HISTORIC HERITAGE ASSESSMENT HISTORIC HERITAGE ASSESSMENT Sensitivity: General

Home , Hutt Valley, Ngauranga, Petone, Rimutaka Incline, Western Hutt

TR13 HISTORIC HERITAGE ASSESSMENT HISTORIC HERITAGE ASSESSMENT Sensitivity: General

Quality Assurance Prepared by Mary O’Keeffe, Heritage Solutions

Revision History:

Revision Author Approved for Issue

Name Signature Date

Final M O’Keeffe Mary O’Keeffe 21 September 2020

Quality Information Document Title: Ngā Ūranga ki Pito-One Shared Path Project: Historic Heritage Assessment Version: Final Date: 21 September 2020 Prepared by: Mary O’Keeffe Reviewed by: Approved by: File Name: N2P historic heritage assessment - final Disclaimer

This report does not constitute an assessment of Māori values, either for COVID-19 Recovery Act purposes or as required by HNZPT’s application form for an authority to modify or destroy an archaeological site

Sensitivity: General

Contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 2 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 2.1 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ...... 4 2.2 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ...... 2 2.3 CONTEXT AND DATA ...... 5 2.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT ...... 8 3 THE PROJECT – CONTEXT AND DESIGN ...... 8 3.1 CONTEXT ...... 8 3.2 THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES...... 9 3.3 PROPOSED WORK ...... 9 4 HISTORIC HERITAGE (INCLUDING ARCHAEOLOGICAL) RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA ..... 10 4.1 RECORDED HISTORY OF THE AREA ...... 10 3.1.1 Pre-European Māori occupation ...... 11 3.1.2 Contact period Māori and European occupation ...... 13 3.1.3 Earthquake ...... 14 3.1.4 Industrial, commercial and residential development ...... 15 3.1.5 Coastal reclamation and maritime sites...... 35 4.2 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDING ...... 44 4.2.1 Archaeological sites...... 44 4.2.2 Historic sites ...... 48 4.2.3 Statutory/regulatory lists...... 49 5 ASSESSMENT ...... 51 5.1 SITE VISIT AND REVIEW OF THE PROJECT PLANS ...... 51 5.2 EFFECTS ON KNOWN AND POTENTIAL SITES ...... 51 5.3 ASSESSMENT OF VALUES ...... 54 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 54 APPENDIX 1 ...... 56 SOURCES ...... 57

Sensitivity: General

Figures Figure 1: Project sectors...... 4 Figure 2: Hutt Valley Sites ...... 12 Figure 3: Petone pa, Samuel Brees ...... 13 Figure 4: Settler’s hut, Pito-One beach ...... 14 Figure 5: Wellington – Pito-One Railway, showing section of Hutt Road and Kaiwarra [Kaiwharawhara] Station and platform 1911...... 15 Figure 6: Hutt Road, ca 1875 ...... 16 Figure 7: Coastline by Wellington Harbour with Hutt Road and railway line, ca 1881-1887 ...... 17 Figure 8: Thorndon end of Hutt Road, Wellington, ca 1884 ...... 17 Figure 9: Sale advertisement for Pito-One, 1879 ...... 18 Figure 10: Detail from Cadastral map of the Pito-one Town Board, 1886 ...... 19 Figure 11: Pito-One Railway Station and workshops, 1899 ...... 20 Figure 12: Pito-One station, ca 1900s ...... 20 Figure 13: Pito-One station and surroundings, c1906 -1915? ...... 21 Figure 14: Part 4 of a 4 panorama of Pito-One taken in 1909 by Sydney Charles Smith, 1909 ...... 21 Figure 15: SO 11808, 1882 ...... 23 Figure 16: Detail of SO14160, 1897 ...... 23 Figure 17: Detail of SO 14160, 1897 ...... 24 Figure 18: Detail of SO 14563, 1900 ...... 25 Figure 19: Cadastral map of the Pito-one Town Board, 1886 ...... 25 Figure 20: Detail of 1886 Pito-One plan ...... 26 Figure 21: Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company, Cornish Street, Pito-One (date not given) ...... 27 Figure 22: Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company mill at Pito-One, c. 1920 ...... 27 Figure 23: Hutt Road, 1848...... 28 Figure 24: “Road to the Hutt between Noranga and Petoni (sic)”, 1848 ...... 29 Figure 25: “Petoni (sic) Road”, 1852 ...... 30 Figure 26: “Ngahranga” (sic) on the Hutt Road, 1870s ...... 31 Figure 27: Hutt Road, c.1884 ...... 32 Figure 28: Hutt Road and Hutt Valley Railway Line, ca 1881-1887 ...... 33 Figure 29: Kaiwharawhara, the Kaiwarra Wool Stores building, and the Hutt Road, Wellington, circa 1900.. 34 Figure 30: Construction of Pito-One overbridge, photographed circa 7 Sep 1951 by an Evening Post staff photographer ...... 35 Figure 31: Pito-One foreshore area, 1899...... 36 Figure 32: Detail from Figure 31...... 36 Figure 33: Pito-One foreshore area, 1902...... 37 Figure 34: Detail from Figure 33...... 37

Sensitivity: General

Figure 35: Pito-One foreshore area, 1911...... 38 Figure 36: Detail from Figure 35...... 38 Figure 37: Pito-One foreshore, 1881 ...... 39 Figure 38: SO 14160, 1897 ...... 40 Figure 39: SO 24491, 1959 ...... 41 Figure 40 Detail of Figure 38 (L) and Figure 39 (R) ...... 42 Figure 41: SO 14160 ...... 43 Figure 42: Recorded sites in the vicinity of proposed pathway ...... 45 Figure 43: Wellington sites...... 46 Figure 44: Pito-One sites ...... 46 Table 1: Details of sites in vicinity of the Project ...... 47 Figure 45: Remnant of marble wall in front of Woollen Mills site, SH2 ...... 49 Figure 46: Items listed in Hutt City District Plan...... 50 Figure 47: The Northern Construction Yard at Honiana Te Puni Reserve...... 53

Sensitivity: General

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mary O’Keeffe, of Heritage Solutions (referred to in this report as “the archaeologist”) was engaged by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) to provide advice and report on the effects of the Ngā Ūranga ki Pito-One Project (Project)1 in relation to historic heritage (including archaeology). This report has been prepared in support of the notices of requirement and applications for resource consent for the Project made by Waka Kotahi under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 (COVID-19 Recovery Act). In particular, this report supports the assessment of the Project's effects on the environment as required by the COVID-19 Recovery Act. The requirements of the COVID-19 Recovery Act and an overall assessment of the effects of the Project on the environment are set out in the Assessment of Effects on the Environment. This report has also been prepared to support the Waka Kotahi’s application to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) for an archaeological authority under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA). Historic heritage as defined by the RMA includes archaeological sites. Historic heritage therefore includes archaeological sites, but also includes other heritage resources such as post-1900 buildings, structures and features. To assess the potential historic heritage resources affected by the Project (including archaeological resources), a number of sources were consulted, including key historical texts, historical survey plans and historical photos. Particular attention was paid to the timing and extent of reclamation along the coastal bench, upon which parts of the Project will be constructed. In addition, ArchSite (the online database of recorded archaeological sites managed by the New Zealand Archaeological Association), the Heritage List, and Hutt City and Wellington City District Plans were consulted for information about known and recorded heritage and archaeological sites within or in the vicinity of the Project area. A site visit was also undertaken. In conclusion, it is considered that the Project is very unlikely to adversely affect heritage sites and features. No known historical structures or features are affected by the Project work. In terms of archaeology, the most likely location for intact occupation sites is on the Pito-One foreshore, which was reclaimed sometime after the very late 1890s. The most likely kind of archaeological site that may be adversely affected is an unrecorded midden or oven along the foreshore. While these sites are not unusual, sampling of middens can give information about what people were eating, and what period of time they were occupying the area. Analysis of the species present can also indicate aspects of the subsistence economy. In addition, it is possible that Project works may uncover information about previous reclamations undertaken in the area, which may have archaeological value. To ensure that the archaeological resources of the Project area are properly managed, it is recommended that the Waka Kotahi apply for a general archaeological authority for the full extent of the Project works. A set of recommended conditions for the archaeological authority are provided in Appendix 1 and include the requirement for archaeological monitoring and an accidental discovery protocol. In addition, the designation conditions and resource consent applications for land use within Honiana Te Puni Reserve include a requirement for an accidental discovery protocol to be prepared for any area of Project works that is not covered by an archaeological authority. If these measures are adopted, it is considered that the archaeological resources potentially affected by the Project will be appropriately managed.

1 This report uses the preferred Te Reo spelling of “Ngā Ūranga” and “Pito-One” even where the official name may instead use “Ngauranga” or “Petone”.

Sensitivity: General

2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Background and purpose of this report

Mary O’Keeffe, of Heritage Solutions (referred to in this report as “the archaeologist”) was engaged by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) to provide advice and report on the effects of the Ngā Ūranga ki Pito-One Project (Project)2 in relation to historic heritage (including archaeology). This report addresses the relevant considerations under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), in particular section 6(f), and the relevant considerations under Part 3 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA) (in relation to the granting of archaeological authorities). The Project involves the construction of a shared path from the Ngā Ūranga Interchange to just south of the Pito-One Railway Station in the north and associated works as shown in Figure 1. The Project forms part of Te Ara Tupua Programme, which is a wider programme of works that will deliver a package of walking and cycling link upgrades between Wellington CBD and Melling. The Project will cater for active transport modes including cycling and walking, and will provide an alternative to the existing State Highway 2 (SH2) cycle path (existing cycle path) located between the Hutt Valley Railway Line and the southbound SH2 carriageway. Works at Honiana Te Puni Reserve provide for the removal and replacement of the existing Wellington Rowing Association and Wellington Water Ski Club facilities at, and adjacent to, Honiana Te Puni Reserve and the introduction of new cultural facilities into the Reserve. The primary objective of the Project is to provide safe walking and cycling infrastructure between Wellington and the Hutt Valley which will act as a catalyst for increased use of active transport modes. The Project will also provide increased transport resilience, improve connections and integration with planned and existing walking and cycling infrastructure in Wellington City and Hutt City, and reconnect people with this long-inaccessible part of the harbour’s edge. The Project will provide a 4.5km-long shared path between Ngā Ūranga and Pito-One featuring the following key elements: a) A rail overbridge (shared path bridge) across the Hutt Valley Railway Line, connecting the shared path from Ngā Ūranga to the coastal edge; b) A path with a 5m surface width on existing and newly created land and coastal structures, on the seaward side of the Hutt Valley Railway Line (shared path); c) A varied coastal edge which incorporates ūranga (landings), a rocky revetment and the intermittent use of strategically placed seawalls along the shared path edge. The coastal edge treatment provides resilence, reflects the natural landscape, avoids sensitive habitat areas, provides for cultural expression and enhances amenity; d) Construction of new offshore habitat for coastal avifauna; e) Connections to the Pito-One to Melling (P2M) path and The Esplanade; f) Construction of a new integrated clubs building at the eastern end of Honiana Te Puni Reserve and an associated car parking area; and g) A two-stage development of new cultural facilities at Honiana Te Puni Reserve, including:

2 This report uses the preferred Te Reo spelling of “Ngā Ūranga” and “Pito-One” even where the official name may instead use “Ngauranga” or “Petone”.

Sensitivity: General

i. Construction of three temporary Tāwharau Pods, consisting of three small building pods designed to accommodate a range of cultural or community uses, at the eastern end of Honiana Te Puni Reserve; and ii. Post-construction, and subject to further consideration and planning by the Reserve owners, Taranaki Whānui, the construction of the Whare to the west of Korokoro Stream, and permanent relocation of the Tāwharau Pods to a site adjacent to the shared path at the western end of the Reserve.

For description and assessment purposes in this report, the Project has been divided into three sectors (as shown in Figure 1 below). These are: Sector 1 Ngā Ūranga Interchange and Bridge Crossing: The Southern Construction Yard and the connection from the Ngā Ūranga Interchange via the shared path bridge across the Hutt Valley Railway Line, to the coastal edge. Sector 2 Ngā Ūranga to Honiana Te Puni Reserve - Path and Ūranga: The typical shared path, rock revetment, ūranga, seawall structures and offshore habitats between Ngā Ūranga and Honiana Te Puni Reserve; and Sector 3 Honiana Te Puni Reserve and Pito-One to Melling (P2M) Connection: Shared path connection to P2M adjacent to Honiana Te Puni Reserve, connections to Honiana Te Puni Reserve and The Esplanade, the Northern Construction Yard, integrated clubs building, associated car parking, the temporary and permanent Tāwharau Pods and the Whare.

Sensitivity: General

Figure 1: Project sectors.

A full description of the Project including design and operation is provided in Chapter 3 Description of the Project in the Assessment of Effects on the Environment (AEE). A description of the potential construction methodology that could be used to construct the Project is provided in Chapter 4 Construction of the Project of the AEE.

2.2 Qualifications and Experience

I am a consultant archaeologist, and have run my own consultancy (Heritage Solutions) for the last twenty-four years. I have also worked as an archaeologist or heritage professional with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga and the Department of Conservation. I hold a Bachelor of Arts and a Post-Graduate Diploma in Anthropology from Otago University, and a Master of Literature in Anthropology from the University of Auckland.

I am a current member, current deputy chair, and past chair of ICOMOS New Zealand (International Council of Monuments and Sites), a member of the New Zealand Archaeological Association (NZAA), a member of the Australasian Society of Historic Archaeologists, a member and previous New Zealand Councillor for the Australasian Institute of Maritime Archaeology, and I am the NZAA representative on the Royal Society’s Social Science Committee.

Sensitivity: General

I have undertaken archaeological assessments on numerous urban and rural developments in Wellington and the Kapiti Coast, including large infrastructure projects and smaller developments. Current and recent projects include the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway, the Peka Peka to Otaki Expressway, Transmission Gully, the construction of the Wellington Regional Hospital, the refurbishment of Government House, Meridian’s West Wind windfarm, a development for the Salvation Army in Newtown, Wellington, the Telecom Building site in inner Wellington, the development of Site 10 (PWC building) on the Wellington waterfront, the proposed Hilton Hotel on Wellington’s Queen’s Wharf, and work at the Wellington railways yards in areas of reclamation.

I have given evidence as an expert witness in the Environment Court in respect of the MacKay to Peka Peka Expressway, Transmission Gully, Wellington Inner City Bypass, Kapiti Coast’s Western Link Road, Meridian’s Project West Wind windfarm, Kumutoto Site 10, and the proposed Hilton Hotel on Wellington’s Queen’s Wharf.

I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. This assessment has been prepared in compliance with that Code. In particular, unless I state otherwise, this assessment is within my area of expertise and I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I express.

2.3 Context and Data

This report assesses all historic heritage in the Project area. This includes archaeological sites and built heritage, including standing structures and remains of such structures.

Historic heritage under the RMA and HNZPTA Historic heritage is addressed by the RMA. Section 6(f) of the RMA requires the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development to be recognised and provided for as a matter of national importance. “Historic heritage” is defined in the RMA as those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures, deriving from archaeological, architectural, cultural, historic, scientific and/or technological qualities.3 Natural and physical resources are, by implication, tangible. The RMA definition of “historic heritage” specifically includes

(i) historic sites, structures, places, and areas; and

(ii) archaeological sites; and

(iii) sites of significance to Māori, including wāhi tapu; and

(iv) surroundings associated with the natural and physical resources

The stated purpose of the HNZPTA is “to promote the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand”.4 Historical and cultural heritage are not defined in the HNZPTA.

3 Resource Management Act 1991, section 2. 4 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, section 3.

Sensitivity: General

The New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero (Heritage List) gives an indication, however, of the broad scope of the HNZPTA. The Heritage List includes a variety of historic heritage places. The stated purposes of the Heritage List are:5

(a) to inform members of the public about historic places, historic areas, wāhi tūpuna, wāhi tapu, and wāhi tapu areas: (b) to notify the owners of historic places, historic areas, wāhi tūpuna, wāhi tapu, and wāhi tapu areas, as needed, for the purposes of this Act: (c) to be a source of information about historic places, historic areas, wāhi tūpuna, wāhi tapu, and wāhi tapu areas for the purposes of the RMA. The various types of places that may be entered on the Heritage List are also defined:6 “historic place”— (a) means any of the following that forms a part of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand and that lies within the territorial limits of New Zealand: (i) land, including an archaeological site or part of an archaeological site: (ii) a building or structure (or part of a building or structure): (iii) any combination of land, buildings, structures, or associated buildings or structures (or parts of buildings, structures, or associated buildings or structures); and (b) includes anything that is in or fixed to land described in paragraph (a) This definition refers to “archaeological site”, which is also a defined term under HNZPTA, as explained below. “historic area” means an area of land that— (a) contains an inter-related group of historic places; and (b) forms part of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand; and (c) lies within the territorial limits of New Zealand “wāhi tapu” means a place sacred to Māori in the traditional, spiritual, religious, ritual, or mythological sense “wāhi tapu area” means land that contains 1 or more wāhi tapu “wāhi tupuna” means a place important to Māori for its ancestral significance and associated cultural and traditional values, and a reference to wāhi tūpuna includes a reference, as the context requires, to— (a) wāhi tīpuna: (b) wāhi tupuna: (c) wāhi tipuna

5 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, section 65(3). 6 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, section 6.

6 Sensitivity: General

Archaeological sites

Whilst the HNZPTA does not specifically define historic heritage, it does define an “archaeological site” as:7 (a) any place in New Zealand, including any building or structure (or part of a building or structure), that— (i) was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900 or is the site of the wreck of any vessel where the wreck occurred before 1900; and (ii) provides or may provide, through investigation by archaeological methods, evidence relating to the history of New Zealand; and (b) includes a site for which a declaration is made under section 43(1) of the Act which provides a process for a place associated with human activity in or after 1900 to be declared to be an archaeological site.

The key point here is that the standard definition of archaeological site in the HNZPTA includes places associated with human activity occurring before 1900. All archaeological sites in New Zealand that conform to the definition from the HNZPTA cited above have legal protection under Part 3 of the HNZPTA, whether or not they are recorded, or their existence is known. Under Part 3 of the HNZPTA, an archaeological authority must be obtained from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) to modify or destroy an archaeological site. Known archaeological sites in New Zealand are recorded by the New Zealand Archaeological Association (NZAA) on the NZAA database (known as ArchSite). An archaeological site will be included on ArchSite simply by virtue of its existence; ArchSite is a non-statutory database of recorded archaeological sites and excludes any scoring or ranking of sites. The ArchSite record for a site will include grid references to indicate the site’s location, but does not demarcate a site’s full extent. In addition, some sites included in ArchSite may no longer exist, as they may have been destroyed since they were first recorded. Archaeological sites are, by implication, physical and tangible; they can be observed and measured. Sites can be examined by archaeological methodology, that is, by applying a variety of scientific techniques to examine, analyse and rationalise the data. Equally, archaeological sites only have a sense of meaning if they are examined in the context of a cultural landscape, that is, when they are viewed and understood in the wider context of the physical environment in which they lie, in relation to the other sites and site types that may surround them, and in relation to the cultural context of the use and occupation of that land. Archaeology can never definitively indicate “what happened” on a site or a landscape; instead, data and information is gathered, and a hypothesis is proposed to explain the possible relationships between data, known information and possible interpretations. Archaeological sites may be of Māori origin and therefore of significance to Māori. There may also be other sites of spiritual or traditional significance to Māori and which may have no physical or tangible remains, and therefore do not fall within the legal definition or scope of an archaeological site. It is up to iwi to determine the significance and values of such places. This report focuses solely on historic heritage and archaeological values within the Project area, and does not attempt in any way to comment on the Māori values of these sites. This is not meant to detract from or undermine the value of these places of significance to Māori; rather, it is an acknowledgement that it is inappropriate for an archaeologist to comment on matters of significance to mana whenua.

7 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, section 6.

7 Sensitivity: General

Data for this report was sourced from ArchSite, HNZPTA, Wellington City District Plan, Hutt City District Plan, Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) and Land Information New Zealand.

2.4 Scope and limitations of this report

This report presents a heritage and archaeological assessment of the Project area, but it is only that. The land and wider vicinity may also be of significance to iwi through tradition or association; this report does not constitute an assessment of Māori values, either for COVID-19 Recovery Act purposes or as required by the HNZPT’s application form for an authority to modify or destroy an archaeological site. A Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) has been separately prepared for the project by Raukura Consultants. This CIA sits beside, but separate to, the historic heritage assessment; even though the two reports may consider the same sites and places, they are addressing different values.

3 THE PROJECT – CONTEXT AND DESIGN

3.1 Context

The Wellington to Hutt Valley transport corridor is a key strategic transport corridor for the Wellington region. It provides vital links for users of the road network, including SH1 and SH2, the rail network (Hutt Valley Railway Line) as well as for cyclists and pedestrians. Te Ara Tupua Programme (previously known as Wellington to Hutt Valley Link) is a proposed upgrade of the existing cycle path infrastructure between Thorndon Quay in Wellington City and Melling in Hutt City. The Project covers the upgrade of a critical mid-section portion of Te Ara Tupua between Ngā Ūranga, in Wellington City, and the Pito-One foreshore, in the Hutt Valley. Once completed, the Project will link, at its northern end, with the P2M section of Te Ara Tupua, which is currently under construction. To its south, the Project will link with Te Ara Tupua’s southern section, between Ngā Ūranga and Thorndon Quay. The Project will also complete a key missing cyclist and pedestrian link in the Great Harbour Way pathway, linking Eastbourne, Pito- One, Ngā Ūranga, Wellington CBD and Miramar. The existing cycle path is not considered by Waka Kotahi and its project partners to meet the accessibility, safety, amenity or resilience requirements needed to support a modern, robust, viable and genuine transport alternative between Ngā Ūranga and Pito-One for cyclists and pedestrians. The Project, as part of Te Ara Tupua, is intended to provide a safe, resilient, appropriately designed and attractive transport alternative for commuters and residents wishing to cycle, walk or use other active or micro transportation modes, including e-mobility options, between the Hutt Valley and Wellington City. The Project has been identified in the Wellington Regional Land Transport Plan as a Priority 1 Project since 2015 and was reaffirmed as a Priority 1 Project in 2018. The Project is also consistent with and will assist with giving effect to the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (2018).

8 Sensitivity: General

3.2 The Project Objectives

Waka Kotahi’s objectives for the Project are: 1. To provide safe walking and cycling infrastructure connecting Ngā Ūranga and Pito-One, that is a catalyst for increased walking and cycling between Wellington and the Hutt Valley; and 2. In providing a walking and cycling connection, enhance the resilience of the transport corridor between Ngā Ūranga and Pito-One. The design approach to the Project took into consideration a range of elements. Elements that were considered during design development included: • The site and its surrounding environment; • Engineering considerations; • Cultural values; and • Measures to incorporate mitigation elements into the design itself.

Detail on the scope, nature, technical specifications and construction methodology of the Project can be found in Chapter 4 of the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE).

3.3 Proposed work

The Project seeks to develop, consent and construct a new 5m wide shared path between the Ngā Ūranga Interchange and the Pito-One foreshore (shared path). The shared path will be substantively located on the east or seaward side of the Hutt Valley Railway Line, linking at its southern end into the Ngā Ūranga Interchange by way of a rail overbridge (the shared path bridge). The shared path will complete the Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One section of Te Ara Tupua. The Project’s Construction Methodology report sets out all the methodologies for all aspects of construction of the Project. Only some of these methodologies are relevant to potential adverse effects on archaeological and historic sites within the Project area:

Establishment phase construction yards Two construction yards will be established at either end of the shared path. The construction yard at the south of the bridge site will be approximately 7000 m2 in size (Southern Construction Yard). The other construction yard will be near the Wellington Rowing Association and Wellington Water Ski Club and of a similar size (Northern Construction Yard). Both constructions yards will have temporary offices and other above ground temporary structures, aggregate material storage area, laydown areas for other materials storage, staff parking, plant parking and servicing. Existing areas of grass which are to be established over, will first be covered with a protective geotextile before a 150 – 200mm layer of metal is placed and compacted. Trees, flowers and shrubs will be avoided wherever possible.

Sensitivity: General

Creation of the two construction yards are likely to have minimal adverse effects on potential archaeology, as there is minimal surface modification.

Disestablishment phase construction yards Surfaces in the two construction yards will be modified on completion of construction; all temporary buildings, rubbish and surplus material will be removed from the construction yards. All grassed areas will have the metal and geotextile removed, additional topsoil placed (if necessary) and re-grassed. Any invasive surface treatment that may take place at the Northern Construction Yard, such as scraping for reseeding, has the potential to adversely affect archaeological sites that may be present immediately beneath the current ground surface.

Location of construction yards The construction yards will be at locations where there is adequate space. The Southern Construction Yard will be near the shared path bridge and the Northern Construction Yard will be at the carparks adjacent to the Wellington Water Ski Club and Wellington Rowing Association. Any invasive surface treatment that may take place at the Northern Construction Yard, such as scraping for placing of base material, has the potential to adversely affect archaeological sites that may be present immediately beneath the current ground surface. Turning areas for trucks and articulated dump trucks should not take place on grassed areas in the Northern Construction Yard, to avoid potential adverse effects on archaeological sites that may be present immediately beneath the current ground surface.

Rehabilitation Any invasive surface treatment of any parts of the Project area in the Northern Construction Yard, including grassed areas, has the potential to adversely affect archaeological sites that may be present immediately beneath the current ground surface. Such rehabilitation may include paving, planting, or reseeding.

4 HISTORIC HERITAGE (INCLUDING ARCHAEOLOGICAL) RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA

4.1 Recorded history of the area

The shared path is located along the edge of the narrow coastal escarpment that runs between Wellington City and the Hutt Valley. The potential historic heritage, assessed as part of this report, is focussed on two geographic areas – occupation in Wellington, and occupation in the Hutt Valley, as the Project is in a location that links

Sensitivity: General

both these areas. In addition, the historic heritage falls into several themes, which are covered in turn in the text below: • pre-European Māori occupation; • contact period Māori and European occupation; • earthquake; and • industrial, residential and commercial development. Information for this assessment has been gathered from a variety of sources. The key historical texts for Wellington were consulted (see bibliography), and relevant historical survey plans held at Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) were studied. Survey plans can be rich in archaeological or historical detail, as the surveyors of the time often noted many extant features, including settlements, buildings and other landscape sites and features.

3.1.1 Pre-European Māori occupation Māori have lived in the Hutt Valley for several hundred years, which is attested to by the presence of archaeological sites, places of cultural significance and named places through the Hutt Valley. The valley itself contained rich resources such as bush and birds, and the river was a navigable access route. Maps contained in Adkin8 show Māori settlements on the beach and up the Hutt Valley, as well as named places. Of note are pā and kāinga near the beach: Wai-whetu pā and Hikoikoi pā, and Paetutu kāinga near the mouth of the Hutt River, and Te Tatau o te po pā, Pito One pa and Te Puni urupā at the west end of the beach near the ridge.

The original name “Pito - One” means “the end of the sand beach”.9 This is an appropriate name as the area prior to the uplift of the 1855 earthquake would have been at sea level approximately. The commonly used name “Petone” is a corruption of “Pito One”. Adkin records several sites on the western side of the Pito-One foreshore, near the Project area, seen in Figure 2.

8 Adkin, 1959 9 Adkin, 1959:66

Sensitivity: General

Figure 2: Hutt Valley Sites Adkin 1959: 126

Adkin’s number 2 in Figure 2 is a pā named Te Tatau o Te Po, and his number 3 is Pito-One pā and Te Puni urupā (sites are circled in red in Figure 2). Samuel Brees sketched Pito-One pā sometime between 1842 and 1847.

12 Sensitivity: General

Figure 3: Petone pa, Samuel Brees Alexander Turnbull Library PUBL-0020-20-1

Adjacent to the western side of the Pito-One foreshore is the Te Korokoro o Te Mana stream (now known as Korokoro Stream). Adkin notes that Te Korokoro o Te Mana means the throat, or food supply, of Mana. The Ngāti Mutunga chief Te Poki likened the stream to the throat of his child, indicating the rich food supplies the stream would provide. Te Mana refers to a significant person in Te Poki’s whanau.10

The area of what is now Pito-One would have been rich in food resources, with birds and eels in the swamps on the lower winding parts of the Hutt River, and fish in the harbour. Although there are no recorded or listed sites of Māori origin in the Project area the presence of pā in the vicinity, documentary evidence of kāinga, and the presence of Te Puni urupā attests to continued occupation of this resource-rich and desirable area.

3.1.2 Contact period Māori and European occupation The New Zealand Company’s first ship, the Tory, arrived in Wellington Harbour in 1839, and was welcomed by the chief of Pito-One pa, Honiana Te Puni Kokupu (known as Te Puni) and Te Wharepouri. The Company’s first settlement was to be located at what is now known as Petone (a transliteration of Pito-One), and plans for a settlement named Britannia, drawn up in England, show a grid-like street structure with a river running through. Māori from the nearby pā assisted the settlers to build their homes on Pito-One Beach. These settlers established New Zealand's first bank and newspaper.

10 Adkin, 1959: 32

Sensitivity: General

Swainson sketched a settler’s hut sometime between 1841 and 1848, as seen in Figure 4. The view looks east towards the eastern hills of Hutt Valley. The palisade of Pito-One Pā is beyond the house.

Figure 4: Settler’s hut, Pito-One beach Alexander Turnbull Library A-023-013

Subsequent settlers formed two distinct settlements. One, inland from the beach, began the town of Britannia which peaked at 1,000 inhabitants. Within months of settlement, the Hutt River flooded the fledging settlement of Britannia, and the main New Zealand Company settlement moved across the harbour to become what is now Wellington. Settlers remaining in the Pito-One area moved to a higher shingle bank located at today’s William Street, known as Cornish Row. The structures at Cornish Row were destroyed by fire in late 1840.

3.1.3 Earthquake On 23 January 1855 the Wellington region was rocked by a magnitude 8.2 earthquake – the most powerful ever recorded in New Zealand.11

The uplift created a new fringe of beach and rock platforms along the Wellington coast. Many wharves and jetties in Wellington Harbour became unusable, but there were also beneficial effects. Blocks of Wellington City’s central business district now occupy land that was below sea level before 1855. The newly exposed strip of shoreline between Wellington and the Hutt Valley also offered a safe road and railway route, whereas parts of the previous coastal route had previously been impassable at high tide. The uplift of the region helped drain the swampy lower reaches of the Hutt Valley creating land there for settlement and development.

11 https://teara.govt.nz/en/historic-earthquakes/page-3.

Sensitivity: General

A dramatic change also occurred with building material – wooden buildings quickly replaced brick, which failed in the earthquake.12

3.1.4 Industrial, commercial and residential development

Railway Hutt Valley Railway Line The creation of the coastal shelf between Wellington and the Hutt Valley facilitated development of a railway line. The first railway line in Wellington was built in 1874, running from Wellington along the harbour shoreline to Pito-One and Lower Hutt. The line was continued to Upper Hutt and over the Remutaka ranges to Wairarapa in 1878.13 The need for a rail link to the rich farming region of the Wairarapa had been recognised by the early 1870s, with the wealthy Wairarapa property owners applying some political pressure, and the route to Featherston had been decided by 1874. The section of railway from Wellington to Kaitoke opened on 1 January 1878.

Figure 5: Wellington – Pito-One Railway, showing section of Hutt Road and Kaiwarra [Kaiwharawhara] Station and platform 1911 National Archives: Archway R25274257

12 A previous earthquake in 1848 damaged many brick buildings and structures. Most were rebuilt in wood which was observed to have performed better. Subsequently the death toll and damage in the 1855 earthquake was not as substantial as it otherwise might have been. 13 Churchman, 1988.

Sensitivity: General

The Wairarapa railway line was constructed for largely commercial purposes to enable Wairarapa farmers access to markets and transport in Wellington. Similarly, Wellington based landowners of properties in the Manawatū considered the economic benefits of easier access to their properties. The Government’s Minister of Public Works estimates for 1878 provided 15,000 pounds to construct a railway through the northern part of Wellington and up the lower west coast. Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the coastal edge developing as a transport route after the earthquake:

Figure 6: Hutt Road, ca 1875 Alexander Turnbull Library PAColl-1574-16

Sensitivity: General

Figure 7: Coastline by Wellington Harbour with Hutt Road and railway line, ca 1881-1887 Alexander Turnbull Library 1/1-025722-G

Figure 8: Thorndon end of Hutt Road, Wellington, ca 1884 Alexander Turnbull Library 1/2-140333-G

Sensitivity: General

In 1874 the creation of the Hutt Valley Railway Line increased Pito-One’s accessibility, and triggered a property boom. Large industries providing employment began, such as the Railway Workshops in 1876; the Gear Meat Company, established by butcher James Gear in 1882; and the Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company mill built in 1885. The township of Pito-One expanded with greater accessibility, and property was put up for sale.

Figure 9: Sale advertisement for Pito-One, 1879 Alexander Turnbull Library 832.4796gbbd

The station and its environs are shown in an historic plan dating to 1886 (Figure 10). The large parcel of land intended for Public Works Department use immediately south-west of the station is noted. Interestingly, the correct name for Petone (Pito-One) is used to name the railway station.

Sensitivity: General

Figure 10: Detail from Cadastral map of the Pito-one Town Board, 1886 Alexander Turnbull Library MapColl-832.4796gbbd/1886/Acc.9419

Over the years, three railway stations have been established at Pito-One:

• In June 1875 a flag station was opened near the Korokoro Stream, just north of the present station. It was named Koro-Koro as was the locality at the time. • In about 1879 a replacement station was established near the present site. The old station building was later removed and sited on the corner of Korokoro and Hutt Roads where it served as a Police lock-up for many years. It was demolished in 1964. • On 27 July 1905 a new station was opened by Sir Joseph Ward. The building was designed by George Troup, a New Zealand Architect noted for his design of railway stations.14

The latter two stations and their surroundings can be seen in historical photographs:

14 Troup’s best-known station is the ornate Dunedin Railway Station.

Sensitivity: General

Figure 11: Pito-One Railway Station and workshops, 1899 Alexander Turnbull Library APG-0001-1/2-G

Figure 12: Pito-One station, ca 1900s (Must be post 1905 as the current railway station is present) Alexander Turnbull Library 1/2-137228-F

Sensitivity: General

Figure 13: Pito-One station and surroundings, c1906 -1915? Alexander Turnbull Library APG-0166-1/2-G

Figure 14: Part 4 of a 4 panorama of Pito-One taken in 1909 by Sydney Charles Smith, 1909 Alexander Turnbull Library 1/1-019760-G

Sensitivity: General

Of note in Figure 13 and Figure 14 is the siding west of the railway station, and the “island” of houses and buildings contained between the two rail lines.

Hutt Park Railway Line The Hutt Park Railway Line was a small local line built in 1884. The 3.2 kilometre line was built to serve the Hutt Park Raceway horse racing track. The branch line left the main Hutt Valley Railway Line just past the Korokoro Stream. There was a flag station at this junction called Beach. The line ran along the Pito-One foreshore and terminated at Hutt Park, where there was a railway platform. The Hutt Park Railway Line also had a branch line for the Gear Meat Company that ran out to the end of the Pito-One Wharf. Trains ran whenever there was a race meeting, approximately four times a year for one or two days, from Te Aro Station at the end of the Te Aro Extension.15

A new racing track was built in 1906 near Trentham Railway Station and the Hutt Park Railway Line was no longer needed. The part of the line from Victoria Street to the Hutt River was lifted, while the remaining part continued to be used by the Gear Meat Preserving and Freezing Company as an industrial siding. The Gear Meat Company closed down in 1982 and the last remnants of the Hutt Park Railway Line were lifted.16

The western end of the Hutt Park Railway Line where it leaves the main Hutt Valley Railway Line can be seen in plans dating to 1882, 1897, and 1900. The 1882 plan (Figure 15) is notable as the line was not built until 1884 – this is clearly a plan showing intended works.

15 The site of the Te Aro Station was investigated by an archaeologist in 2009: refer McFadgen, 2009 16 Churchman and Hurst, 2001

Sensitivity: General

Figure 15: SO 11808, 1882 Main Hutt Valley Railway Line and Hutt Park Railway Line shown as black dotted line

Figure 16: Detail of SO14160, 1897 Showing Hutt Park Railway Line as it leaves the main Hutt Valley Railway Line

Sensitivity: General

Figure 17: Detail of SO 14160, 1897 Hutt Park Railway Line shown running along the Pito-One foreshore in the road corridor

Sensitivity: General

Figure 18: Detail of SO 14563, 1900 Hutt Park Railway Line shown running along the Pito-One foreshore in the road corridor

The line is also shown in a plan dating to 1886 (Figure 19).

Figure 19: Cadastral map of the Pito-one Town Board, 1886 Alexander Turnbull Library MapColl-832.4796gbbd/1886/Acc.9419

Sensitivity: General

Detail of this plan is seen in Figure 20, which shows the Hutt Park Railway Line as a black line running along the Pito-One foreshore. The Gear Meat Company loop and line out to the Pito-One wharf is also shown.

Figure 20: Detail of 1886 Pito-One plan

Commercial and industrial Figure 14 shows the development in the Pito-One area around the station in the first decade of the 20th Century. In the late 19th and early 20th Century, the lower part of the Hutt Valley became known for its concentrated industrial base, providing services to all of New Zealand. The Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company mill operated from the late 1880s, and was located at the end of Cornish Street, beside the Korokoro Stream. The mill was built on the site of the Britannia flour mill, and was extended several times before being closed in the early 1970s. The original buildings on site featured a distinctive “sawtooth” roof line; nothing of this original building remains. However, a remnant of the original mill site is seen in the marble-faced wall along the edge of Cornish Street fronting onto State Highway 2, built in 1920, and recorded as archaeological site R27/589.17

The Korokoro Stream was dammed immediately upstream from the mill for use by the mill. Butterworth notes, “The main attraction of the site providing both the copious water needed for scouring and dyeing and steam to power the machinery.”18

Figure 21 and Figure 22 show the Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company mill building. Figure 22 shows the Korokoro Stream valley extending to the west up the narrow valley behind the mill; there is also reclamation of the harbour edge east of the mill site.

17 O’Keeffe, 2005:1. 18 Butterworth, 1988: 110.

Sensitivity: General

Figure 21: Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company, Cornish Street, Pito-One (date not given) Alexander Turnbull Library APG-0198-1/2-G

Figure 22: Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company mill at Pito-One, c. 1920 Alexander Turnbull Library 1/4-018188

Sensitivity: General

Water supply for the growing settlement of Pito-One was becoming an issue by the late 1890s. The Korokoro Stream was identified in reports at the time as a possible source, but these reports noted it was “already used” by the Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company mill. As a result of a dispute between the local council and the Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company, over rights to the Stream, a dam for water supply purposes was planned much further up the Stream.19 Construction of the dam commenced in April 1903; it was the first concrete gravity dam built in New Zealand.20

Road A road from Wellington to the Hutt Valley was being discussed in the 1840s, soon after Europeans arrived and established the settlement of Wellington. A reference to the progress of the Hutt Road was made in a newspaper article in November 1843, noting the road, “…is now passable with any kind of carriage for several miles.”21 Work continued on the road for several years, with tenders periodically being called for provisions of metal and other road building supplies. William Swainson painted several images of the area in the late 1840s.

Figure 23: Hutt Road, 1848. William Swainson Alexander Turnbull Library A-190-018

19 Butterworth, 1988:132 20 Offer, 1997: 25 21 New Zealand Gazette and Wellington Spectator, 1 November 1843

Sensitivity: General

Figure 24: “Road to the Hutt between Noranga and Petoni (sic)”, 1848 William Swainson Alexander Turnbull Library: A-190-024

Sensitivity: General

By 1852 Swainson’s pictures are showing a more well-formed road.

Figure 25: “Petoni (sic) Road”, 1852 William Swainson Alexander Turnbull Library: A-034-005

A significant opportunity was provided by the 1855 earthquake, where coastal uplift provided a large natural shelf upon which a wider road (and eventually the Hutt Valley Railway Line) could be constructed. However, the road continued to be vulnerable to its exposed location; a newspaper account of December 1857 reported several slips after a large gale.22

22 Wellington Independent: 5 December 1857

Sensitivity: General

The post-earthquake wide coastal shelf, and the opportunities for a wider road and building, can be seen in the photograph below taken in 1870.

Figure 26: “Ngahranga” (sic) on the Hutt Road, 1870s Photographed by James Bragge Alexander Turnbull Library: PAColl-1574-16

Sensitivity: General

The same area is seen in 1884 in the photo below. The Hutt Valley Railway Line has been formed and further reclamation appears to be taking place, as indicated by the groyne in the water.

Figure 27: Hutt Road, c.1884 Photographed by William Williams Alexander Turnbull Library: 1/2-140333-G

Sensitivity: General

A second photo taken in the area by Williams sometime between 1881 and 1887 and shown in Figure 28.

Figure 28: Hutt Road and Hutt Valley Railway Line, ca 1881-1887 Photographed by William Williams Alexander Turnbull Library: 1/1-025722-G

Sensitivity: General

By 1900 the Hutt Road and Hutt Valley Railway Line were well formed and lit.

Figure 29: Kaiwharawhara, the Kaiwarra Wool Stores building, and the Hutt Road, Wellington, circa 1900 Photographed by David James Aldersley Alexander Turnbull Library: PAColl-2197-03

The contrast in the width of the Hutt Road is seen over the decades. The coastal uplift of the 1855 earthquake is well documented as having provided a coastal shelf which was utilised for transport. However, the width of this coastal shelf was extended over decades by reclamation, as can be seen by comparing the road width and form in Figure 26 and Figure 29.

Sensitivity: General

The Pito-One overbridge was constructed in 1951. Figure 30 shows the construction of this and of particular note is the amount of new fill that had been brought in to create a larger work area.

Figure 30: Construction of Pito-One overbridge, photographed circa 7 Sep 1951 by an Evening Post staff photographer Alexander Turnbull Library 114/348/02-G

3.1.5 Coastal reclamation and maritime sites An important theme for potential archaeology is the reclamation that has taken place at Pito-One. As reclamation is a human activity, reclamation that predates 1900AD is considered to be archaeology. Reclamations can often yield significant information on construction methodology, materials and technology of the time. Figure 31 to Figure 36 show the area south-east of the Pito-One Railway Station in 1899, 1902, and 1911. The area was gradually being built up, and empty sections were being infilled.

Sensitivity: General

Figure 31: Pito-One foreshore area, 1899 Alexander Turnbull Library APG-0078-1/2-G

Figure 32: Detail from Figure 31

Sensitivity: General

Figure 33: Pito-One foreshore area, 1902 Alexander Turnbull Library APG-0058-1/2-G

Figure 34: Detail from Figure 33

Sensitivity: General

Figure 35: Pito-One foreshore area, 1911 Alexander Turnbull Library APG-0199-1/2-G

Figure 36: Detail from Figure 35

Sensitivity: General

However, what is of significance is the changing beach area. Figure 37 shows the foreshore area in 1881. The strip of beach between the Hutt Valley Railway Line and the water is much narrower than today.

Figure 37: Pito-One foreshore, 1881 Alexander Turnbull Library, 1/1-025585-G

Sensitivity: General

Survey plan SO 14160, (Figure 38) dated to 1897, shows the Pito-One foreshore.

Figure 38: SO 14160, 1897 Quickmap

Sensitivity: General

Figure 39 shows the same area in 1959.

Figure 39: SO 24491, 1959 Quickmap

Sensitivity: General

Figure 40 compares the area of the mouth of the Korokoro Stream from the two plans. The extent of reclamation can be seen.

Figure 40 Detail of Figure 38 (L) and Figure 39 (R)

When Figure 38 is georeferenced over a contemporary aerial photograph, the extent of reclamation is clear, as shown in Figure 41:

Sensitivity: General

Figure 41: SO 14160 Georeferenced by Beca

Sensitivity: General

Figure 41 clearly shows that most of the waterfront area seaward of the Hutt Valley Railway Line has been reclaimed since 1897. Documentary and traditional evidence confirms the importance of the harbour and harbour edge for transport and obtaining resources. However, it is unlikely that there are many (if any) physical sites associated with these human activities of travelling and food gathering, for several reasons, including: • The earthquake would have changed the nature and location of the harbour edge. Uplift would have moved the harbour edge; the original pre-earthquake edge will now be inundated by subsequent construction in the Project area. This original edge, which might have contained middens and other sites associated with Māori food gathering, will now be under the road and Hutt Valley Railway Line. • The harbour edge from Ngā Ūranga to Pito-One was widened from the 1850s by reclamation for the Hutt Valley Railway Line. The natural coastal shelf created by the earthquake uplift was expanded by the addition of rock and soil to provide a stable and useable platform extending into the water. This work will have covered and obliterated any sites of this type that may have been present. The harbour edge along the Pito-One foreshore was extended by reclamation as noted above in Figure 41. This reclamation work will have covered and obliterated any sites of this type that may have been present.

There are no known or recorded maritime sites, such as shipwrecks along the coastal edge of the Project area.

4.2 Historic and archaeological recording

Sporadic historic and archaeological recording has taken place in the Project area. Most recording has been either historic or ethnographic such as Adkin, or for archaeological assessments for other proposed development work.

4.2.1 Archaeological sites

Figure 42 shows the recorded archaeological sites in the vicinity of the Project. These sites are sourced from ArchSite; the online database of recorded archaeological sites managed by the New Zealand Archaeological Association.23

23 ArchSite is a database, in that it does not apply any ranking, categorisation or other relative valuing of sites. It also includes places that post-date 1900AD.

Sensitivity: General

Figure 42: Recorded sites in the vicinity of proposed pathway ArchSite (Green stars in this plan show sites that have been formally added to ArchSite, red stars represent newly added sites that have yet to be formally added to ArchSite. This is no reflection of the quality of data or credibility of the site).

The recorded sites fall into two geographic areas: the coastal edge immediately north of Wellington CBD, and the Pito-One foreshore. Detailed maps of each area are shown in Figure 43 and Figure 44. Table 1 provides details in respect of the sites closest to the Project footprint.

Sensitivity: General

Figure 43: Wellington sites ArchSite

Figure 44: Pito-One sites ArchSite

Sensitivity: General

Table 1: Details of sites in vicinity of the Project

ArchSite Site type Date recorded number

Wellington sites

R27/163 Fort Kelburne. Built in 1886, demolished 1963.

R27/280 Horse trough, located on the western site of Hutt Road between the 2009 Hutt Road/Onslow Road intersection and Bridge 3 of the Main Trunk Line.

R27/632 Midden beside bus stop at 202 Hutt Road near Rangiora Road, 2018 Kaiwharawhara.

Pito-One sites

R27/268 Pito One pā Sourced from Adkin

R27/589 Site of the Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company Mill, and Historic plans earlier Britannia Flour Mill., The Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company mill operated from the late 1880s, and was located at the end of Cornish Street, beside the Korokoro Stream. The mill was extended several times, and closed in the early 1970s. The original buildings on site featured a distinctive “sawtooth” roof line; nothing of this original building remains.

R27/590 Originally the site of a two-story wooden hotel building built in the Historic plans 1870s. The hotel was originally called Valentine's Hotel, and was later named the Marine Retreat, and then the Grand National Hotel. The building is no longer present on the site.

R27/608 Urupā. Site extent includes the area as shown in 19th Century Historic plans survey plans. No physical evidence noted at this time but "old Māori Uru Pah" noted in this location on a number of historic survey plans. The Pito-One area is associated with Taranaki Whānui ki te Upoko o te Ika and in particular Te Ati Awa. The age of this particular urupā is not clear but it possibly predates early 19th Century Pito- One occupations such as Pito-one Pā. It is not noted by Adkin in his map of Hutt Valley Māori sites. This area was extensively used by the Gear Meat Company from the late 1880s. It has subsequently been used for 20th Century construction and car park formation. Condition or extent of any surviving burials is unknown.

R27/642 Historic drain. 2018

R27/643 Historic drain. 2018

R27/651 A house occupied this location in the late nineteenth century. It is 2018 visible in Edgar William's photograph of the Pito-One foreshore

Sensitivity: General

(which on the basis of its inclusion of the Gear Company railway and wharf, post-dates 1883, and pre-dates 1901).

None of these sites will be adversely affected by the Project. There are no recorded sites within the Project area.

4.2.2 Historic sites

In addition to the sites listed above, there are several historic sites in the vicinity of the Project area. Some of these sites are not included in ArchSite, and post-date 1900AD.24

ANZAC Memorial Flagpole The Heritage List for this Flagpole states: Located at the railway station in Petone is the kauri and Australian hardwood memorial flagpole dedicated to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC). The ANZAC Memorial Flagpole was constructed in 1916 in time for the inaugural ANZAC Day commemorations, and was devised as part of a trans-Tasman collegial venture between employees at the Petone and Hornsby railway workshops in honour of their World War One ANZAC workmates who had fought in the Gallipoli campaign.25

Pito-One Railway Station This building and its history have been described above. The building on site contains a substantial amount of original fabric and was built in 1905.

Site of the Pito-One Woollen Mills As noted above, the Wellington Woollen Manufacturing Company mill operated from the late 1880s, and was located at the end of Cornish Street, beside the Korokoro Stream. A remnant of the original mill site is seen in the marble-faced wall along the edge of Cornish Street fronting onto State Highway 2, which was built in 192026 and shown in Figure 45. The wall is recorded as archaeological site R27/589.

24 It is important to note that ArchSite includes built items and items that post-date 1900AD. However, the archaeological authority process under the HNZPTA only applies to places that fulfil the statutory definition of archaeological sites contained in the HNZPTA. Hence this assessment differentiates “archaeological” as predating 1900AD, and “historic” as postdating 1900AD. 25 Heritage List entry 9438, accessed 4 May 2020 26 O’Keeffe, 2005:1

Sensitivity: General

Figure 45: Remnant of marble wall in front of Woollen Mills site, SH2 Google maps

4.2.3 Statutory/regulatory lists

There are several statutory or regulatory lists of historic heritage places: the Heritage List; Hutt City Council (HCC) District Plan and Wellington City Council (WCC) District Plan.

Heritage List The Heritage List includes the following item of significance close to the Project area. It does not include any items within or close to the Project area that will be directly adversely affected by the work.

List number Location Item

9438 Hutt Rd, Petone Anzac Memorial Flagpole

Hutt City HCC’s District Plan contains the following items of significance close to the Project area. It does not list any items within or close to the proposed area of work that will be directly adversely affected by the work:

Plan Location Item Extant? number

14. Te Puni Street Te Puni Pā No

15. Te Puni Street The urupā (burial ground) of the Te Puni Yes family

Sensitivity: General

16. The Esplanade Pito-One Pa. A former stockaded village. No

17. The Esplanade Urupā (burial ground) No

A5 Western Hutt Marble wall at the Woollen Mill site Yes Road/Cornish St corner

Figure 46: Items listed in Hutt City District Plan Circled in red

Wellington City Wellington City’s District Plan contains the following items of significance close to the Project area. It does not list any items within or close to the proposed area of work that will be directly adversely affected by the work:

Plan Location Item Extant? number

M35 Foreshore at base of Kaiwharawhara Kainga No Kaiwharawhara Road

M48 Adjacent to Hutt Road Te Ana Puta cave Unknown (west side)

M49 Adjacent to Hutt Road Paroro-rangi Kainga No (west side)

M50 Foreshore at base of Ngā Ngā Ūranga No Ūranga Gorge

These items are contained in the list of Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua. Their primary significance is cultural; there may not be any archaeological evidence of these places.

Sensitivity: General

5 ASSESSMENT

5.1 Site visit and review of the Project plans

The archaeologist made a site visit on 8 August 2019, accompanied by Max Pocock of Beca. The site was viewed from the train between Wellington and Pito-One. At Pito-One the northern end of the Project was viewed on foot, to look at the extent of the area and potential effects of construction. Particular attention was paid to the waterfront area in the vicinity of the Wellington Rowing Association club sheds. Fragments of broken shell were observed in the grassed area of the foreshore; it could not be determined if this shell was fragmented midden or natural beach shell disturbed by gulls or erosion. The surface of the beach front was undulating suggesting this could be naturally formed beach ridges or more recent artificial landscaping. However, as noted above, historic plans and photos show that in the late 1800s the beach area between the shoreline and the Hutt Valley Railway Line was much narrower than the present day. Therefore, this area has been enlarged by reclamation sometime after 1897, based on survey plans.

5.2 Effects on known and potential sites

There are no known archaeological or historic sites within the Project area. Potential effects are as follows:

Coastal bench and Hutt Valley Railway Line: As noted, the coastal bench has been created from reclaimed material. This reclamation took place over several episodes from 1855 onward. As the reclamation pre-dates 1900AD the reclamation shelf could be considered an archaeological site as it is man-made. However, investigation of the reclaimed shelf is not likely to yield any specific new information: physical evidence of the reclamation process, early roads or other activities will have been inundated by subsequent development and addition of material. As the material will be very mixed it would not be possible to differentiate each reclamation event. The Hutt Valley Railway Line dates from the 1870s. However, the bench beneath the Hutt Valley Railway Line will have been substantially modified since then, with further reclamation to widen the area for multiple tracks, and relaying of base material and ballast. There is very low possibility of intact original material. The Southern Construction Yard area is immediately north of the location of the historic Kaiwharawhara station, shown in Figure 6 above. The Yard will not adversely impact on any archaeological remains of the station that may still be present. There is no built heritage within the area of proposed work along the Hutt Valley Railway Line.

Wider Pito-One area: Historical evidence confirms built heritage in Pito-One from the 1800s, and archaeological evidence in the wider area confirms occupation well before this.

Sensitivity: General

There is a higher possibility of unrecorded archaeological fabric and sites associated with earlier settlement on the foreshore area, where the proposed Northern Construction Yard and laydown area is to be located (this is discussed in more detail below in the discussion of methodology for the Honiana Te Puni Reserve). There is no built heritage at Pito-One within the proposed area of work.

Honiana Te Puni Reserve: The Project involves a two-stage redevelopment of Honiana Te Puni Reserve. The stages are depicted in the Honiana Te Puni Reserve Masterplan. The two-stage redevelopment of Honiana Te Puni Reserve will involve:  Stage 1 – Construction and enabling works: The temporary repurposing of the western side of the Reserve as the Northern Construction Yard for the Project. To enable the establishment of the Northern Construction Yard, the existing Wellington Rowing Association and Wellington Water Ski Club activities will be relocated to a new integrated club building on the eastern side of the Reserve (integrated clubs building). Three temporary Tāwharau Pods for cultural and community use will also be constructed on the eastern side of the Reserve.  Stage 2 – Restoration and Identity: The disestablishment of the Northern Construction Yard and (subject to further consideration and reserve management planning by the Reserve owners) the restoration and reinstatement of the Reserve, including the construction of the Whare and permanent relocation of the three Tāwharau Pods on the western side of the Reserve.

The site types most likely to be present in the area of the Reserve on the foreshore are middens and ovens associated with people living or camping temporarily on the foreshore or possibly processing food after fishing trips. However, any archaeological sites present will postdate 1897, as reclamation of this area postdates that time. There are no dating techniques with sufficient refinement to be able to determine whether such sites pre- or post-date 1900AD. A precautionary approach is considered justified and prudent, and it will be assumed that any archaeological sites revealed by construction earthworks fulfil the definition of “archaeological site” under the HNZPTA. There is very low probability of unrecorded koiwi tangata being encountered during work, as there are two known urupā in the Pito-One area but outside the Project area. Burials outside these known urupā are unlikely. However, this possibility should be planned for, through the requirement for a koiwi protocol which is provided for in the proposed designation conditions and archaeological authority conditions. Specific activities for the redevelopment of Honiana Te Puni Reserve that could potentially adversely affect archaeological sites include: Eastern side of Honiana Te Puni Reserve:  Construction of a new integrated clubs building;  Reconfiguration and upgrade of the existing carpark;  Construction of the temporary Tāwharau Pods featuring the architectural pods and the new Honiana Te Puni Reserve Sculpture;  Reconfiguration of existing cycling path; Western side of Honiana Te Puni Reserve:

Sensitivity: General

 Formation and disestablishment of Northern Construction Yard.

These activities involve modification of the ground surface which could adversely affect any archaeological sites that may be present just below the ground surface. The location and extent of the Northern Construction Yard at Honiana Te Puni Reserve is shown in Figure 47.

Figure 47: The Northern Construction Yard at Honiana Te Puni Reserve

If the extent of the Northern Construction Yard, as shown in Figure 47 is compared with the waterfront area seen in the georeferenced plan of Figure 41, it can be seen that the vast majority of the Northern Construction Yard is located on land reclaimed after 1897. Thus, the actual probability of construction work for the Northern Construction Yard adversely affecting archaeological sites in this area is low.

Sensitivity: General

5.3 Assessment of values

As noted, there is a very low probability of finding sites defined as “archaeological” in terms of the HNZPTA. However, a precautionary approach is considered justified and prudent, and any sites present will be assumed to pre-date 1900AD. Accordingly, the value of potential sites is assessed below:

Site Value Assessment Unrecorded Condition Unknown. Presence and precise location not known. middens and

ovens Rarity/ Middens and ovens are not rare or unique in the Wellington

Uniqueness region. Contextual Intact sites will be important sources of information on occupants Value and their subsistence economy, and their relationship with this landscape and area.

Information Intact middens will have great information potential through Potential indicating what the occupants were eating, and relative proportions of these species which can contribute information to

environment change. A radiocarbon date can contribute information on period and length of occupation. Amenity Value Low. Cultural Māori. Associations

In summary, whilst the types of sites most likely to be encountered (middens and ovens) are not unusual, analysis of these sites, especially the middens, has the potential to add to the body of knowledge of Wellington region’s archaeology.

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The proposed work to construct a shared path along the coastal edge between Ngā Ūranga and Pito- One is very unlikely to adversely affect heritage sites and features. The most likely locale for intact occupation sites is on the Pito-One foreshore which was reclaimed sometime after the very late 1890s. In terms of the Project activities, the Northern Construction Yard is the most probable area for finding intact sites. Archaeological sites and features that may be adversely affected are unrecorded middens along the Pito-One foreshore. Archaeological sites, features or artefacts associated with either the Hutt Valley Railway Line or the Hutt Park Railway Line are very unlikely to be affected by the Project works. No known historical structures are adversely affected by the proposed work. Specific Project work that has the potential to adversely affect archaeological sites that may be present immediately beneath the current ground surface is outlined in section 3.3 of this report. All potential adverse effects can be adequately managed by archaeological monitoring as part of an archaeological authority (explained further below).

Sensitivity: General

Despite the low possibility of archaeological sites being present, it is recommended that Waka Kotahi applies to HNZPT for a Project-wide archaeological authority. This authority will include a requirement for archaeological monitoring. This precautionary approach ensures that any pre-1900 sites that may be adversely affected are appropriately managed, and acknowledges the difficulty in telling whether sites that may be encountered are pre or post 1900AD. Sampling of middens can give information about what the people were eating, and what time of year they were occupying the area and for how long. Analysis of the species present in the middens can indicate aspects of the subsistence economy: were people using just local resources or were they travelling to gather other resources? A radiocarbon date would contribute information about the period of time when people were living there. All of this information would be new data and add significantly to the local story of the archaeology of Wellington. This report will be used for consideration in two statutory processes – consenting under the COVID-19 Recovery Act, and the consideration of granting of an archaeological authority in terms of the HNZPTA. The proposed designation conditions and conditions on the land use consents for the Honiana Te Puni Reserve Area include a requirement for an accidental discovery protocol to be prepared for any area of Project works that is not covered by an archaeological authority granted by HNZPT. However, as noted above, it is recommended that a general archaeological authority is obtained for the Project as a whole. Appendix 1 of this report contains the recommended conditions for the archaeological authority, which includes the requirement for archaeological monitoring. I have reviewed the proposed conditions accompanying the notice of requirements and resource consent applications. I consider the conditions will appropriately manage effects as assessed in this report. If these measures are adopted, it is considered that the archaeological resources potentially affected by the Project will be appropriately managed.

Sensitivity: General

APPENDIX 1

The following conditions for the HNZPT archaeological authority are recommended: 1. That information gathered for this report be utilised for interpretation and storytelling along the shared path. Historic themes and images from this report could be used for story boards at Ngā Ūranga. 2. That an archaeological management plan is written to set out methods and processes for archaeological recording and investigation work. 3. That an archaeologist monitors all surface clearing, earthworks or other invasive subsurface groundwork required for site modification or construction. 4. That the archaeologist be given the opportunity to examine any archaeological deposits or heritage features disturbed by the development work, and to make recommendations for further detailed examination of these deposits where appropriate. 5. That faunal analysis of samples is undertaken to gain information on subsistence preferences. Artefacts and material uncovered and recorded during site clearing work is to be lodged with an appropriate repository. Waka Kotahi will pay for the cost of any conservation required for artefacts or material. 6. Notwithstanding the low probability of finding koiwi tangata, a koiwi protocol will be included in the archaeological management plan.

Sensitivity: General

SOURCES

Datasets ArchSite Greater Wellington GIS https://mapping.gw.govt.nz/GW/GWpublicMap Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Heritage List https://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list Historic survey plans from Quickmap Hutt City Council online GIS: http://gisweb.huttcity.govt.nz https://teara.govt.nz/en/historic-earthquakes/page-3 Papers Past Alexander Turnbull Library images Wellington City Council webmap https://gis.wcc.govt.nz/LocalMaps/

Primary McFadgen, B. 2009. A Line to the Past - The Archaeology of Te Aro Branch Railway Station. Unpublished report to the NZ Historic Places Trust for Authority No. 2007/80 (Archaeological Sites R26/266 and 270). O’Keeffe, M. 2005. Notes of Greater Wellington’s Regional Parks. Unpublished report to Greater Wellington Ibid 2005. Rimutaka Incline: Archaeological assessment of installation of interpretation signs. Unpublished report to Richard Nester, Wellington Conservancy, Department of Conservation Ibid 2009. Wellington Railway Yards: Archaeological assessment of proposed redevelopment of site. Unpublished report to Peter Gibson, Ontrack, Wellington Ibid 2012. Jackson St & Tory St, Petone: Archaeological assessment of proposed redevelopment of additional site. Unpublished Report to James Beban, Cuttriss Consultants Ltd Ibid 2017. Korokoro dam: Archaeological assessment. Unpublished Report to Wellington Water Ltd

Published Adkin, G L. 1959. The Great Harbour of Tara. Whitcombe and Tombs Ltd. Butterworth, S. 1988. Petone A History. Petone Borough Council. Churchman, G B. 1988. The Story of the Wellington to Johnsonville Railway. Industrial Publishing Ltd, Wellington. Churchman, G B; and T Hurst. 2001. The Railways of New Zealand: A Journey through History (2nd ed.). Transpress New Zealand Hoy, D.G. 1970. Rails out of the Capital. New Zealand Railway and Locomotive Society. Offer, R E. 1997. Walls for Water. Pioneer dam building in New Zealand. Dunmore Press, Palmerton North.