Historic Places Trust gets tough

Owen Graham wants the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to be regarded as a first port of call. Photo by Peter McIntosh.

Owen Graham has featured in the pages of the Otago Daily Times frequently since his appointment to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust almost a year ago.

But the Otago-Southland area manager seems unfazed that many of the articles highlight conflict between the trust and others.

"People know the trust exists. They probably know it better now," he says.

The trust is funded by the Crown and has a statutory obligation to identify, protect and conserve heritage sites and buildings.

Because the vast majority of those sites are owned by either local authorities or private property owners, the trust's involvement is often seen as interference or anti-progress.

Its insistence on property owners carrying out archaeological, conservation or heritage surveys or obtaining archaeological authorities is regarded by some as un-necessarily time-consuming and costly.

Mr Graham says it is all about what value New Zealanders place on heritage. He wants the trust to be regarded as a first port of call, not an organisation to be avoided or disregarded.

"One of our roles is to provide free advice about heritage and archeological issues. People should get us involved early . . . Our advice could well save them time and money."

Soon after he was appointed in 2006, trust chief executive Bruce Chapman began a complete restructuring of the organisation. Mr Graham says that has resulted in the strengthening of the area offices.

All six now have the same mix of staff - a manager and advisers responsible for archaeological sites, planning, registration proposals and heritage.

That has meant staff numbers doubling in the Otago-Southland office and has given it the resources to be more actively involved in heritage advocacy and policing, he says.

"Before, we weren't in a strong position to do much active advocacy. We were reactive and issues-driven. Now we have specialist staff . . . we are able to offer a total integrated approach."

According to some developers, that "total integrated approach" could equally be called an inflexible approach.

The trust "wanted everything but was prepared to concede nothing" one developer, who did not want to be named, said.

Mr Graham sees it differently.

"We're not purists. We try to be practical. We realise we can't save everything."

One of his priorities was to "lift the standard of performance" among the eight territorial authorities within the Otago-Southland area and convince them the heritage protection provisions in their district plans needed strengthening.

Since his arrival, Mr Graham has been seeking an improvement in the relationship between the trust and the Dunedin City Council. He has suggested regular forums be held to discuss heritage aspects of city developments and has repeated earlier calls for the council employ a full-time heritage adviser.

Another of the trust's statutory functions is maintaining a national register of historic places and recommending new places for registration.

The trust cannot nominate buildings or sites for inclusion itself but has to wait for a registration request to come from a branch committee or a member of the public. Mr Graham concedes because of that, a building is often not considered for registration until it is under threat.

With more staff, he hopes the trust will be able to progress registrations at an earlier stage.

Behind the scenes, the relationship between the trust's paid staff members and its 24 volunteer branch committees has been evolving too.

After Mr Chapman completed the in-house restructuring he turned his sights to updating the rules and guidelines for branch committees. That culminated with a "one team, one voice" document which came into effect at the beginning of this month.

Among many other issues, channels of communication have been far more clearly defined, with the trust's paid arm having ultimate responsibility for advocacy and statutory decisions.