes for the assigned values are as follows: Heritage Value 1 (HV 1) This means the space or the fabric is of exceptional cultural heritage value. It is generally assigned to fabric that dates from the period of WMS ownership. Modification should be allowed only for the purpose of safeguarding the element, or to meet statutory requirements. Any such modification should be carried out only if no other reasonable option is available; it should be as discreet as possible and the minimum necessary. Allowable processes of change include maintenance, stabilisation, repair and restoration.

82 Heritage Value 2 (HV 2) This means the space or the fabric is of some cultural heritage value. It is generally assigned to fabric that dates from the early Onehunga period. Modification should be allowed for the purpose of safeguarding the element, to meet statutory requirements, or to enhance the heritage value of the place. Any such modification should be carried out only if no other reasonable option is available; it should be as discreet as possible and the minimum necessary. Allowable processes of change include maintenance, stabilisation, repair, restoration and adaptation. Heritage Value 3 (HV3) This means the fabric is of little cultural heritage value. It is generally assigned to fabric that dates from the period of NZHPT ownership. Modification should be allowed for the purpose of safeguarding the element, to meet statutory requirements, or to enhance the heritage value of the place. Any such modification should be carried out on if no other reasonable option is available; it should be as discreet as possible and the minimum necessary. In the case of the enhancement of heritage value, this will be based on sound historical research. Allowable processes of change include maintenance, stabilisation, repair, restoration and adaptation. No Heritage Value (NHV) Fabric of no cultural heritage value is fabric of recent origin that plays no part in establishing the heritage value of the building. Elements of no heritage value can be retained, modified or demolished, either to accord with modern functional needs or to allow for the enhancement of heritage value. Allowable processes of change include maintenance, stabilisation, repair, restoration and adaptation, also demolition or removal. Negative Heritage Value (Neg) Fabric of negative cultural heritage value is fabric of recent origin that detracts from the value of the building because it is inappropriate in such an important heritage building. Elements of negative heritage value can be programmed for removal or redesign.

5 Adaptation Adaptation (or alteration) means modifying a place to suit it to a compatible use, involving the least possible loss of heritage value. Any changes to the building, which are necessary to improve its safety or to comply with code requirements, should be the minimum necessary to achieve the stated goal. Change should be carried out in a way that respects the cultural heritage values, and has least impact on fabric of cultural heritage value.

83 6 Execution Execution means the carrying out of any work on the fabric of the house. In planning and executing any work on the fabric of the building, Heritage New Zealand should ensure that proper consideration has been given to the necessity of the work; to alternative courses of action, and to whether the work complies with the requirements of this plan and the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value. Appropriate professional advice will be sought where necessary. All legal requirements (including those arising from the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act, Resource Management Act, Building Act and Health and Safety in Employment Act) will be met.

7 Contents The contents are the moveable objects inside the house. The collection of artefacts and furniture in the house constitute a very important part of its heritage value. To aid the long-term management of the collection, a conservation plan should be prepared covering all items. This should include an inventory, a description of each item, its provenance and condition, as well as cleaning and maintenance requirements. It will require the input of a specialist with knowledge of artefact conservation. Along with this, a display and interpretation policy should be developed. This may impinge on building issues, especially in relation to circulation of visitors around the building.

8 Garden Setting The garden setting is all that land within the legal boundaries of the site. The garden is an integral part of the place that makes up the Mangungu Mission, and an important component of its heritage value. This includes the adjacent cemetery, church, memorial cross and curator’s cottage as well as the open space. A conservation plan for the garden should be prepared, with particular attention being paid to the archaeology of the site. It is important that policies for the house and the garden align.

9 Wider Setting The wider setting is the visual context of the house, of roads, structures and open space, in all directions. The wider setting of the house is also an important part of the heritage value of the place. Every effort shall be made to ensure the wider setting remains a compatible one, and that views to and from the house are protected. Building projects and planning changes in the vicinity of the site should be monitored. Heritage New Zealand should maintain a close working relationship with the Far North District Council to ensure that district plan provisions do not compromise the setting in any way.

84 10 Interpretation Interpretation means any material (visual, audio, electronic) that aids people’s understanding and appreciation of the place. Interpretation will present a story as long as that of the European settlement of New Zealand, and will deal with all facets of the history of the place and its peoples. While it will cover the whole of the history of the place, there will be a focus on the earliest period of its history, as being the aspect that gives the Mission House its greatest importance, and on the impact and spread of Methodism in New Zealand. Specific policy on interpretation is beyond the scope of this plan. It is important to note however, that interpretation of the place is critical to people’s understanding and enjoyment, and indeed, to the long-term survival of the place as a house museum. It is therefore imperative that high standards of interpretation are met, and that new material is researched, sought and displayed. It must be made a vitally interesting place for people to visit. Along with the policy on contents (Policy 7), a display and interpretation policy should be developed; this will require the input of a specialist with knowledge of the operation of house museums.

6.3 Building Implications of the Policies In addition to the regular maintenance and repair work required to the Mangungu Mission House, there are one-off building tasks that flow from the policies enunciated in the previous section. In summary, while being cognisant of the policies in Section 6.2, these are: Exterior 1 Accessibility Consideration should be given to making the house more easily accessible to people with disabilities. 2 Security A security system should be installed to protect the valuable taonga in the house. The security of the doors and windows should also be improved. 3 Kitchen and Back yard One ‘inexplicable confusion’ (see policy 4) is the lack of a kitchen in the house, and related to this, the bareness of the space outside the back door (noting that the kitchen was originally in a detached structure, and that the back yard was presumably a well-used space with vegetable garden, paths, fences and gates, as well as outbuildings). Consideration should be given to this issue; it may be that further building is required (the Ministry of Works had plans drawn for a back porch), or it may be able to be dealt with by interpretation. The results of the archaeological investigations carried out in 2011–2012 should be examined to determine if there is information of relevance here, in particular, the original location of the house and the kitchen.

85 Interior 4 First Floor Make the upstairs of the house suitable for opening to visitors, since the spaces here are visually very interesting; they are important in the long history of the house; important traces of early wallpapers and finishes are evident, and there are aspects of the building technology that are able to be appreciated (the pit-sawn timbers for example). The main work would be the repair of wall linings and wallpapers that have been damaged or lost (leaving visible some pit-sawn sarking and other features of interest). A structural check on floor loadings would need to be made, and egress requirements met. Each of these jobs requires investigation and documentation; execution will depend on resources available to Heritage New Zealand.

View through the window of the nursery.

86 APPENDIX I ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value

Revised 2010

Preamble

New Zealand retains a unique assemblage of places of cultural heritage value relating to its indigenous and more recent peoples. These areas, cultural landscapes and features, buildings and structures, gardens, archaeological sites, traditional sites, monuments, and sacred places are treasures of distinctive value that have accrued meanings over time. New Zealand shares a general responsibility with the rest of humanity to safeguard its cultural heritage places for present and future generations. More specifically, the people of New Zealand have particular ways of perceiving, relating to, and conserving their cultural heritage places.

Following the spirit of the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (the Venice Charter - 1964), this charter sets out principles to guide the conservation of places of cultural heritage value in New Zealand. It is a statement of professional principles for members of ICOMOS New Zealand.

This charter is also intended to guide all those involved in the various aspects of conservation work, including owners, guardians, managers, developers, planners, architects, engineers, craftspeople and those in the construction trades, heritage practitioners and advisors, and local and central government authorities. It offers guidance for communities, organisations, and individuals involved with the conservation and management of cultural heritage places.

This charter should be made an integral part of statutory or regulatory heritage management policies or plans, and should provide support for decision makers in statutory or regulatory processes.

Each article of this charter must be read in the light of all the others. Words in bold in the text are defined in the definitions section of this charter.

This revised charter was adopted by the New Zealand National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites at its meeting on 4 September 2010.

Purpose of conservation

1. The purpose of conservation

The purpose of conservation is to care for places of cultural heritage value.

In general, such places: (i) have lasting values and can be appreciated in their own right; (ii) inform us about the past and the cultures of those who came before us; (iii) provide tangible evidence of the continuity between past, present, and future; (iv) underpin and reinforce community identity and relationships to ancestors and the land; and (v) provide a measure against which the achievements of the present can be compared.

It is the purpose of conservation to retain and reveal such values, and to support the ongoing meanings and functions of places of cultural heritage value, in the interests of present and future generations.

ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 Page 1

87 Conservation principles

2. Understanding cultural heritage value

Conservation of a place should be based on an understanding and appreciation of all aspects of its cultural heritage value, both tangible and intangible. All available forms of knowledge and evidence provide the means of understanding a place and its cultural heritage value and cultural heritage significance. Cultural heritage value should be understood through consultation with connected people, systematic documentary and oral research, physical investigation and recording of the place, and other relevant methods.

All relevant cultural heritage values should be recognised, respected, and, where appropriate, revealed, including values which differ, conflict, or compete.

The policy for managing all aspects of a place, including its conservation and its use, and the implementation of the policy, must be based on an understanding of its cultural heritage value.

3. Indigenous cultural heritage

The indigenous cultural heritage of tangata whenua relates to whanau, hapu, and iwi groups. It shapes identity and enhances well-being, and it has particular cultural meanings and values for the present, and associations with those who have gone before. Indigenous cultural heritage brings with it responsibilities of guardianship and the practical application and passing on of associated knowledge, traditional skills, and practices.

The Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of our nation. Article 2 of the Treaty recognises and guarantees the protection of tino rangatiratanga, and so empowers kaitiakitanga as customary trusteeship to be exercised by tangata whenua. This customary trusteeship is exercised over their taonga, such as sacred and traditional places, built heritage, traditional practices, and other cultural heritage resources. This obligation extends beyond current legal ownership wherever such cultural heritage exists.

Particular matauranga, or knowledge of cultural heritage meaning, value, and practice, is associated with places. Matauranga is sustained and transmitted through oral, written, and physical forms determined by tangata whenua. The conservation of such places is therefore conditional on decisions made in associated tangata whenua communities, and should proceed only in this context. In particular, protocols of access, authority, ritual, and practice are determined at a local level and should be respected.

4. Planning for conservation

Conservation should be subject to prior documented assessment and planning.

All conservation work should be based on a conservation plan which identifies the cultural heritage value and cultural heritage significance of the place, the conservation policies, and the extent of the recommended works.

The conservation plan should give the highest priority to the authenticity and integrity of the place.

Other guiding documents such as, but not limited to, management plans, cyclical maintenance plans, specifications for conservation work, interpretation plans, risk mitigation plans, or emergency plans should be guided by a conservation plan.

ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 Page 2

88 5. Respect for surviving evidence and knowledge

Conservation maintains and reveals the authenticity and integrity of a place, and involves the least possible loss of fabric or evidence of cultural heritage value. Respect for all forms of knowledge and existing evidence, of both tangible and intangible values, is essential to the authenticity and integrity of the place.

Conservation recognises the evidence of time and the contributions of all periods. The conservation of a place should identify and respect all aspects of its cultural heritage value without unwarranted emphasis on any one value at the expense of others.

The removal or obscuring of any physical evidence of any period or activity should be minimised, and should be explicitly justified where it does occur. The fabric of a particular period or activity may be obscured or removed if assessment shows that its removal would not diminish the cultural heritage value of the place.

In conservation, evidence of the functions and intangible meanings of places of cultural heritage value should be respected.

6. Minimum intervention

Work undertaken at a place of cultural heritage value should involve the least degree of intervention consistent with conservation and the principles of this charter.

Intervention should be the minimum necessary to ensure the retention of tangible and intangible values and the continuation of uses integral to those values. The removal of fabric or the alteration of features and spaces that have cultural heritage value should be avoided.

7. Physical investigation

Physical investigation of a place provides primary evidence that cannot be gained from any other source. Physical investigation should be carried out according to currently accepted professional standards, and should be documented through systematic recording.

Invasive investigation of fabric of any period should be carried out only where knowledge may be significantly extended, or where it is necessary to establish the existence of fabric of cultural heritage value, or where it is necessary for conservation work, or where such fabric is about to be damaged or destroyed or made inaccessible. The extent of invasive investigation should minimise the disturbance of significant fabric.

8. Use

The conservation of a place of cultural heritage value is usually facilitated by the place serving a useful purpose.

Where the use of a place is integral to its cultural heritage value, that use should be retained.

Where a change of use is proposed, the new use should be compatible with the cultural heritage value of the place, and should have little or no adverse effect on the cultural heritage value.

ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 Page 3

89 9. Setting

Where the setting of a place is integral to its cultural heritage value, that setting should be conserved with the place itself. If the setting no longer contributes to the cultural heritage value of the place, and if reconstruction of the setting can be justified, any reconstruction of the setting should be based on an understanding of all aspects of the cultural heritage value of the place.

10. Relocation

The on-going association of a structure or feature of cultural heritage value with its location, site, curtilage, and setting is essential to its authenticity and integrity. Therefore, a structure or feature of cultural heritage value should remain on its original site.

Relocation of a structure or feature of cultural heritage value, where its removal is required in order to clear its site for a different purpose or construction, or where its removal is required to enable its use on a different site, is not a desirable outcome and is not a conservation process.

In exceptional circumstances, a structure of cultural heritage value may be relocated if its current site is in imminent danger, and if all other means of retaining the structure in its current location have been exhausted. In this event, the new location should provide a setting compatible with the cultural heritage value of the structure.

11. Documentation and archiving

The cultural heritage value and cultural heritage significance of a place, and all aspects of its conservation, should be fully documented to ensure that this information is available to present and future generations.

Documentation includes information about all changes to the place and any decisions made during the conservation process.

Documentation should be carried out to archival standards to maximise the longevity of the record, and should be placed in an appropriate archival repository.

Documentation should be made available to connected people and other interested parties. Where reasons for confidentiality exist, such as security, privacy, or cultural appropriateness, some information may not always be publicly accessible.

12. Recording

Evidence provided by the fabric of a place should be identified and understood through systematic research, recording, and analysis.

Recording is an essential part of the physical investigation of a place. It informs and guides the conservation process and its planning. Systematic recording should occur prior to, during, and following any intervention. It should include the recording of new evidence revealed, and any fabric obscured or removed.

Recording of the changes to a place should continue throughout its life.

ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 Page 4

90 13. Fixtures, fittings, and contents

Fixtures, fittings, and contents that are integral to the cultural heritage value of a place should be retained and conserved with the place. Such fixtures, fittings, and contents may include carving, painting, weaving, stained glass, wallpaper, surface decoration, works of art, equipment and machinery, furniture, and personal belongings.

Conservation of any such material should involve specialist conservation expertise appropriate to the material. Where it is necessary to remove any such material, it should be recorded, retained, and protected, until such time as it can be reinstated.

Conservation processes and practice

14. Conservation plans

A conservation plan, based on the principles of this charter, should: (i) be based on a comprehensive understanding of the cultural heritage value of the place and assessment of its cultural heritage significance; (ii) include an assessment of the fabric of the place, and its condition; (iii) give the highest priority to the authenticity and integrity of the place; (iv) include the entirety of the place, including the setting; (v) be prepared by objective professionals in appropriate disciplines; (vi) consider the needs, abilities, and resources of connected people; (vii) not be influenced by prior expectations of change or development; (viii) specify conservation policies to guide decision making and to guide any work to be undertaken; (ix) make recommendations for the conservation of the place; and (x) be regularly revised and kept up to date.

15. Conservation projects

Conservation projects should include the following: (i) consultation with interested parties and connected people, continuing throughout the project; (ii) opportunities for interested parties and connected people to contribute to and participate in the project; (iii) research into documentary and oral history, using all relevant sources and repositories of knowledge; (iv) physical investigation of the place as appropriate; (v) use of all appropriate methods of recording, such as written, drawn, and photographic; (vi) the preparation of a conservation plan which meets the principles of this charter; (vii) guidance on appropriate use of the place; (viii) the implementation of any planned conservation work; (ix) the documentation of the conservation work as it proceeds; and (x) where appropriate, the deposit of all records in an archival repository.

A conservation project must not be commenced until any required statutory authorisation has been granted.

ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 Page 5

91 16. Professional, trade, and craft skills

All aspects of conservation work should be planned, directed, supervised, and undertaken by people with appropriate conservation training and experience directly relevant to the project.

All conservation disciplines, arts, crafts, trades, and traditional skills and practices that are relevant to the project should be applied and promoted.

17. Degrees of intervention for conservation purposes

Following research, recording, assessment, and planning, intervention for conservation purposes may include, in increasing degrees of intervention: (i) preservation, through stabilisation, maintenance, or repair; (ii) restoration, through reassembly, reinstatement, or removal; (iii) reconstruction; and (iv) adaptation.

In many conservation projects a range of processes may be utilised. Where appropriate, conservation processes may be applied to individual parts or components of a place of cultural heritage value.

The extent of any intervention for conservation purposes should be guided by the cultural heritage value of a place and the policies for its management as identified in a conservation plan. Any intervention which would reduce or compromise cultural heritage value is undesirable and should not occur.

Preference should be given to the least degree of intervention, consistent with this charter.

Re-creation, meaning the conjectural reconstruction of a structure or place; replication, meaning to make a copy of an existing or former structure or place; or the construction of generalised representations of typical features or structures, are not conservation processes and are outside the scope of this charter.

18. Preservation

Preservation of a place involves as little intervention as possible, to ensure its long-term survival and the continuation of its cultural heritage value.

Preservation processes should not obscure or remove the patina of age, particularly where it contributes to the authenticity and integrity of the place, or where it contributes to the structural stability of materials.

i. Stabilisation

Processes of decay should be slowed by providing treatment or support.

ii. Maintenance

A place of cultural heritage value should be maintained regularly. Maintenance should be carried out according to a plan or work programme.

iii. Repair

Repair of a place of cultural heritage value should utilise matching or similar materials. Where it is necessary to employ new materials, they should be distinguishable by experts, and should be documented.

ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 Page 6

92 Traditional methods and materials should be given preference in conservation work.

Repair of a technically higher standard than that achieved with the existing materials or construction practices may be justified only where the stability or life expectancy of the site or material is increased, where the new material is compatible with the old, and where the cultural heritage value is not diminished.

19. Restoration

The process of restoration typically involves reassembly and reinstatement, and may involve the removal of accretions that detract from the cultural heritage value of a place.

Restoration is based on respect for existing fabric, and on the identification and analysis of all available evidence, so that the cultural heritage value of a place is recovered or revealed. Restoration should be carried out only if the cultural heritage value of the place is recovered or revealed by the process.

Restoration does not involve conjecture.

i. Reassembly and reinstatement

Reassembly uses existing material and, through the process of reinstatement, returns it to its former position. Reassembly is more likely to involve work on part of a place rather than the whole place.

ii. Removal

Occasionally, existing fabric may need to be permanently removed from a place. This may be for reasons of advanced decay, or loss of structural integrity, or because particular fabric has been identified in a conservation plan as detracting from the cultural heritage value of the place.

The fabric removed should be systematically recorded before and during its removal. In some cases it may be appropriate to store, on a long-term basis, material of evidential value that has been removed.

20. Reconstruction

Reconstruction is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material to replace material that has been lost.

Reconstruction is appropriate if it is essential to the function, integrity, intangible value, or understanding of a place, if sufficient physical and documentary evidence exists to minimise conjecture, and if surviving cultural heritage value is preserved.

Reconstructed elements should not usually constitute the majority of a place or structure.

21. Adaptation

The conservation of a place of cultural heritage value is usually facilitated by the place serving a useful purpose. Proposals for adaptation of a place may arise from maintaining its continuing use, or from a proposed change of use.

ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 Page 7

93 Alterations and additions may be acceptable where they are necessary for a compatible use of the place. Any change should be the minimum necessary, should be substantially reversible, and should have little or no adverse effect on the cultural heritage value of the place.

Any alterations or additions should be compatible with the original form and fabric of the place, and should avoid inappropriate or incompatible contrasts of form, scale, mass, colour, and material. Adaptation should not dominate or substantially obscure the original form and fabric, and should not adversely affect the setting of a place of cultural heritage value. New work should complement the original form and fabric.

22. Non-intervention

In some circumstances, assessment of the cultural heritage value of a place may show that it is not desirable to undertake any conservation intervention at that time. This approach may be appropriate where undisturbed constancy of intangible values, such as the spiritual associations of a sacred place, may be more important than its physical attributes.

23. Interpretation

Interpretation actively enhances public understanding of all aspects of places of cultural heritage value and their conservation. Relevant cultural protocols are integral to that understanding, and should be identified and observed.

Where appropriate, interpretation should assist the understanding of tangible and intangible values of a place which may not be readily perceived, such as the sequence of construction and change, and the meanings and associations of the place for connected people.

Any interpretation should respect the cultural heritage value of a place. Interpretation methods should be appropriate to the place. Physical interventions for interpretation purposes should not detract from the experience of the place, and should not have an adverse effect on its tangible or intangible values.

24. Risk mitigation

Places of cultural heritage value may be vulnerable to natural disasters such as flood, storm, or earthquake; or to humanly induced threats and risks such as those arising from earthworks, subdivision and development, buildings works, or wilful damage or neglect. In order to safeguard cultural heritage value, planning for risk mitigation and emergency management is necessary.

Potential risks to any place of cultural heritage value should be assessed. Where appropriate, a risk mitigation plan, an emergency plan, and/or a protection plan should be prepared, and implemented as far as possible, with reference to a conservation plan.

ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 Page 8

94 Definitions

For the purposes of this charter:

Adaptation means the process(es) of modifying a place for a compatible use while retaining its cultural heritage value. Adaptation processes include alteration and addition.

Authenticity means the credibility or truthfulness of the surviving evidence and knowledge of the cultural heritage value of a place. Relevant evidence includes form and design, substance and fabric, technology and craftsmanship, location and surroundings, context and setting, use and function, traditions, spiritual essence, and sense of place, and includes tangible and intangible values. Assessment of authenticity is based on identification and analysis of relevant evidence and knowledge, and respect for its cultural context.

Compatible use means a use which is consistent with the cultural heritage value of a place, and which has little or no adverse impact on its authenticity and integrity.

Connected people means any groups, organisations, or individuals having a sense of association with or responsibility for a place of cultural heritage value.

Conservation means all the processes of understanding and caring for a place so as to safeguard its cultural heritage value. Conservation is based on respect for the existing fabric, associations, meanings, and use of the place. It requires a cautious approach of doing as much work as necessary but as little as possible, and retaining authenticity and integrity, to ensure that the place and its values are passed on to future generations.

Conservation plan means an objective report which documents the history, fabric, and cultural heritage value of a place, assesses its cultural heritage significance, describes the condition of the place, outlines conservation policies for managing the place, and makes recommendations for the conservation of the place.

Contents means moveable objects, collections, chattels, documents, works of art, and ephemera that are not fixed or fitted to a place, and which have been assessed as being integral to its cultural heritage value.

Cultural heritage significance means the cultural heritage value of a place relative to other similar or comparable places, recognising the particular cultural context of the place.

Cultural heritage value/s means possessing aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, commemorative, functional, historical, landscape, monumental, scientific, social, spiritual, symbolic, technological, traditional, or other tangible or intangible values, associated with human activity.

Cultural landscapes means an area possessing cultural heritage value arising from the relationships between people and the environment. Cultural landscapes may have been designed, such as gardens, or may have evolved from human settlement and land use over time, resulting in a diversity of distinctive landscapes in different areas. Associative cultural landscapes, such as sacred mountains, may lack tangible cultural elements but may have strong intangible cultural or spiritual associations.

Documentation means collecting, recording, keeping, and managing information about a place and its cultural heritage value, including information about its history, fabric, and meaning; information about decisions taken; and information about physical changes and interventions made to the place.

ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 Page 9

95 Fabric means all the physical material of a place, including subsurface material, structures, and interior and exterior surfaces including the patina of age; and including fixtures and fittings, and gardens and plantings.

Hapu means a section of a large tribe of the tangata whenua.

Intangible value means the abstract cultural heritage value of the meanings or associations of a place, including commemorative, historical, social, spiritual, symbolic, or traditional values.

Integrity means the wholeness or intactness of a place, including its meaning and sense of place, and all the tangible and intangible attributes and elements necessary to express its cultural heritage value.

Intervention means any activity that causes disturbance of or alteration to a place or its fabric. Intervention includes archaeological excavation, invasive investigation of built structures, and any intervention for conservation purposes.

Iwi means a tribe of the tangata whenua.

Kaitiakitanga means the duty of customary trusteeship, stewardship, guardianship, and protection of land, resources, or taonga.

Maintenance means regular and on-going protective care of a place to prevent deterioration and to retain its cultural heritage value.

Matauranga means traditional or cultural knowledge of the tangata whenua.

Non-intervention means to choose not to undertake any activity that causes disturbance of or alteration to a place or its fabric.

Place means any land having cultural heritage value in New Zealand, including areas; cultural landscapes; buildings, structures, and monuments; groups of buildings, structures, or monuments; gardens and plantings; archaeological sites and features; traditional sites; sacred places; townscapes and streetscapes; and settlements. Place may also include land covered by water, and any body of water. Place includes the setting of any such place.

Preservation means to maintain a place with as little change as possible.

Reassembly means to put existing but disarticulated parts of a structure back together.

Reconstruction means to build again as closely as possible to a documented earlier form, using new materials.

Recording means the process of capturing information and creating an archival record of the fabric and setting of a place, including its configuration, condition, use, and change over time.

Reinstatement means to put material components of a place, including the products of reassembly, back in position.

Repair means to make good decayed or damaged fabric using identical, closely similar, or otherwise appropriate material.

Restoration means to return a place to a known earlier form, by reassembly and reinstatement, and/or by removal of elements that detract from its cultural heritage value.

Setting means the area around and/or adjacent to a place of cultural heritage value that is integral to its function, meaning, and relationships. Setting includes the structures, outbuildings, features, gardens, curtilage, airspace, and accessways forming the spatial context of the place or used

ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 Page 10

96 in association with the place. Setting also includes cultural landscapes, townscapes, and streetscapes; perspectives, views, and viewshafts to and from a place; and relationships with other places which contribute to the cultural heritage value of the place. Setting may extend beyond the area defined by legal title, and may include a buffer zone necessary for the long- term protection of the cultural heritage value of the place.

Stabilisation means the arrest or slowing of the processes of decay.

Structure means any building, standing remains, equipment, device, or other facility made by people and which is fixed to the land.

Tangata whenua means generally the original indigenous inhabitants of the land; and means specifically the people exercising kaitiakitanga over particular land, resources, or taonga.

Tangible value means the physically observable cultural heritage value of a place, including archaeological, architectural, landscape, monumental, scientific, or technological values.

Taonga means anything highly prized for its cultural, economic, historical, spiritual, or traditional value, including land and natural and cultural resources.

Tino rangatiratanga means the exercise of full chieftainship, authority, and responsibility.

Use means the functions of a place, and the activities and practices that may occur at the place. The functions, activities, and practices may in themselves be of cultural heritage value.

Whanau means an extended family which is part of a hapu or iwi.

ISBN 978-0-473-17116-2 (PDF)

English language text first published 1993 Bilingual text first published 1995

Revised text Copyright © 2010 ICOMOS New Zealand (Inc.) / Te Mana O Nga Pouwhenua O Te Ao – The New Zealand National Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any other means without the prior permission of the copyright holder.

This revised text replaces the 1993 and 1995 versions and should be referenced as the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value (ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010).

This revision incorporates changes in conservation philosophy and best practice since 1993 and is the only version of the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter approved by ICOMOS New Zealand (Inc.) for use.

Copies of this charter may be obtained from ICOMOS NZ (Inc.) P O Box 90 851 Victoria Street West, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.

Disclaimer: ICOMOS New Zealand encourages the wide use of its Charter in conservation plans, heritage studies and other documents relating to the conservation of places of cultural heritage value. However, inclusion of this Charter does not constitute an endorsement by ICOMOS New Zealand of the report in which the Charter appears or the work carried out.

ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 Page 11

97 APPENDIX II

1 Measured Drawings (1972?) These Ministry of Works drawings are understood to have been prepared when the house was in Onehunga and being considered for re-location to Mangungu. Prints are held by Heritage New Zealand, National Office.

Ground Floor Plan.

98 Attic and Part Roof Plan

99 2 Measured Drawings 2013 Prepared by Russell Murray from measurements taken by the author, May 2009. MD 01 Site / Location Plan MD 02 Ground Floor Plan MD 03 First Floor Plan MD 04 Roof Plan MD 05 Cross Section A-A MD 06 North Elevation MD 07 West Elevation MD 08 South Elevation MD 09 East Elevation Topographical Survey, Thomson Survey, 25 August 2014

100