HERITAGE BUILDINGS and PLACES RECOVERY PROGRAMME for GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Ko Te Hōtaka Haumanu E Aro Ana Ki Ngā Whare Me Ngā Wāhi Tuku Iho

HERITAGE BUILDINGS AND PLACES RECOVERY PROGRAMME FOR GREATER CHRISTCHURCH Ko te Hōtaka Haumanu e aro ana ki Ngā Whare me Ngā Wāhi Tuku Iho

Christchurch Arts Centre. Conservation work under way. Source: Ross Becker

November 2014

D-0565885 Heritage Recovery Programme

Contents He Rārangi upoko

Introduction He Kupu Whakataki...... 3 Executive summary He Whakarāpopototanga ...... 4 Section One: What does the Heritage Recovery Programme deliver? He aha ngā hua o te Hōtaka Haumanu? ...... 6 Section Two: What has been happening? He aha ngā pūrongo? ...... 9 Section Three: Heritage recovery projects Ngā Kaupapa Hōtaka Haumanu ...... 16 Project 1: Retaining heritage buildings and places ...... 18 Project 2: Determining the best methods of strengthening heritage buildings ...... 21 Project 3: Reusing heritage fabric retrieved from heritage and character buildings ...... 22 Project 4: Ensuring that district plan regulation assists recovery ...... 24 Project 5: Identifying and restoring sites of significance to Ngāi Tahu ...... 26 Project 6: Retrieving archaeological information and artefacts ...... 28 Project 7: Conserving artefacts recovered from archaeological sites ...... 30 Project 8: Keeping memory and awareness alive ...... 32

Appendices He Āpitihanga Appendix One: The partner agencies...... 35 Appendix Two: The history and heritage of greater Christchurch ...... 38 Appendix Three: The Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Buildings Fund ...... 44 Appendix Four: Statutory documents ...... 46 Appendix Five: ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 ..……………………………………….………….…………..…….49

Heritage Recovery Programme

Introduction He Kupu Whakataki

Greater Christchurch may forever be associated with the impact of the earthquakes in the minds of New Zealanders but they are not what defines the region. The post-quake spirit of recovery is a powerful force rebuilding lives and communities, and the infrastructure which supports them.

Heritage buildings have long been central to greater Christchurch’s sense of identity and very much a part of its distinctive character. At the height of the emergency response, heritage agencies acted swiftly to help preserve as many heritage buildings and places as possible.

There are challenges in preserving earthquake-damaged heritage buildings – in securing insurance, raising finance and rebuilding public confidence in the safety of older buildings.

In response to these challenges, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage has coordinated the development of this separate recovery programme for heritage buildings and places.

This document provides a record of the collective work over the last three years of a range of agencies with responsibilities for heritage conservation – Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council and Ngāi Tahu – and the projects which have grown out of that work.

The buildings that survive the earthquakes will become a vital link to greater Christchurch’s past. As the Christchurch rebuild progresses, the far-sightedness and expertise of our heritage agencies will truly show their value.

Lewis Holden Chief Executive Ministry for Culture and Heritage

Heritage Recovery Programme

Executive summary He Whakarāpopototanga

In greater Christchurch, heritage agencies have been working together to assess and conserve heritage buildings and places since the first earthquake in September 2010. At the same time, they have prepared this Heritage Buildings and Places Recovery Programme (‘Heritage Recovery Programme’) to record the work that has been done, the work that is under way, and future initiatives.1

The Heritage Recovery Programme sets out the major achievements to date (pages 9-15) and eight heritage recovery projects. These projects are: 1 retaining heritage buildings and places 2 determining the best methods of strengthening heritage buildings 3 reusing heritage fabric retrieved from heritage and character buildings 4 ensuring that district plan regulation assists recovery 5 identifying and restoring sites of significance to Ngāi Tahu 6 retrieving archaeological information and artefacts 7 conserving artefacts recovered from archaeological sites 8 keeping memory and awareness alive.

Scope The Heritage Recovery Programme responds to heritage issues across all of greater Christchurch: the districts of the Christchurch City Council, the Selwyn District Council and the Waimakariri District Council, and the coastal marine area adjacent to these districts. It is one of three programmes that guide the cultural recovery of greater Christchurch; the other two are:  the Arts and Culture Recovery Programme2  the Sport and Recreation Recovery Programme.

How was the Heritage Recovery Programme developed? The Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH) prepared the Heritage Recovery Programme working with: the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), Ngāi Tahu, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (Heritage New Zealand) (formerly known as the New Zealand Historic Places Trust), Christchurch City Council (CCC), Waimakariri District Council (WDC) and Selwyn District Council (SDC) (‘the partner agencies’). Appendix One provides information on the partner agencies.

The Heritage Recovery Programme is based on a scoping paper, released in June 2012, which is available on MCH’s website.3 A wide range of heritage and property groups provided input to the scoping paper. MCH sought feedback on the Heritage Recovery Programme from property owners, heritage advocacy and property management groups in December 2013 to March 2014. The

1 Previously known as the ‘Heritage Buildings and Cultural Places Recovery Programme’. Work on this Programme commenced in September 2011, following the release of the draft Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch. 2 Previously known as the ‘Arts, Culture and Heritage Collections Recovery Programme’. 3 http://www.mch.govt.nz/news-events/news/heritage-recovery-programme

Heritage Recovery Programme

Programme incorporates some changes suggested in that feedback (a summary of which is available on MCH’s website).

This final Heritage Recovery Programme incorporates feedback where possible.4

The partner agencies developed the Heritage Recovery Programme in accordance with CERA’s Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch (‘Recovery Strategy’), which is implemented under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (‘the CER Act’). It does not override the CER Act or any other statutory requirements. While the Heritage Recovery Programme is a non-binding document, it sets out the basis on which the partner agencies will seek to achieve the heritage-related cultural goals set out in the Recovery Strategy.

4 A summary of submissions with MCH’s responses are available on the MCH website.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Section One: What does the Heritage Recovery Programme deliver? He aha ngā hua o te Hōtaka Haumanu?

Introduction Accounts of Canterbury’s heritage published before the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes often concentrate upon the richness of its built heritage, particularly Christchurch’s Gothic Revival architecture. The projects contained in the Heritage Recovery Programme reflect a determination to hold on to the region’s rich built heritage by retaining and strengthening heritage buildings, reusing heritage fabric and recording and interpreting ‘lost’ heritage.

At the same time, the projects realise opportunities to better recognise and increase awareness of the depth and breadth of the region’s heritage traditions – particularly, sites associated with early Māori and European settlement. The Heritage Recovery Programme also recognises there are unparalleled opportunities to establish a distinctive city that incorporates new and old architecture in creative ways. In time, some of these new buildings may be regarded as heritage.

This programme helps recognise the value of heritage and its continuing contribution to the economic and cultural vitality of greater Christchurch.

There are significant challenges:  considerable damage has occurred  the costs of repairing and strengthening heritage buildings can be high  there are difficulties securing insurance for heritage buildings  the land beneath some heritage buildings is sub-optimal  the recovery needs to proceed as quickly as possible.

The overall aim must be to ensure that heritage recovery is an integral part of the recovery of greater Christchurch, not a roadblock to this recovery.

Objective The objective of the Heritage Recovery Programme is to achieve an appropriate balance between:  retaining heritage buildings and places as an important part of greater Christchurch’s identity  the need for wider earthquake recovery to proceed quickly and within available funding.

Decisions about heritage buildings and places need to be made on a case-by-case basis taking into account the particular challenges and opportunities.

Outcomes The following outcomes will be achieved to the extent possible within the time frames for the wider recovery and within available funding: 1 Heritage buildings and places contribute to a strong sense of identity, a quality urban environment, tourism and economic growth, supporting the recovery of greater Christchurch.

Heritage Recovery Programme

2 Heritage agencies assist property owners where a collaborative approach can help to ensure heritage buildings are made safe and restored. 3 Heritage buildings and places are adapted to new uses, where appropriate, to ensure they have an ongoing function. 4 Existing heritage and character buildings and places are retained, and where practicable, conserved in a manner that involves the least amount of physical intervention. 5 Heritage recovery recognises and celebrates Ngāi Tahu’s heritage. 6 Heritage recovery recognises and celebrates all cultural influences that have contributed to the heritage of greater Christchurch. 7 Heritage materials are retrieved safely to enable their reuse, and a sample of greater Christchurch’s archaeological heritage is recovered through excavation and retained.

What does the Heritage Recovery Programme cover? The Heritage Recovery Programme covers land-based heritage of recognised heritage value, including:  heritage buildings, that is, buildings with recognised heritage value as established through entry on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (the Act) or scheduling on a district plan  historic areas including groups of buildings entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero or scheduled on district plans  archaeological sites as defined in the Act (section 2)  heritage spaces and landscapes such as Cathedral, Victoria, Latimer and Cranmer Squares  places of cultural significance to Ngāi Tahu, including wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga areas.

The term ‘heritage building’ as used in the Heritage Recovery Programme may include structures, such as bridges and memorials.

For a brief overview of the history and heritage of greater Christchurch, see Appendix Two (page 38).

The Heritage Recovery Programme does not have statutory authority over property owners (private or public), but proposes to review whether existing regulation is appropriate (see ‘Ensuring that district plan regulation assists recovery’, page 24.) It covers heritage material that is excavated from archaeological sites; other cultural heritage objects that are held in collections are covered by the Arts and Culture Recovery Programme.

How does the Heritage Recovery Programme align with other recovery efforts? The Heritage Recovery Programme aligns with:  the Recovery Strategy  the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, implemented under the CER Act, which guides the recovery of the central city of Christchurch  the CCC, WDC, and SDC District Plans and Annual Plans  Heritage New Zealand’s Statement of Intent.

Heritage Recovery Programme

The Heritage Recovery Programme is one of three programmes that guide the cultural recovery of greater Christchurch. The other two are:  the Arts and Culture Recovery Programme  the Sport and Recreation Recovery Programme.

The following diagram sets out the relationships between these documents.

Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch: Mahere Haumanutanga o Waitaha Vision: Greater Christchurch recovers and progresses as a place to be proud of – an attractive and vibrant place to live, work, visit and invest, mō tātou, ā, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei – for us and our children after us.

Economic recovery Social recovery Cultural recovery Natural environment Built environment recovery recovery Built environment

Sport and Recreation Recovery Arts and Culture Recovery Programme Heritage Buildings and Places Recovery Programme Programme

The Recovery Strategy sets the following goals for cultural recovery:

Renew greater Christchurch’s unique identity and its vitality expressed through sport, recreation, art, history, heritage and traditions – by:  acknowledging and celebrating the rich and diverse Ngāi Tahu, colonial and other heritages and connections  resuming cultural, community and sports events and activities  encouraging participation in a range of entertainment, cultural, recreational and sporting activities  restoring historic buildings, where feasible, for the benefit of the community  acknowledging losses and creating spaces to remember, while embracing necessary changes to the city’s character and urban form. The Heritage Recovery Programme contributes to the achievement of these goals.

How will the Heritage Recovery Programme be funded? Project leaders have costed some projects, and are responsible for costing the rest and for identifying funding sources.

For private owners of heritage buildings and places, the main sources of funding are insurance cover and heritage grants available on a contestable basis from the sources set out on pages 13-15. Loans may also be an option.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Section Two: What has been happening? He aha ngā pūrongo?

What heritage survives? The future of many heritage buildings has yet to be decided. What is clear is that despite extensive losses, many heritage buildings on district plans survive, some in poor repair. At the time of writing:5  63% of the scheduled heritage buildings in Christchurch City survive (372 of 588 buildings)  52% of the scheduled heritage buildings in Christchurch’s central city6 survive (160 of 309 buildings)  89% of the scheduled heritage buildings in Banks Peninsula survive (296 of 334 buildings)  95.5% of the scheduled heritage buildings in Selwyn survive (150 of 158 buildings)  89% of the scheduled heritage buildings in Waimakariri survive (101 of 113 buildings, most of the losses being in Kaiapoi).

While central Christchurch has suffered the greatest loss, it retains nationally important heritage precincts of buildings, notably the Gothic Revival precinct centred on Rolleston Avenue/Worcester Boulevard comprising:  Christchurch Arts Centre  Canterbury Museum  many buildings in Christ’s College.

The Gothic structures in this precinct are complemented by heritage buildings in other architectural styles, such as the former Robert McDougall Art Gallery, Botanic Gardens Curator’s House, and Rolleston House.

A second heritage precinct of a very different character – the Spanish Mission style New Regent Street – survives and was reopened to the public in April 2013.

Christchurch City retains individual heritage buildings and complexes of heritage buildings of national and international importance, such as the Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings (though with significant damage, particularly to the Stone Chamber). Nationally important heritage buildings also survive in Selwyn and Waimakariri Districts, for example:  in Waimakariri District, the Chamber Gallery (Rangiora) and St Bartholomew’s Church (Kaiapoi)  in Selwyn District, Ivey Hall, Lincoln University and Homebush Station’s Mound Cottage and woolshed (the homestead was lost in the September 2010 earthquake).

5 These figures are provided by relevant councils and are based on the heritage buildings scheduled on district plans (ie, all buildings that, prior to the earthquakes, were subject to regulatory controls under the relevant district plans). They are correct as at 17 November 2014. For a combined list of heritage buildings on both the council lists and Heritage New Zealand list that have been demolished since the earthquakes (whether subject to protection or not), see: http://canterburyearthquakedemolist.weebly.com/. 6 Central City refers to the area within the four avenues, the worst affected area measured by the percentage of heritage buildings lost.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Precincts (historic areas) may contain buildings that are not entered individually on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero or scheduled individually on district plans.

Major achievements The following is an overview of major heritage achievements since the September 2010 earthquake. Work that has already been done on the projects in this Programme is summarised in the project outlines (pages 18-33).

Throughout greater Christchurch, buildings and places of local, regional and national heritage significance survive contributing to a distinctive regional identity.

Providing expert advice to owners of heritage buildings and places Following each major earthquake, heritage advisers and engineers working for Heritage New Zealand and CCC assessed the condition of Christchurch’s heritage buildings and provided advice to emergency authorities and owners. Their initial focus was on assessing damage and stabilising damaged structures. Efforts have since moved to advising owners on restoring and strengthening heritage buildings where feasible. Heritage New Zealand and CCC continue to provide free expert advice (see Box 1).

Box 1: Where can I get free expert advice on my heritage property?

Across greater Christchurch, Heritage New Zealand provides:  advice on conserving, making safe and repairing heritage buildings and places  advice on the archaeological authority (consent) process  information on the National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund  information on the Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Buildings Fund. Telephone +64 3 357 9629, fax +64 3 358 9628 For earthquake-related enquiries, email: [email protected] For other enquiries, email: [email protected]

Within the CCC boundaries, the Council provides:  guidance on making safe and repairing commercial and residential buildings  assistance in determining information requirements for insurance claims  advice on resource consent issues  information about the Heritage Incentive Grants Fund. Contact the team on: [email protected]

Within Waimakariri District, the Council provides advice on:  available funding assistance  earthquake-prone buildings. For advice on funding assistance, email: [email protected] For advice on earthquake-prone buildings, email: [email protected]

Heritage Recovery Programme

Box 1 cont. Within Selwyn District, the Council provides advice on:  available funding assistance  earthquake-prone buildings. For advice on funding assistance, email: [email protected] For advice on earthquake-prone buildings, email: [email protected]

Conserving buildings Public bodies are undertaking a range of conservation work. For example, CCC has stabilised the former Municipal Chambers in Oxford Terrace, and has secured and deconstructed some elements of the Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings. Heritage New Zealand has repaired Coton’s Cottage, and has plans to rebuild part of the Timeball Station, assisted by a $1.1 million donation from Landmark, a charitable organisation that aims to preserve New Zealand’s heritage places.

The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust is strengthening and restoring the 22 damaged Arts Centre buildings. Funding of over $14 million kick-started work on the Great Hall and the Clock Tower Block, comprising a private donation of $5 million, which the government matched, and $4 million from Fletcher Building. Blue Ridge Capital provided further support.

The Theatre Royal Charitable Foundation has reconstructed the Isaac Theatre Royal, the city’s last remaining theatre entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero. The work is supported by a $2.5 million grant from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust, $8.1 million from the Lotteries Commission, and $300,000 each from the Canterbury Community Trust and the Christchurch City Council Mayoral Fund. The Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Buildings Fund has also provided funds (discussed on page 13).

Many private owners of heritage property are also restoring and strengthening their buildings.

The Timeball Station, Lyttelton, with some earthquake damage. Further damage meant Heritage New Zealand had to deconstruct the remains. Heritage New Zealand plans to reconstruct the Timeball Station in part. Photo source: Ross Becker

Heritage Recovery Programme

The Christchurch Heritage Trust continues to operate. The Trust purchases and upgrades buildings. It has purchased the Excelsior Hotel property with a view to reconstructing the building (incorporating the remaining façade), and the Former Trinity Congregational Church for eventual complete restoration.

Providing heritage advice to CERA Under section 38 of the CER Act, the Chief Executive of CERA7 can carry out or commission works, including the demolition of buildings, structures or other erections on land. An exercise of this power must be in accordance with the purposes of the CER Act (see Appendix Four) and must be reasonably considered necessary. CERA’s Chief Executive has no legal obligation to consult with, or obtain the consent of, the partner agencies (or any other party) for works under section 38 relating to heritage buildings.

Where possible CERA engages with the partner agencies that provide CERA with expert heritage advice before demolition of heritage buildings (see Box 2). The final decision to demolish a heritage building lies with the Chief Executive of CERA.

Box 2: What processes are in place to make decisions on earthquake-damaged heritage buildings when CERA proposes to carry out works under section 38 of the CER Act, including demolition?

1 CERA considers whether works to a heritage building should be carried out.

2 CERA notifies Heritage New Zealand and the relevant council (CCC, SDC or WDC) when works are being considered on heritage buildings that are entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero (Category 1 or 2) or listed by CCC, Banks Peninsula, SDC or WDC.

3 Heritage New Zealand and council heritage advisers review the owner’s engineer’s report, if available, and the heritage significance of the building.

4 Heritage New Zealand and the relevant council may commission independent engineering advice, or provide in-house engineering comments.

5 Where possible, CERA provides a peer review of the owner’s engineer’s report.

6 Heritage New Zealand and the relevant council may work with CERA to pursue alternatives to demolition if the owner is willing and safety issues can be addressed.

7 The Chief Executive of CERA or their delegate makes the final decision on the proposed works.

The above decision-making process is not binding on CERA and its Chief Executive but will be followed where possible.

7 Including a delegate of the Chief Executive of CERA.

Heritage Recovery Programme

On 4 August 2011, the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery amended the CCC’s two District Plans (Christchurch City Council and Banks Peninsula), relying on powers under section 27(1)(a) of the CER Act. The amendments provide that, among other things, works carried out under section 38 are permitted activities. This means that works carried out on heritage buildings listed in the CCC District Plans do not require resource consent.

Retrieving archaeological information and artefacts Following the September 2010 earthquake, MCH and Heritage New Zealand developed emergency processes that balance the need to regulate modification of archaeological sites with the need to rebuild as quickly as possible. The result was the Canterbury Earthquake (Historic Places Act) Order 2011, which created the position of Canterbury Archaeological Officer. The Canterbury Archaeological Officer grants emergency archaeological authorities within shorter timeframes than would otherwise be possible (three to five working days rather than three months).

To date, the Canterbury Archaeological Officer has processed more than 1950 emergency authorities. Through this process, Heritage New Zealand has amassed important records of the nineteenth- century buildings that have been demolished. Archaeologists have also made significant discoveries, for example the remains of the 1850 home of John Robert Godley in Lyttelton. (Godley is often described as the founder of the Canterbury settlement.)

Ngāi Tahu Papatipu Rūnanga have provided input to all emergency authorities for Māori archaeology within their respective takiwā (areas of authority).

Providing financial assistance In 2011, MCH, Heritage New Zealand, CCC, WDC and SDC worked together to establish the Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Buildings Fund (CEHB Fund). The CEHB Fund provides financial assistance to owners of privately owned heritage buildings that have been damaged by the earthquakes.

The government matched donations to the CEHB Fund until 30 May 2014, by which time donations had virtually ceased. Partner agencies also contributed funds to the CEHB Fund. CCC has contributed approximately $1.1 million – 50 percent of its Heritage Incentive Fund – to the CEHB Fund since 2010/2011. WDC has contributed $30,000, and SDC has contributed $45,000. The government matched these donations. Heritage New Zealand ran a fundraising campaign and donated $250,000 to the CEHB Fund.

In 2013/14, MCH and the trustees undertook a review to assess whether funds could be distributed more efficiently. In response to the review’s findings, the government decided to:

 match a grant of $1.25 million from the Canterbury Earthquake Appeal Trust for restoration of the Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings (making a total contribution of $2.5 million)  provide the remaining government funding to Heritage New Zealand to distribute to privately owned heritage buildings on a contestable basis.

In May 2014 Heritage New Zealand assumed trusteeship of the CEHB Fund.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Appendix Three lists the grants the CEHB Fund has made to date. Many of the partner agencies provide other incentive funds for heritage conservation on a contestable basis. These are summarised in Box 3.

Box 3: Financial assistance for heritage buildings in greater Christchurch–potential sources

Funding for heritage buildings and places in private ownership: Heritage New Zealand’s National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund The National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund can help fund work to stabilise, repair and restore privately owned Category 1 historic places (including buildings) as well as certain land and archaeological sites. Since the earthquakes, the National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund has given over $175,000 to greater Christchurch. For information on the National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund, see: http://www.heritage.org.nz/protecting-heritage/national- heritage-preservation-incentive-fund Telephone +64 3 357 9629, fax +64 3 358 9628 For earthquake-related enquiries, email: [email protected] For other enquiries, email: [email protected]

CCC Heritage Incentive Grants Fund The CCC’s Heritage Incentive Grants Fund provides financial assistance to owners of heritage items listed in the Christchurch City Plan and Banks Peninsula District Plan. Owners of listed heritage items can apply for grants of up to 50 percent of the costs of: • conservation of exterior and interior heritage fabric, including earthquake repairs • seismic strengthening, fire and access upgrades to meet Building Code requirements • professional fees of, for example, architects, engineers and quantity surveyors • reimbursement of non-notified Council resource consent fees. CCC Central City Landmark Heritage Grant In the 2012/13 financial year, CCC made major grants for landmark heritage restoration to the Christchurch Club ($1.7 million) and the former Trinity Congregational Church ($1 million). CCC’s Three Year Plan makes provision for a further $2 million per year for landmark heritage restoration in Christchurch between 2013/14 and 2015/16.

For advice on CCC’s Heritage Incentive Grants and Central City Landmark Heritage Grants, contact the team on: [email protected]. For Incentive Fund Grants, see also: http://www.ccc.govt.nz/cityleisure/artsculture/christchurchheritage/heritagegrantsatwork/index. aspx

Selwyn Heritage Fund

The Selwyn Heritage Fund is open to residents and ratepayers of the Selwyn District. Its purpose is to encourage and assist owners to maintain and enhance the district’s heritage buildings and protected trees.

Telephone: +64 3 3472974 or +64 3 318 8338 Email: [email protected]

Heritage Recovery Programme

Box 3 cont. Funding for heritage buildings and places owned by not-for-profit groups: Lottery World War One Commemorations, Environment and Heritage makes grants to not-for- profit organisations to foster the conservation, preservation and promotion of New Zealand’s natural, physical and cultural heritage. See: http://www.communitymatters.govt.nz/Funding-and- grants---Lottery-grants---Lottery-Environment-and-Heritage#one

Incorporated societies or registered charitable trusts of community based organisations may also be eligible for Canterbury Community Trust donations. See: http://www.commtrust.org.nz/

Planning for the future Locally and nationally, planning is under way to ensure we are all better prepared for future events.

The government announced policy decisions on earthquake-prone buildings in August 2013. A Bill giving effect to these decisions, the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill, was introduced in December 2013 (see ‘Determining the best methods of strengthening’, page 21).

In 2012 the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage issued a Supplementary Order Paper (recommended amendments) to the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill, which proposed the legal framework for National Historic Landmarks/Ngā Manawhenua o Aotearoa me ōna Kōrero Tūturu. The Landmarks are to comprise the most important heritage places in New Zealand.

In 2014 the Bill was enacted with the Landmarks provisions proposed by the Supplementary Order Paper (the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014). The statutory identification of Landmarks will help to prioritise conservation efforts, including the strengthening of heritage buildings. The Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage may consider surviving heritage buildings and places in greater Christchurch as Landmarks.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Section Three: Heritage recovery projects Ngā Kaupapa hōtaka haumanu

This section sets out the eight projects that comprise the Heritage Recovery Programme: 1 retaining heritage buildings and places 2 determining the best methods of strengthening heritage buildings 3 reusing heritage fabric retrieved from heritage and character buildings 4 ensuring that district plan regulation assists recovery 5 identifying and restoring sites of significance to Ngāi Tahu 6 retrieving archaeological information and artefacts 7 conserving artefacts recovered from archaeological sites 8 keeping memory and awareness alive.

How do the projects achieve the Heritage Recovery Programme outcomes? The following table shows how the projects align with the Heritage Recovery Programme outcomes set out on pages 6-7. Outcome Projects that contribute to the outcome Outcome 1: Heritage buildings and places Project 1: Retaining heritage buildings and contribute to a strong sense of identity, a quality places (pages 18-20) urban environment, tourism and economic Project 8: Keeping memory and awareness growth, supporting the recovery of greater alive (pages 32-33) Christchurch. Outcome 2: Heritage agencies assist property Project 1: Retaining heritage buildings and owners where a collaborative approach can help places (pages 18-20) to ensure heritage buildings are made safe and restored Project 2: Determining the best methods of strengthening heritage buildings (page 21) Outcome 3: Heritage buildings and places are Project 1: Retaining heritage buildings and adapted to new uses, where appropriate, to places (pages 18-20) ensure they have an ongoing function Project 2: Determining the best methods of strengthening heritage buildings (page 21) Project 4: Ensuring that district plan regulation assists recovery (page 24-25) Outcome 4: Existing heritage and character Project 1: Retaining heritage buildings and buildings and places are retained, and where places (pages 18-20) practicable, conserved in a manner that involves the least amount of physical intervention Outcome 5: Heritage recovery recognises and Project 5: Identifying and restoring sites of celebrates Ngāi Tahu’s heritage significance to Ngāi Tahu (pages 26-27)

Heritage Recovery Programme

Outcome Projects that contribute to the outcome Outcome 6: Heritage recovery recognises and Project 1: Retaining heritage buildings and celebrates all cultural influences that have places (pages 18-20) contributed to the heritage of greater Project 8: Keeping memory and awareness Christchurch alive (pages 32-33) Outcome 7: Heritage materials are retrieved Project 3: Reusing heritage fabric retrieved safely to enable their reuse, and a sample of from heritage and character buildings (pages greater Christchurch’s archaeological heritage is 22-23) recovered through excavation and retained Project 6: Retrieving archaeological information and artefacts (pages 28-29) Project 7: Conserving artefacts recovered from archaeological sites (pages 30-31)

The key partners for each project (as identified in the following project tables) will contribute to the projects where this is feasible and they can be of assistance. The tables specify the particular actions that partner agencies have identified.

ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010 The ICOMOS New Zealand Charter provides useful guidance on best practice heritage conservation.

A copy of the Charter is attached as Appendix Five (pages 49-60). ICOMOS (the International Council on Monuments and Sites) is an international non-governmental organisation of heritage professionals.

Abbreviations in the following tables CCC: Christchurch City Council

CEHB Fund: Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Buildings Fund

CERA: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority

MCH: Ministry for Culture and Heritage

Heritage New Zealand: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga

SDC: Selwyn District Council

WDC: Waimakariri District Council

Heritage Recovery Programme

Project 1: Retaining heritage buildings and places

Project Lead agencies Key partners

Objective CERA, Heritage New Zealand, Ngāi Tahu, MCH Ensure that collaboration between CCC, SDC, WDC partner agencies encourages and enables building owners to retain heritage buildings and places, where Project outcome feasible. Heritage buildings and places are retained and adapted to new uses, where appropriate, to ensure they have an ongoing function.

Problem/Opportunity Greater Christchurch has lost much of the heritage that was one of its defining characteristics. Nonetheless, many heritage buildings and places remain. There are opportunities for partner agencies to work with property owners to help ensure that, where feasible:  owners of heritage buildings are supported and encouraged to explore retention options, including mothballing where appropriate8  heritage buildings are not subject to ‘demolition by neglect’  damaged heritage buildings are assessed according to international best practice  owners of restorable heritage buildings can repair and make their buildings safe in the short term, and can restore or redevelop buildings for long-term use and protection  owners of restorable heritage buildings can strengthen their buildings to meet the requirements of the Building Act 2004.

Early collaboration between owners, their advisers and the partner agencies helps to achieve the project outcome. Heritage New Zealand and CCC advise on options for retention under the process set out in Box 2 (page 12). The costs of strengthening and challenges in securing insurance mean some owners

choose to demolish.

What has happened The partner agencies are actively assisting building owners (see pages 10-11). Several agencies are providing financial assistance through contestable funding processes (see pages 13-15). MCH, Heritage New Zealand, CCC, WDC and SDC established the CEHB Fund (see page 13) to help repair earthquake-damaged heritage buildings. To date 34 buildings have benefited from the Fund (see Appendix Three).

The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan9 changed the heritage provisions of the CCC’s District Plan in the central city to take a more permissive approach to strengthening and altering earthquake-damaged heritage buildings to meet building codes.

8 Making safe and water-tight for an indefinite period of time while future conservation options are explored. 9 http://ccdu.govt.nz/the-plan

Heritage Recovery Programme

Some property owners are ensuring important heritage buildings are strengthened, restored and refurbished (see pages 9-11). In addition, some owners have shored up façades with a view to restoring them. One notable example is the Manchester Street façade of the former Excelsior Hotel (which the Christchurch Heritage Trust purchased for restoration).

What will happen CERA will:  maintain up-to-date data from its operations on the current and likely future status of heritage buildings and places  where possible and appropriate, provide Heritage New Zealand, CCC, SDC and WDC with sufficient and timely information on heritage buildings being considered for works under section 38 of the CER Act to enable full consideration of options for retention  maintain the process set out in Box 2 (page 12) for assessing works to heritage buildings undertaken under section 38 of the CER Act.

Heritage New Zealand will:  provide up-to-date data to CERA on the current and future status of heritage buildings and places entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero.  work with owners to explore alternatives to demolition (which may include providing owners with additional engineering advice on retaining and strengthening buildings)  advise CERA on the outcomes of investigations into building retention  advise CCC, SDC and WDC on the heritage values of buildings, and engineering advice where obtained  administer the National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund to assist building owners.

CCC will:  provide up-to-date data to CERA on the current and future status of listed heritage buildings and places  work with building owners to explore alternatives to demolition (which may include providing owners with additional engineering advice)  advise CERA on the outcomes of investigations into buildings and options for retention  administer the Council’s Heritage Incentive Fund  allocate Central City Landmark Heritage Grant funds  advise the CEHB Fund Trust on applications for grants from the CEHB Fund  provide administrative support to the CEHB Fund  process applications for resource consents for restoring heritage places and buildings.

SDC and WDC will:  provide up-to-date data to CERA on the current and future status of listed heritage buildings and places  work with owners to explore alternatives to demolition, including obtaining alternative engineering advice on retaining and strengthening buildings  process resource consents to restore heritage buildings and places.

SDC will also:  administer the Selwyn Heritage Fund to encourage the maintenance and enhancement of heritage buildings in the Selwyn District.

Heritage Recovery Programme

WDC will also administer its Landmarks Programme, which identifies and researches heritage resources within the district.

Indicative timeframe Ongoing

Heritage Recovery Programme

Project 2: Determining the best methods of strengthening heritage buildings

Project Lead agencies Key partners

Objective MCH, Heritage New Zealand, SDC, WDC, CERA Ensure that methods to strengthen CCC heritage buildings are consistent with best practice and respect heritage Project outcome values. Heritage buildings are strengthened while respecting and retaining their heritage values.

Problem/Opportunity The government has reviewed policy for strengthening buildings, including heritage buildings. The partner agencies and building owners will need to consider the implications.

What has happened The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has consulted publicly on proposed changes to earthquake-prone buildings policy. The Minister for Building and Construction announced final policy decisions in August 2013. Two of the key government decisions are:  all earthquake-prone buildings will have to be strengthened, or demolished, within 20 years of new legislation taking effect (that is, assessment by territorial authorities within five years and strengthening within 15 years of assessment)  owners of earthquake-prone category 1 buildings (entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014) and those which will be on the National Historic Landmarks List (see page 15), will be able to apply for extensions of up to ten years to the national timeframe for strengthening.10

A Bill giving effect to these decisions, the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill, was introduced in December 2013.11

What will happen MCH will:  contribute to the development of government policy and provide advice on government policy to partner agencies.

Heritage New Zealand, CCC, SDC and WDC will:  review the implications of the earthquake-prone buildings policy for heritage buildings and the retention of heritage fabric  identify appropriate policy, methods and guidance for strengthening heritage buildings consistent with approved standards.

Indicative timeframe Implementation is ongoing

10 http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/earthquake-prone-buildings-policy-announced 11 www.legislation.govt.nz

Heritage Recovery Programme

Project 3: Reusing heritage fabric retrieved from heritage and character buildings

Project Lead agencies Key partners

Objectives Heritage New Zealand, CCC, MCH, Ngāi Tahu Ensure that the demolition and SDC, WDC, CERA deconstruction of heritage buildings (including memorials, bridges and other heritage items) is carried out in Project outcome a manner that enables reconstruction Built heritage fabric is reused for the repair of or the reuse of heritage fabric. heritage buildings or, if this is not possible, in new developments and other heritage projects.

Problem/Opportunity Though there have been some successes, in many instances owners have retained little or no fabric from demolished buildings. There is an ongoing need for agencies to provide expert advice and guidance to owners on the retrieval of heritage fabric that warrants retention.

There are opportunities to:  investigate retention of elements of buildings on site as part of rebuilding  interpret archaeological materials uncovered during demolition. Storage of retrieved fabric is challenging because of the large amount of space required, limited capacity and the cost of providing more. A review of storage requirements is needed to ensure valued fabric is stored appropriately.

What is happening Some property owners have deconstructed and recorded heritage buildings (for example, the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament) so that either they can be rebuilt or parts can be reused in new buildings.

Partner agencies have saved and stored some heritage features. CCC and Heritage New Zealand have produced guidelines for the reuse of heritage material (Heritage Recovery – Guideline 6 – for the Reuse of Heritage Material).12

Heritage New Zealand recommends the appropriate approach to demolition and deconstruction of heritage buildings in greater Christchurch in its advice on applications for resource consents. Its recommendations range from careful dismantling and marking of building components to taking photographic records before demolition. Relevant councils can accept or reject Heritage New Zealand’s recommendations.

Heritage New Zealand also provides advice on fabric retrieval when the Chief Executive of CERA commissions demolition works under section 38 of the CER Act, and this advice may be reflected in demolition contracts. In cases where it is both safe and economic to retrieve material, Heritage New Zealand and CCC also provide advice on fabric retrieval to willing building owners entering into demolition contracts.

12http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/CityLeisure/artsculture/christchurchheritage/publications/HeritageGuideli ne6_web.pdf

Heritage Recovery Programme

In Christchurch City, CCC owns and stores retrieved material. CCC also maintains a database of the source of this material and its nature and composition. This is an important resource for recovery planning. CCC encourages former owners to request the return of material. In Waimakariri, WDC can impose a condition on resource consents requiring an owner to retrieve and store material for reuse. In Selwyn, SDC can consider imposing similar conditions.

What will happen Heritage New Zealand, CCC, SDC and WDC will:  continue to encourage retrieval and storage of heritage fabric to enable its reuse in new development and other initiatives  work towards making the CCC database of heritage material accessible to owners of heritage buildings. Heritage New Zealand, CCC, SDC and WDC will:  review storage facilities  identify an appropriate strategy for the ongoing storage of retrieved fabric.

Consistent with its operations and role, CERA will:  work with CCC, SDC, WDC and Heritage New Zealand to encourage owners of heritage buildings in which CERA has an interest to include the retention of heritage fabric in demolition contracts, where this is appropriate and feasible.

Indicative timeframe Ongoing

Heritage Recovery Programme

Project 4: Ensuring that district plan regulation assists recovery

Project Lead agencies Key partners

Objectives CCC, SDC, WDC CERA, Heritage Facilitate repair, reconstruction and New Zealand seismic strengthening of heritage buildings through changes to district Project outcome plans. District plans facilitate repairs, reconstruction and seismic strengthening of heritage buildings through appropriate objectives, policies and rules.

Problem/Opportunity The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan13 changed the heritage provisions of CCC’s District Plan as they relate to the central city.14 The amended provisions take a more permissive approach to strengthening and altering earthquake-damaged heritage buildings to meet the requirements of the relevant building codes.

The provisions that apply to heritage buildings outside the central city have not been changed. This means that owners of heritage buildings located outside the central city are more likely to need resource consents, leading to delays and additional costs. The CCC can refund the costs of non-notified resource consents to owners who receive a Heritage Incentive Grant from the Council. In all other cases, owners meet the costs of processing resource consent applications (notified and non-notified). A CCC Hearings Panel or Commissioner makes decisions on most applications. Costs range from $1500 to $8500; half of the applications cost between $2000 and $3000.

There is an opportunity for CCC, SDC and WDC to review their district plans to facilitate heritage recovery. This may include reviewing their schedules of heritage buildings and places.

What has happened As noted, the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan changed the heritage provisions of the CCC’s District Plan as they apply in the central city only. CCC is preparing background information to support a future district plan review (an alternative approach to a Recovery Plan that may achieve the same outcome).

What will happen CCC, SDC and WDC will:  review the heritage provisions of their district plans to ensure they facilitate heritage recovery in accordance with the Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch.

CCC will:  monitor the number of applications and the efficiency and costs of processing applications for resource consents for work on heritage buildings.

13 http://ccdu.govt.nz/the-plan 14 As defined in Appendix 1 to the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan: ‘Amendments to Christchurch City Council’s District Plan’: https://ccdu.govt.nz/sites/ccdu.govt.nz/files/documents/christchurch-central- recovery-plan-appendix-1.pdf

Heritage Recovery Programme

CERA will:  assist CCC to consider the need for a Recovery Plan to alter its District Plan, if there is a need to do so.

Indicative timeframe CCC, SDC and WDC timelines will apply CCC District Plan review by 2016

Heritage Recovery Programme

Project 5: Identifying and restoring sites of significance to Ngāi Tahu

Project Lead agencies Key partners

Objectives Ngāi Tahu MCH, Heritage Increase awareness of Ngāi Tahu New Zealand, heritage. CERA, CCC, SDC, WDC Identify, record and acknowledge sites of significance to Ngāi Tahu. Project outcome New development within areas of significance Restore damaged significant sites acknowledges the cultural identity and values of the where feasible. area.

Damaged sites are restored if possible, or marked and appropriately acknowledged if restoration is not possible.

Problem/Opportunity Redevelopment of greater Christchurch presents the opportunity to recognise Ngāi Tahu heritage and values. This recognition may be achieved in new buildings, art and landscape design.

Redevelopment also presents an opportunity to identify further Ngāi Tahu heritage sites and provide guidance to owners and councils on appropriate recognition of these sites in consultation with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and local Ngāi Tahu Papatipu rūnanga.

Significant sites that have been damaged include Moncks Cave, Te Ana o Hineraki (Moa Bone Point Cave), Rapanui (Shag Rock) and the Kaiapoi Pā Monument. Moncks Cave, Te Ana o Hineraki and Rapanui present opportunities for creative restoration, whether through art or historical interpretation. Earthquake damage to the Kaiapoi Pā Monument presents opportunities for the conservation and seismic upgrade of this highly significant Ngāi Tahu heritage place.

What has happened Ngāi Tahu has identified important sites in the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. That Plan ‘presents Christchurch with the opportunity to both incorporate and showcase Ngāi Tahu cultural identity and values in a more visionary and integrated way’ (Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, page 39).

Ngāi Tahu has developed Whakaoratia Ōtautahi, a statement of Ngāi Tahu aspirations for the Christchurch recovery and rebuild.

Ngāi Tahu is a strategic partner in implementing the Natural Environment Recovery Programme for Greater Christchurch, Whakaara Taiao (October 2013) and the Land Use Recovery Plan, Te Mahere Whakahaumanu Tāone (December 2013). Both of these documents address some matters relating to Ngāi Tahu heritage recovery that complement the projects in the Heritage Recovery Programme.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Ngāi Tahu is part of the Joint Management Board (JMB) considering applications for consents for all new builds within the Christchurch CBD. The JMB has regard to Ngāi Tahu cultural heritage values. The JMB comprises representatives of CERA, CCC and Ngāi Tahu.

What will happen Ngāi Tahu will:  research and identify sites of significance to Ngāi Tahu  provide advice to guide policy on the recognition of sites of significance to Ngāi Tahu and Ngāi Tahu values  carry out a stocktake of sites of significance to Ngāi Tahu to determine damage  lead the restoration of identified sites  participate in decision-making on new development on these sites  identify opportunities for the physical representation of Ngāi Tahu heritage.

Heritage New Zealand will:  provide existing information on sites.

CERA will:  provide support and advice to Ngāi Tahu as required  identify sites of significance to Ngāi Tahu on the CERA Community Asset Map.

In consultation with Ngāi Tahu, CCC, SDC and WDC will:  as part of their reviews of district plans – consider the identification of sites of significance to Ngāi Tahu and develop policy guidance on appropriate acknowledgement and protection.

Indicative timeframe Ongoing

Heritage Recovery Programme

Project 6: Retrieving archaeological information and artefacts

Project Lead agencies Key partners

Objectives Heritage New Zealand MCH, Ngāi Tahu, Identify areas of high, medium and CERA, CCC low archaeological interest in greater Christchurch to inform project Project outcome planning during the rebuild. The early identification of sites of archaeological interest assists project planning and facilitates the processing of archaeological authorities (consents) under the Historic Places Act 1993 (HPA) (recently replaced by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014).

Problem/Opportunity The HPA required anyone wishing to damage, destroy or modify an archaeological site, including a pre-1900 building, to first obtain an archaeological authority from Heritage New Zealand. Under the HPA, Heritage New Zealand had three months to process an application for an archaeological authority, and could extend the timeframe by up to another three months in some instances. These timeframes could delay rebuilding. In 2010 the government implemented an Order in Council that established emergency archaeological authorities. This Order in Council has been continued under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, which recently replaced the HPA. Under the Order in Council, Heritage New Zealand is required to process emergency archaeological authorities in much quicker timeframes than standard archaeological authorities (three to five days).

Heritage New Zealand is further managing the risks of delays by developing a predictive model for land within the four avenues that identifies areas of likely archaeological interest. There is an opportunity to expand this predictive model to cover the whole of greater Christchurch.

What has happened Heritage New Zealand’s predictive model has been informed by the approximately 600 emergency archaeological authorities it has granted within the four avenues. The model:  gives owners, developers and planners greater certainty about the likely location of archaeological sites by differentiating between areas of high, medium and low archaeological interest  helps ensure efficient, targeted processing of archaeological authorities.

What will happen Heritage New Zealand will:  investigate extending the predictive model through research into known areas of archaeological interest  adopt a theme-based approach to mapping  inform key stakeholders of the predictive model and promote access to information  work with landowners where sites are discovered to ensure that: o sites are fully documented o where feasible, artefacts are retrieved and deposited with appropriate repositories o owners are informed of any legal obligations.

Heritage Recovery Programme

CERA will:  work with Heritage New Zealand to investigate opportunities to extend the predictive model to the rest of greater Christchurch.

CCC, SDC and WDC will:  provide support and promote access to information through early contact with developers.

Indicative timeframe Extend the predictive model if and when required.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Project 7: Conserving artefacts recovered from archaeological sites

Project Lead agencies Key partners

Objectives Heritage New Zealand CCC, WDC, SDC, Identify appropriate repositories for MCH, Ngāi Tahu artefacts recovered from archaeological sites. Project outcome Recovered artefacts are stored and conserved in appropriate locations and repositories.

Problem/Opportunity Many artefacts have been recovered in greater Christchurch as a result of the numerous archaeological investigations. They are stored temporarily in a variety of private, local and central government locations, including the Air Force Museum, Wigram.

A suitably qualified team needs to determine what should be kept, and identify an appropriate storage and holding repository. There are issues nationally concerning the storage of objects uncovered through archaeological investigations. This project will be a valuable case study.

What has happened In February 2013, a Cultural Collections Recovery Centre opened at the Air Force Museum, Wigram. The Centre is an extension to existing facilities at the Museum and provides temporary storage for earthquake-displaced cultural objects in one secure location. Its establishment is a critical first step in safeguarding artefacts. The Museum will make the Cultural Collections Recovery Centre available for earthquake recovery for three years. The Recovery Centre received $2 million from MCH and $2 million from the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal Trust. Many of the earthquake-displaced archaeological collections are temporarily being housed in containers at the Air Force Museum awaiting assessment.

In some cases Heritage New Zealand requires management plans as a condition of an archaeological authority (consent to destroy, damage or modify an archaeological site). Recently, Heritage New Zealand’s Southern Regional Office has begun specifying that management plans must provide for management and safe-keeping of artefacts.

Canterbury Museum is consulting with Heritage New Zealand on the Museum’s Archaeology Collecting Policy.

What will happen Heritage New Zealand will:  provide project management to: o identify and involve key partners and heritage professionals in this project (for example, iwi/hapū, Canterbury Museum, National Services Te Paerangi, the Cultural Collections Recovery Centre, other local museums, curators, archaeologists and owners of artefacts) o determine criteria and processes to identify a sample of the artefacts to be retained o identify appropriate legal and ethical storage, transfer or disposal options for the artefacts

Heritage Recovery Programme

 promote the project nationally as an example of the appropriate conservation, storage, identification and documentation of artefacts recovered from archaeological investigations, particularly in relation to taonga tūturu (Māori cultural objects).15

Indicative timeframe Artefact Management Information Sheet produced November 2014 Other work is ongoing

15 MCH administers the Protected Objects Act 1975 (POA), which includes provisions for the care and custody of newly found taonga tūturu. Anyone who finds a taonga tūturu is required to notify MCH or ask their local museum to notify MCH. The Chief Executive of MCH is responsible for the care and custody of newly found taonga tūturu until the Māori Land Court has determined who the customary owners are.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Project 8: Keeping memory and awareness alive

Project Lead agencies Key partners

Objectives CCC, SDC, WDC, Ngāi Tahu Heritage New Develop initiatives to acknowledge Zealand, CERA, greater Christchurch’s lost heritage. MCH

Project outcome Greater Christchurch’s heritage is identified and acknowledged through interpretive material and in new development.

Problem/Opportunity Greater Christchurch has a rich history and heritage (see Appendix Two). This includes significant archival holdings (the University of Canterbury’s Architectural Archive contains over 100,000 architectural drawings, most of which relate to Christchurch and Canterbury buildings). However, unless some form of interpretation is provided, demolished heritage buildings and places will eventually be forgotten. There are opportunities to:  publish information on greater Christchurch’s heritage, including through digital publication  promote on-site interpretation of lost heritage, including interpretation of archaeological material  run public education programmes  investigate the retention of elements of buildings in accordance with the appropriate guidelines (see Project 3).

What has happened CCC has published a walking guide to remaining heritage buildings in central Christchurch, and held heritage events in October 2013 (‘Reconnect’) ahead of a 2014 re-launch of its annual heritage week. CCC has also allocated funds under the Transitional City project to interpret heritage stories as part of landscape design. WDC has a Landmarks Fund to fund plaques and other landmarks that acknowledge heritage sites.

The CEISMIC programme – http://www.ceismic.org.nz/ – is preserving the memories and experiences of Canterbury people, including through QuakeStories.govt.nz, a collaboration between MCH and NV Interactive. Heritage New Zealand has launched a multimedia website and smartphone application on the history and heritage of High Street, Christchurch.

CCC and Heritage New Zealand produced a document, Heritage Recovery – Guideline 6 – Reuse of Heritage Material, to provide guidance on this topic16 (as noted in Project 3).

What will happen CCC, SDC, WDC and Ngāi Tahu will:  explore how to acknowledge greater Christchurch’s heritage in consultation with property owners, where appropriate. This may include developing interpretive material and

16 http://www.ccc.govt.nz/cityleisure/artsculture/christchurchheritage/publications/index.aspx

Heritage Recovery Programme

proposals for recognising heritage values in new developments. In instances where buildings are being deconstructed or demolished, these partner agencies will explore opportunities to: o retain parts of heritage buildings on their original sites o reuse heritage fabric in new developments (see Project 3).  the partner agencies will refer to the appropriate guidelines in reusing heritage fabric.

Heritage New Zealand will:  work with CCC, SDC and WDC to provide heritage information and advice.

CERA will:  continue to work with CCC, SDC and WDC to explore opportunities to retain parts of heritage buildings on site.

Indicative timeframe Ongoing

Heritage Recovery Programme

What happens next? The partner agencies began implementing some projects in the Heritage Recovery Programme in 2011 (notably ‘Retaining heritage buildings and places’; ‘Reusing heritage fabric retrieved from heritage and character buildings’; and ‘Retrieving archaeological information and artefacts’.)

Most will remain in place for as long as recovery continues.

The partner agencies are responsible for managing and implementing projects, including the appointment of project leaders.

MCH has a coordination role in preparing this Programme. It is not responsible for day-to-day operations and cannot instruct the partner agencies in the Heritage Recovery Programme.

Monitoring: How will we know the Heritage Recovery Programme is being implemented? CERA will monitor and report on progress. MCH is working with CERA on CERA’s greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Monitoring and Reporting Plan.

CERA is undertaking a community asset stocktake of greater Christchurch to enhance understanding of the impact of the earthquakes. This stocktake will include heritage buildings and places, providing useful benchmarks for monitoring.

Partner agencies will review and refresh the Heritage Recovery Programme annually.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Appendix One: The partner agencies

This appendix provides background information on the partner agencies and their heritage recovery work.

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) CERA is the agency established by the government to lead, coordinate and monitor the recovery effort following the earthquakes of September 2010 and February 2011. CERA supports a range of organisations in making well-coordinated and timely decisions. It aims to help restore the social, economic, cultural and environmental well-being of greater Christchurch communities.

CERA developed the Recovery Strategy that established the mandate to prepare the Heritage Recovery Programme, and helped to prepare the Heritage Recovery Programme.

Manatū Taonga/Ministry for Culture and Heritage (MCH) MCH is coordinating the government’s earthquake recovery programme for arts, culture and heritage, and working with Sport New Zealand to coordinate the programme for sports and recreation. With other government agencies, MCH contributed to the overarching Recovery Strategy led by CERA.

MCH funds and monitors Heritage New Zealand – a contributor to this Heritage Recovery Programme – to deliver heritage services in greater Christchurch and throughout New Zealand.

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (Heritage New Zealand) is a Crown entity. Heritage New Zealand’s work includes identifying heritage places, seeking to ensure their survival for current and future generations, and fostering heritage appreciation. In Canterbury, Heritage New Zealand is working with councils to provide advice on damage to heritage buildings (including structures) and character homes.

Heritage New Zealand leads or is involved in a wide range of recovery projects, including:  rebuilding the Lyttelton Timeball Station  repairing Coton’s Cottage  administering the archaeological authority process  providing heritage conservation and engineering advice on: o the Christchurch Arts Centre o the Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings (and coordinating some funding for these buildings)  providing expert heritage advice to: o CERA and its Christchurch Central Development Unit, including heritage assessments of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (the Blueprint) o territorial local authorities on district plans and applications for resource consents to demolish heritage buildings

Heritage Recovery Programme

 providing expert heritage advice to owners and interested parties, including advice on: o relocation of heritage buildings o resource consenting issues o storage of heritage fabric retrieved from heritage buildings  providing advice to the CEHB Fund  providing temporary storage of archaeological finds in a secure location for owners  managing the National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund  managing heritage input into the Crown land disposal process.

Ngāi Tahu Ngāi Tahu is the iwi comprised of Ngāi Tahu Whānui; that is, the collective of the individuals who descend from the five primary hapū of Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Māmoe and Waitaha, namely Kāti Kurī, Ngāti Irakehu, Kāti Huirapa, Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Ngāi Te Ruahikihiki (as defined in section 2 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998). Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is the governing tribal council established by the Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act 1996, which states that: Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu shall be recognised for all purposes as the representative of Ngāi Tahu Whānui. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is a key partner in the recovery of greater Christchurch.

Ngāi Tahu Papatipu Rūnanga are regional collective bodies that act as the governing councils of the traditional Ngāi Tahu hapū and marae-based communities. Every Papatipu Rūnanga has its own respective takiwā (area of authority), and each Rūnanga is responsible for protecting its tribal interests in its respective takiwā, not only on behalf of its own hapū but on behalf of the entire tribe. There are six Ngāi Tahu Papatipu Rūnanga whose takiwā lie within the greater Christchurch region. They are Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga, Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke, Te Taumutu Rūnanga, Te Rūnanga o Koukourārata, Wairewa Rūnanga and Ōnuku Rūnanga.

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu’s role includes:  strategic partner in the Recovery Strategy  partner in developing the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan  identifying sites of significance to Ngāi Tahu  owner of heritage sites  identifying opportunities to acknowledge Ngāi Tahu heritage in new development.

Christchurch City Council Christchurch City Council (CCC), in collaboration with CERA, has a lead role in the recovery of Christchurch City. Its role includes:  strategic partner in the Recovery Strategy  partner in the Christchurch Central Development Unit and developing the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan  owner of heritage sites  providing expert advice to CERA and heritage building owners

Heritage Recovery Programme

 administering the Heritage Incentive Grants Fund  administering the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant  providing expert advice to the CEHB Fund on applications for grants from the CEHB Fund  providing administrative support to the CEHB Fund  storing heritage material retrieved from demolished buildings  administering the District Plan and processing applications for resource consents to demolish buildings and for work to restore buildings  developing interpretive initiatives.

Waimakariri and Selwyn District Councils Waimakariri District Council (WDC) and Selwyn District Council (SDC) work with CERA and other agencies in the recovery of greater Christchurch. Their roles include:  strategic partners in the Recovery Strategy  administering district plans and processing of applications for resource consents for the demolition of buildings and for work to restore buildings  developing interpretive initiatives.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Appendix Two: The history and heritage of greater Christchurch

The recent earthquakes have resulted in the most dramatic changes to greater Christchurch since European settlement of the region. However, the history of greater Christchurch – like that of all historic settlements – has always exhibited change and continuity. Each phase of development has left traces of earlier history in the remaining historic fabric, and in the stories and memories of heritage that has been ‘lost’. The following is a brief overview.17

Pre-1850: History and heritage The surviving heritage fabric of this period includes middens, oven sites, rock shelters and urupā. Artefacts found inland tell of summer expeditions to gather moa, weka, eels and rats. They all complement a rich oral tradition. Māori had settled in ‘greater Christchurch’ by the fourteenth century. They lived mainly near mahinga kai such as wetlands near the coast, around renowned eel, mullet and flounder fisheries – Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere) and Wairewa (Lake Forsyth) – and Horomaka (Banks Peninsula), which combined the resources of land and sea.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries groups from the Ngāi Tahu iwi came south, succeeding to the rich resources of the area through intermarriage and by conquering Ngāti Māmoe and Waitaha.

Around 1700, the Ngāi Tahu chief Tūrākautahi built Kaiapoi Pā on a site that had earlier been a Waitaha stronghold. It was eventually to become the largest Māori settlement in the South Island.

The first Europeans to arrive were explorers and whalers. From August 1840, French (and German) settlers embarked on the first organised European settlement in Canterbury under the auspices of the Nanto-Bordelaise Company. British sovereignty was proclaimed before they arrived, but they stayed and founded the village of Akaroa, now one of the ‘few places in New Zealand where the character of the town is still set by its historic buildings’.18

Monument at Kaiapoi Pā, photo taken in the early twentieth century19

17 This summary draws on pages 9-12 of the Christchurch City Council, Central City Plan, Draft Central City Recovery Plan for Ministerial Approval, December 2011 - volume 1. 18 John Wilson, City and Peninsula: The Historic Places of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, Christchurch and Akaora Civic Trusts, 2007. 19 Three unidentified women looking at the monument at Kaiapoi Pā, Waimakariri District, Canterbury Region. Williams, Edgar Richard, 1891–1983 : Negatives, lantern slides, stereographs, colour transparencies, monochrome prints, photographic ephemera. Ref: 1/4-121144-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. http://natlib.govt.nz/records/32056849

Heritage Recovery Programme

1850–1876: Settlement and provincial government In 1848 Ngāi Tahu chiefs entered into a sale and purchase agreement (‘Kemp’s Deed’) with the colonial government for most of the Canterbury region (20 million acres), including what is now defined as greater Christchurch. Under the auspices of the Canterbury Association, predominantly English settlers arrived from 1850 to establish new settlements on the region’s expansive plains.

Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings, Christchurch, in 186120

From the single jetty that welcomed the Association’s first settlers, Lyttelton developed into a major seaport. The initial isolation imposed by the Port Hills was relieved first by the Sumner Road in 1857 and then by the Lyttelton rail tunnel in 1867. Lyttelton became a thriving town characterised by timber cottages and houses.

Grain and sheep farming gave the region its economic start. By 1860 most of the region was divided into large leasehold runs that were to be the site of grand homesteads and impressive farm buildings.

The Canterbury Association intended Christchurch to be an Anglican-led re-creation of pre-industrial Britain. Although the Association did not fully realise its goals, Christchurch prospered and grew to service the needs of the rural economy – it was a place to source agricultural supplies and professional services such as banking and legal advice.

The grid pattern of streets shaped the character of the town. A large amount of land that Ngāi Tahu considered was to be reserved for them in Canterbury was not set aside; the Crown allowed the setting aside of only 6359 acres of the 20 million acres that comprised Kemp’s purchase. Over the years, the Kemp Deed was to be the subject of ‘numerous petitions, parliamentary enquiries, Royal commissions and court proceedings’.21

From 1853 until 1876 Christchurch was the political capital of Canterbury province. In central Christchurch, in particular, the economic wealth of the region found architectural expression in fine public buildings. The home of New Zealand’s leading Gothic Revival architect, B.W. Mountfort, the city was graced by impressive Gothic buildings, including the Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings, the seat of provincial government. The Anglican Cathedral (1864–1904) began to rise under Mountfort’s supervision to a design by English architect Sir Gilbert Scott. Arguably, Christchurch was to become the most complete Gothic Revival city in the world.

20 Canterbury Provincial Government Buildings, Christchurch. Barker, Alfred Charles: Negatives. Ref: 1/4- 002584-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. http://natlib.govt.nz/records/23100600 21 Waitangi Tribunal, The Ngāi Tahu Report 1991. http://www.waitangi- tribunal.govt.nz/reports/viewchapter.asp?reportID=D5D84302-EB22-4A52-BE78-16AF39F71D91&chapter=15

Heritage Recovery Programme

1877–1914: Christchurch expands After the abolition of the provinces in 1876, the former province of Canterbury was divided into counties, boroughs and cities. During the 1870s, the Main South Railway Line linked Canterbury settlements; it reached Dunedin in 1878. Station buildings such as Papanui, Rangiora and Little River give Canterbury’s rail heritage a significant presence.

The rural economy continued to grow, aided by refrigeration, which over time led to the breaking up of many of the large estates and encouraged more intensive farming. Although Christchurch’s fortunes continued to be linked to those of the rural economy, at the turn of the century it was New Zealand’s main manufacturing centre. The city expanded from the initial grid plan along the main tramlines (the first trams ran in 1882 and the first electirc trams in 1905).

Throughout the central city, buildings in a wide range of architectural styles – from Gothic to Italianate, in brick and stone – contributed to the development of colonial streetscapes of exceptional quality. By the turn of the century most of the commercial and industrial structures had been replaced. At the centre of the city, the Anglican Cathedral was completed, and to the south-east, the Catholic Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament (1899–1905) was constructed.

Lyttelton and Christchurch developed close associations with Antarctic exploration, that continue to this day, when Robert Falcon Scott and others left Lyttelton hoping to reach the South Pole.

Cathedral Square, Christchurch, c. 190022

1915–1950: Consolidation and growth In greater Christchurch, as elsewhere in New Zealand, the loss of life and sacrifice in the First World War were commemorated in memorials in the form of statues, gates and buildings (the 1927–28 Nurses’ Memorial Chapel,23 for example). Christchurch’s major public war memorials are the Bridge of Remembrance (1924) and the Christchurch Memorial in Cathedral Square (1937).

As the city grew, it absorbed villages such as New Brighton, Sumner, Papanui and Upper Riccarton.

22 Cathedral Square, Christchurch. Webb, Steffano, 1880?-1967 : Collection of negatives. Ref: 1/1-019445-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. http://natlib.govt.nz/records/23050377 23In addition to being a memorial to nurses who died in the Great War, the chapel is also a memorial to women who died in the 1918 influenza epidemic.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Cathedral Square flourished as the central hub of city life, and its perimeter became a prime site for construction of the city’s many cinemas.

Fashionable architectural styles of the time appeared in the region – Spanish Mission in New Regent Street, for example, and Art Deco in houses and commercial buildings throughout greater Christchurch.

In 1940 the Christchurch (Harewood) airport opened, becoming New Zealand’s first international airport within a decade. Over time Christchurch was to become the gateway to the South Island for international visitors arriving by air.

1951–2009: Development and heritage One hundred years after the first organised European settlement, the area now known as greater Christchurch was thriving. Christchurch was one of New Zealand’s major cities. In the decades to come it would grow rapidly as industry and exports expanded and as new suburbs emerged.

The 1974 Commonwealth Games was a catalyst for major civic improvement. Christchurch erected a new town hall and created world-class sporting facilities at Queen Elizabeth II Park for the ‘friendly Games’. Cathedral Square had already undergone many changes of layout. In the 1970s, the Square was substantially ‘pedestrianised’; in the 1990s, trams were brought back. However, suburban shopping centres drew some business from the heart of the city from the 1960s.

Local government amalgamation created the current Selwyn District from three adjacent counties (Malvern, Ellesmere and the rural half of Paparua; Ellesmere had earlier absorbed a fourth county, Springs). Waimakariri District was created through the amalgamation of Rangiora District, Kaiapoi Borough, Oxford and Eyre Counties and part of Kowai County. Banks Peninsula District became part of Christchurch City in 2006.

As the population grew, so pressure to build higher in Christchurch’s central business district increased. The old colonial building stock came under increasing pressure from modern development, but also through neglect as commercial activity shifted to the new suburban malls. When the University of Canterbury moved to Ilam, its magnificent complex of Gothic buildings in the inner city became a much-loved Arts Centre.

A tradition of fine architecture continued, but historicist forms were now complemented by distinctly modern design promoted by what came to be known as the ‘Christchurch School’ of architecture. The Christchurch town hall, designed by Sir Miles Warren, is a high-point of the School’s achievements.

In the 1980s Ngāi Tahu lodged its Treaty of Waitangi Claim with the Waitangi Tribunal; its claims were settled through the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. The settlement enabled Ngāi Tahu to establish itself as a major economic force in the Canterbury region and the South Island.

2010–present: Earthquake response The history and character of greater Christchurch was changed forever by the earthquakes and aftershocks that began in 2010. Though much remains, greater Christchurch lost much of the heritage that was one of its defining characteristics. This Programme aims to help mitigate some of that loss.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Key sources of further information on the history and heritage of greater Christchurch

Web CCC’s 2005 study commissioned to identify ‘a comprehensive range of tangible and intangible heritage values and items’: http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/ChristchurchCityContextualHistoryOverviewFull-docs.pdf

Heritage New Zealand’s 2009 registration report for the Lyttelton Township Historic Area, which identifies heritage values and items: http://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list/details/7784

Te Maire Tau, ‘Ngāi Tahu’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 4-Dec-12: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/ngai-tahu

John Wilson, ‘Canterbury region’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 9-Nov-12: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/canterbury-region

John Wilson, ‘Canterbury places’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 7-Jan-13: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/canterbury-places

CCC Final Draft Central City Plan: http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/CentralCityDecember2011/FinalDraftPlan/FinaldraftCentralCityPla n.pdf

CCC Contextual History Overview: http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/ChristchurchCityContextualHistoryOverviewFull-docs.pdf

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Christchurch Central Development Unit, Christchurch Central Recovery Plan: http://ccdu.govt.nz/sites/ccdu.govt.nz/files/documents/christchurch- central-recovery-plan.pdf

Department of Conservation, Ka Pakihi Whakatekateka O Waitaha: The Archaeology of Canterbury in Māori Times (in four parts): http://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/science-and-technical/sr89.pdf

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, The Struggle, the Road to Settlement and the Settlement Package: http://www.ngaitahu.iwi.nz/About-Ngai-Tahu/Settlement/

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, He Huanui Ara Ake mō Waitaha – A Pathway to Recovery for Canterbury: Ngāi Tahu’s Preliminary Tribal Positions and Priorities for the Draft CERA Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch: http://ngaitahu.iwi.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/He-Huanui-Ara-Ake-mo- Waitaha-Te-Runanga-o-Ngai-Tahu-interim-input-on-the-draft-CERA-Recovery-Strategy.pdf

Waitangi Tribunal, The Ngāi Tahu Report 1991: http://www.waitangi- tribunal.govt.nz/reports/view.asp?reportid=D5D84302-EB22-4A52-BE78-16AF39F71D91

Heritage Recovery Programme

Print Garth Cant and Russell Kirkpatrick (eds), Rural Canterbury: Celebrating its History, Daphne Brasell Associates, Wellington, 2001

John Cookson and Graeme Dunstall (eds), Southern Capital: Christchurch – Towards a City Biography 1850–2000, Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, 2000

Geoffrey Rice, Lyttelton: Port and Town – An Illustrated History, Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, 2004

Geoffrey Rice, Christchurch Changing: An Illustrated History, 2nd edition, Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, 2008

Anna Rogers, Illustrated History of Canterbury, Reed Books, Auckland, 2007

John Wilson, City and Peninsula: The Historic Places of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, The Christchurch Civic Trust/The Akaroa Civic Trust, Christchurch/Akaroa, 2007

Heritage Recovery Programme

Appendix Three: The Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Buildings Fund

The Canterbury Earthquake Heritage Buildings Fund (CEHB Fund) provides financial assistance to owners of qualifying heritage buildings. Heritage New Zealand currently administers the CEHB Fund (from May 2014), see: http://www.savecanterburyheritage.org.nz/. Building Amount (approx) McKenzie & Willis building, corner of High $1 million (a donation from and Tuam Streets Fletcher Building) Woods Mill, Wise Street $500,000 Isaac Theatre Royal, Gloucester Street $500,000 St Bartholomew’s Church, Kaiapoi $495,000 Knox Church, Bealey Avenue $300,000 Victoria Black building, High Street $225,000 plus $5,000 contingency Trinity Congregational Church, cnr $225,000 plus $43,000 Worcester and Manchester Streets Junction Hotel, Rangiora $210,000 St Barnabas Church, Tui Street $200,000 Ironside House, cnr Salisbury and $175,000 Montreal Streets New City Hotel, Colombo Street $142,000 Hereford Chambers, Hereford Street $140,000 Homebush Woolshed, Darfield $96,000 86 Chester Street $91,000 Orton Bradley Park Stone Cottage, Marine $90,000 plus $10,000 contingency Drive, Orton Bradley Park, Charteris Bay (contract expired under renegotiation) Northam House, Salisbury Street $80,000 New Regent Street $76,000 Hillcrest, Robertson’s Road, Kirwee $70,000 Oxford Terrace Baptist Church, Chester $65,000 Street East Dizzy Lizzy’s Restaurant, Ferry Road $60,000 Hare Memorial Library and Classrooms, $50,000 Christ’s College, Rolleston Avenue Dyslexia Foundation, Worcester $50,000 Boulevard Acland House, Christchurch Girls’ High $50,000 School, Papanui Road COCA Building, Gloucester Street $46,000 CLJ Arts, High Street $40,000 Turvey House, King Street, Rangiora $38,000 Eliza’s Manor, Bealey Avenue $37,000 Canterbury Club, Cambridge Terrace $29,000 Gunyah Country Estate, Sleemans Rd, $25,000 Glenroy Chippenham Lodge, Browns Road $20,000 Minster House, Norwich Quay, Lyttelton $20,000

Heritage Recovery Programme

Building Amount (approx) Malthouse Theatre Trust, Colombo Street $20,000 Fifield House, Hawford Road $15,000 Cashmere Hills Presbyterian Church, $14,000 MacMillan Avenue Billen’s Camping Building, High Street $13,000 The Press Building, Cathedral Square $4,000 (for retrieval of coat of arms) Peterborough Centre, cnr Peterborough $4,000 (for engineering design) and Montreal Streets Wards Brewery, North Kiln, Fitzgerald $3,000 (for engineering Avenue investigation) The CEHB Fund has also allocated some grants that owners have returned.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Appendix Four: Statutory documents

This appendix provides information about statutory processes and terms of relevance to heritage in greater Christchurch.

Archaeological authority It is unlawful for any person to destroy, damage or modify the whole or any part of an archaeological site without the prior authority of Heritage New Zealand, whether or not:

 the land on which the site is located is designated, the activity is permitted under a District or Regional Plan, or  a resource or building consent has been granted. An archaeological site is defined as any place associated with pre-1900 human activity, including shipwrecks, where there is evidence relating to the history of New Zealand that can be investigated using archaeological methods.

For further information see the Canterbury Earthquake (Historic Places Act) Order 2011.

CERA has established an agreement and consent process with Heritage New Zealand under which applications for archaeological authorities for CERA demolitions are processed urgently.

Disability perspective in recovery planning Projects in the Heritage Recovery Programme will align with the New Zealand Disability Strategy, where relevant. Objective 8 of the Strategy is to ‘support quality living in the community for disabled people’. Owners should ensure public buildings and spaces are fully accessible to enable quality living in the community for disabled people.

District plan District plans set out the framework for the management of land use and subdivision in a district.

District plans are prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991 by the Christchurch City, Waimakariri and Selwyn District Councils. They define areas (zones) for residential or industrial activities, each with their own set of rules.

Listed heritage building A heritage building scheduled on a District plan and subject to the policies and rules of that plan.

Section 38, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (CER Act) The following excerpt from the CER Act (section 3), administered by CERA, sets out the purposes of the Act.

‘Purposes The purposes of this Act are—

Heritage Recovery Programme

(a) to provide appropriate measures to ensure that greater Christchurch and the councils and their communities respond to, and recover from, the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes: (b) to enable community participation in the planning of the recovery of affected communities without impeding a focused, timely, and expedited recovery: (c) to provide for the Minister and CERA to ensure that recovery: (d) to enable a focused, timely, and expedited recovery: (e) to enable information to be gathered about any land, structure, or infrastructure affected by the Canterbury earthquakes: (f) to facilitate, coordinate, and direct the planning, rebuilding, and recovery of affected communities, including the repair and rebuilding of land, infrastructure, and other property: (g) to restore the social, economic, cultural, and environmental well-being of greater Christchurch communities: (h) to provide adequate statutory power for the purposes stated in paragraphs (a) to (g): (i) to repeal and replace the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010.’

Section 38 of the CER Act The following excerpt from the CER Act (section 38), administered by CERA, may be applied to heritage buildings in greater Christchurch.

‘(1) The Chief Executive may carry out or commission works. (2) The works include (without limitation)— (a) the erection, reconstruction, placement, alteration, or extension of all or any part of any building, structure, or other erection on or under land: (b) the demolition of all or part of a building, structure, or other erection on or under land: (c) the removal and disposal of any building, structure, or other erection on or under land, or material. (3) The Chief Executive may remove fixtures and fittings from any building.

(4) If the Chief Executive gives written notice to an owner of a building, structure, or other erection on or under land that demolition work is to be carried out there,— (a) the owner must give notice to the Chief Executive within 10 days after the Chief Executive’s notice is given stating whether or not the owner intends to carry out the works and, if the owner intends to do so, specifying a time within which the works will be carried out; and (b) if the owner fails to give notice under paragraph (a) or the Chief Executive is not satisfied with the time specified, or the works are not carried out in the time specified or otherwise agreed, then— (i) the Chief Executive may commission the carrying out of the works; and

Heritage Recovery Programme

(ii) in the case of the demolition of a building to which section 40(1) or (2) refers, the Chief Executive may recover the costs of carrying out the work from the owner of the dangerous building in question; and (iii) the amount recoverable becomes a charge on the land on which the work was carried out. (5) To avoid doubt, works under this section may be undertaken on or under public or private land, and with or without the consent of the owner or occupier. (6) To avoid doubt, this section does not override any requirements for resource consents or building consents that may apply to works under this section, but any such requirements may be varied by Orders in Council made under this Act.’

An historic place An historic place, including a building, entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero compiled under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Historic places are divided into Category 1 (places of special or outstanding historical or cultural heritage significance or value) and Category 2 (places of historical or cultural heritage significance or value).

Recovery plan A recovery plan is a statutory plan prepared under the CER Act and approved by the Minister for Earthquake Recovery.

Treaty of Waitangi Public sector organisations involved in the recovery of greater Christchurch take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. MCH has consulted with Ngāi Tahu in developing the Heritage Recovery Programme.

Heritage Recovery Programme

Appendix Five: ICOMOS New Zealand Charter 2010

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

This Charter is reproduced by permission of ICOMOS New Zealand Incorporated.

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.

Heritage Recovery Programme

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.

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.

Heritage Recovery Programme

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.

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.

Heritage Recovery Programme

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.

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 ongoing 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

Heritage Recovery Programme 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.

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 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;

Heritage Recovery Programme

(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.

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.

Heritage Recovery Programme

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.

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.

Heritage Recovery Programme

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.

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.

Heritage Recovery Programme

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.

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,

Heritage Recovery Programme

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.

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.

Heritage Recovery Programme

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 access ways forming the spatial context of the place or used in association with the place. Setting also includes cultural landscapes, townscapes, and streetscapes; perspectives, views, and view shafts 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.

Heritage Recovery Programme

This Charter is reproduced by permission of ICOMOS New Zealand Incorporated.

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.

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

English language text first published 1993

Bilingual text first published 1995

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.