The application under fast-track legislation for the $4.5 billion gold mine in Bendigo has reached the stage where a series of one-day panel hearings are taking place in Wellington over the next week and a-half.
On Tuesday, issues around landscape were under discussion and yesterday it was the turn of heritage to come under the spotlight. Disagreement was common yesterday, one archaeologist saying it would be a challenge to get two archaeologists to agree on anything.
The hearing panel is made up of Matthew Muir (chairman), Gina Sweetman, Philip Barry and Peter Kensington.
Heritage consultant for the applicant Dr Naomi Woods outlined the method used to assess the heritage in the Bendigo area. She said the method followed the Heritage New Zealand criteria, although that criteria did not say to any degree the significance of any site.
She said it allowed for consistency of value from the ground up. It was a well-established way to determine values which were consistent with others’ findings at the site.
Some sites in New Zealand, such as the Waitangi Treaty grounds, were on the tentative list for inclusion for a Unesco standard, but at the moment there were none which reached the standard to be granted status.
The heritage sites in the Bendigo area were not in the same realm as the other sites in consideration for Unesco standards in New Zealand, she said.
Department of Conservation heritage representative Matt Schmidt said the methodology used for the project by the applicant reflected the level of protection and the purpose of it.
The methodology used had to be very detailed and he cast doubt on whether the applicant had done that. When the property was going through tenure review only two properties out of 118 had covenants related to landscape.
The research was available. When it was reviewed in the 1980s-’90s, 10 archaeologists were working it the area, so it had been well resourced.
Central Otago District Council heritage consultant Chris Jennings said much of the work and evidence supplied leaned on work carried out in that period and needed to be updated. There was a lack of photographs with the application.
Heritage NZ archaeology manager Emma Clifford said landscape heritage values in the area were very high and interconnected. Each site was complex and relied on the others, and could not be taken individually.
She said the methodology should have been done from the top down.
Sustainable Tarras representative Matthew Sole said he had major reservations about the work carried out by the applicant around the site.
There was a lack of acknowledgement of the value of the site and the heritage was right up to a national level.
Cultural layers had not been evaluated at all.
‘‘Things have been cherry-picked and the effects in the survey were undercooked,’’ he said.
Dr Woods said the disturbance footprint was very clear-cut and emphasis should be on impact on the site of the project and to the boundary.
She said disagreement was common for archaeologists.
‘‘I challenge you to find two archaeologists who will agree on anything,’’ Dr Woods said.
But that would not hamper the hearing, she said, and her colleagues agreed.
A road forward, though, could not be found over blasting, disturbance and dust and its impact on the heritage sites.
Mr Muir said the panel had filed a request for information with Santana Minerals about possible mitigation around the potential effects of blasting and vibrations on the heritage sites.
It was only filed a couple of weeks ago and Santana was yet to reply. Once the information was filed the panel would look to issue a conference request, which might lead to the hearing being reconvened.
