Memory box
One of the challenges in the heritage sector is bridging the gap between the professional assessment of heritage significance and the heritage values held by the wider community.
Arguably it is the Resource Management Act that sets up this problematic dichotomy, in that it requires the protection of historic heritage as a matter of national importance, but then leaves the process of identification and management up to local authorities, who seek to balance private property interests against public good outcomes.
Historic heritage items, according to the Act, are those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures.
The community is arguably best qualified to identify resources that contribute to their historical and cultural knowledge. Yet when push comes to shove, as some readers will know only too well, it will be a battle of the experts in court that will likely determine the outcome for an endangered building, structure or place.
It is against this backdrop that calls for nominations of significant heritage places by members of the public are commonly made at the time of a district plan review. At other points in the council life cycle, the public might be invited to put forward suggestions of important historic buildings, sites and structures to inform long term planning and heritage interpretation strategies.
Sometimes buildings that are already scheduled on the relevant district plan are nominated, which should be taken as an indication that the identified heritage resources of the city or district could do with some more promotion. At other times, the scene of a notable moment in history may be nominated, even in the absence of a ‘resource’ that can be protected within the council planning framework.
In the case of a stone marker in Taupiri, it is not the object, or physical resource, that is important here, but rather what it represents. I can’t help thinking about the concrete cover on my septic tank when I look at the stoneembedded surround of this memorial, which marks the site of the settlement’s 19th century Catholic church. The marker is not where the heritage value resides, however; rather it is the site that is valued by the community for the part it once played in the life of Taupiri.
Important places within a city, town or landscape might not have sufficient intrinsic, material significance to warrant their inclusion in the district plan’s heritage schedule. Nevertheless the public interest in sites of ‘lost heritage’ should not be discounted. Such places are a useful reminder that it’s not all about the district plan in matters of community heritage values and how councils respond to them; especially if the four well-beings (social, economic, environmental and cultural) are restored to the Local Government Act by way of a member’s bill that is currently awaiting selection by the House.