The Puketakahia pā kainga at Maunga Whakaangi has allegedly been flattened and destroyed by recent earthworks.
The Puketakahia pā kainga at Maunga Whakaangi has allegedly been flattened and destroyed by recent earthworks.
It’s one of Te Hiku o Te Ika’s [the Far North] most significant pā sites, but thanks to recent earthworks, it has now allegedly been destroyed.
Just over two years ago, Valentina Trustees Ltd purchased 70 hectares of land (stretching from the Hihi Peninsula to the west of Taemaro) containing the historical, cultural, political and spiritually significant Puketakahia Pā kainga site on Maunga [Mount] Whakaangi in Takerau Bay.
The maunga is said to hold more than 136 Māori sites of significance for iwi descendants of Muriwhenua and Ngāti Kahu and is the iwi’s pre-eminent mountain.
A number of urupa [burial sites] are also located on and around Whakaangi and are sacred sites for both Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa and Ngāti Kahu.
Earlier this year, earthworks were allegedly carried out at the site to widen pre-existing tracks, which locals claim bulldozed existing mara kai [garden] mounds.
The Puketakahia pā kainga was also allegedly flattened and turned into what appeared to be a landing strip.
Local kaitiaki [guardian] Sandra Heihei said she first became aware of the earthworks after whānau [family] members noticed a clearing on Whakaangi while out fishing, with drone footage appearing to show the alleged damage.
Heihei, who is deeply connected to the area through her whakapapa [genealogy], said she was devastated to learn what had happened at the sacred sites.
“This place is very special to our people, and now it’s all gone,” Heihei said.
“Everyone involved with protecting sites of significance needs to know that what happened here is not okay.
“We put our faith in the various Government agencies to look after these sites, yet this type of thing can still happen.
“It’s not acceptable in my opinion, and someone needs to be held accountable.”
Under the current legislation, all archaeological sites (regardless of land tenure status) are protected under the Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, and it’s the role of Heritage NZ (HNZ) to administer their Act and ensure correct processes are followed.
The onus is on the land owner, however, to ensure they’ve researched the land and applied for relevant resource consent prior to commencing any development or earthworks.
According to Northland Regional Council (NRC) and Far North District Council (FNDC), neither council had issued any resource consents for this property.
The last resource consent lodged for this particular property was by FNDC in April 1997 for the former landowner, Rewind Investments Limited.
Local kaitiaki Sandra Heihei overlooks the cleared land which she claims is a site of great significance for the descendants of Muriwhenua and Ngāti Kahu.
Heihei claimed despite five Crown entities being linked to the site - the Department of Conservation (DoC), FNDC, NRC, Department of the Environment (DOE) and HNZ - all had failed to protect the site or engage appropriately with tāngata whenua [people of the land].
“There needs to be a managed process where tāngata whenua are involved in cases like this, because clearly the current system is not working,” Heihei said.
“We’re not here to slow down or restrict progress, but to ensure development happens in an appropriate way.
“In my opinion, what’s happened here is a total disregard for our protected heritage, and we need to come together to create a plan so this kind of behaviour stops.”
Rochelle Deane, FNDC acting general manager for district services, said the council was first alerted to vegetation clearance work on the land overlooking Takerau Bay through a report from a member of the public on September 28.
Deane said two council compliance staff visited the property on October 11 to investigate and assess the work being carried out, with staff speaking to a contractor undertaking maintenance work on existing tracks.
She said FNDC records showed pre-existing private tracks on the property, and under the District Plan rule 12.1.6.1.2. (e), a property owner could undertake maintenance on existing roads, private accessways and walkways for visibility and road safety.
“[The landowner] can maintain existing fence lines, provided clearance does not extend more than 3.5 metres on either side of the fence line,” Deane said.
“FNDC found no breach of the District Plan relating to vegetation clearance at that time.”
Deane explained HNZ had also visited the property on November 25 in response to a separate report from the public.
She said after that visit, HNZ had ordered the property owner to halt work, following alleged damage to archaeological sites.
“We are liaising with Heritage New Zealand and are planning a second revisit to the property to establish whether the work has exceeded permitted activities under the Far North District Plan,” Deane said.
“We hope to conduct this visit with a Heritage New Zealand representative. Results of the second visit will dictate what action, if any, the council might take.’
HNZ confirmed an investigation was under way, as it appeared there had been site damage on one of the properties in the vicinity.
“The investigation is ongoing, however, at this stage, we are unable to comment further,” a HNZ spokesperson said.
“A second property has been archaeologically assessed, and there has been no damage to archaeological sites on that property.”
Valentina Trustees Ltd trustee Maxim Vassiliev said he had ordered the earthworks to widen the existing tracks due to them being overgrown and unsafe.
Vassiliev explained he was clearing the tracks as he hoped to eventually set up mid to high-end resort-style accommodation for tourists.
He said because he was based in Christchurch, he was reliant on the digger operator to advise him of anything to report, which there allegedly hadn’t been.
“I wasn’t aware of anything being damaged as the digger operator was just clearing existing tracks,” Vassiliev said.
“Nobody had maintained the tracks for 15 years, so he was clearing them to make them safe, and advised that he didn’t touch any new tracks as we’d need consent to do that.
“We weren’t aware of any existing potential archaeological sites, but it’s my understanding something was damaged back in 2014 by the previous owner, so maybe they didn’t realise it was damaged before we took over it.”
Vassiliev advised he was engaging an archaeologist to see if anything was damaged and if there were any other pā sites he needed to be aware of for future reference.
All five agencies were approached for comment, with a DOE spokesperson referring the matter to FNDC, as it was “the council’s District Plan that was responsible for setting out rules and standards for subdivision and land use in the district”.
Deane explained FNDC had information sharing arrangements with agencies such as DoC and HNZ, with other measures or protections developed on a case-by-case basis guided by the council’s Māori relationships team, Te Hono.
She said cultural monitoring agreements with relevant iwi and hāpu were also entered into on a regular basis where appropriate.
An NRC spokesperson said the regional council had provided tāngata whenua with the opportunity to identify their sites of significance through the development of the Proposed Regional Plan (PRP) and each of the three Northland district plans.
DoC Kaitāia operations manager, Meirene Hardy Birch, said while DoC did not have any direct role in the protection of sites on private land, it was their role to advocate for the protection of heritage places.
Penalties for a breach of resource consent are set out in Part 12 of the Resource Management Act 1991, with penalties and enforcement options varying and dependent on the nature of the offence and breach.
“For very serious breaches, we will issue enforcement proceedings at either the environment or district courts,” Deane said.
Heihei is planning to hold a hui in January to discuss the pā sites in question.
