LINZ has rejected a viable solution to maintain and preserve the Old Napier Prison
Over the past five years, I have submitted three proposals in an effort to bring back a lighthouse to the Ahuriri Bluff. Unfortunately, all three proposals have been rejected for various reasons. Thanks to Photoshop, anyone can view each proposal on this website. Researching these proposals was romantic and revealing but also concerning as they raised heritage protection issues, highlighting how heritage is gradually lost over time in the three locations around the Ahuriri Bluff. I want to express my gratitude to Maritime New Zealand for their help and enthusiasm with my proposal. Looking back, Maritime New Zealand provided the most support and enthusiasm for this project.
I am relieved that a conclusion has finally been reached. What people must realise is that presenting individualistic or offbeat proposals, like a replica lighthouse, requires courage and resilience, as I take a risk with each proposal. Each time I prepared and researched a possible replica location, I put in a lot of energy and had high hopes and enthusiasm for a replica lighthouse, only to face repeated rejections. I often felt that I wasn’t taken seriously, leaving myself vulnerable to criticism and ridicule from people or the media after conflict arose with impacted parties when heritage was threatened on the Bluff. It raises eyebrows for people when someone starts talking about wanting to put up a lighthouse in 2024 when such a navigation device is now obviously outdated. Not everyone was interested or even cared about heritage protection. This experience occurred with the Old Napier Prison, the DOC reserve, and the Napier Lookout proposal.
Each proposal was emotionally taxing due to the criticism and rejections I faced over the past five years while attempting to bring back a lighthouse to the Ahuriri Bluff. I became accustomed to being treated like the; out in left field “eccentric lighthouseman” by some people during my research on the Napier Lighthouse replica idea. One must be quite resilient to handle such continuous criticism and scrutiny when unconventional ideas are presented to the Napier public or government agencies. At this point, I feel that I have done all I can for this prison, and continuing to pursue lighthouse replicas is emotionally draining for me. Hence, my urgency now for a conclusion to this five-year endeavour of trying to bring back a lighthouse to Napier. Maybe my work motivates Crown Property Management to allocate more funds to LINZ so the prison can be maintained better in the future so my work was not in vain.
An idea like this doesn’t just pop up overnight; from its early beginnings, each proposal slowly develops and becomes more realistic and viable over time. In the case of putting up a replica lighthouse, I made my first proposal to Council (Lookout) and then to DOC (Lighthouse reserve). I would have first contacted the Crown/LINZ to discuss placing the replica next to the prison in Napier, which seemed like the most logical location. Unfortunately, this option wasn’t available five years ago, as Crown Property Management and LINZ were in negotiations with Mana Ahuriri Trust for their Waitangi Treaty Settlement. I wasn’t able to intervene in these negotiations, even though I didn’t believe the property was suitable for Maori due to its heritage status. How would Maori maintain the prison if the Crown couldn’t do it themselves? LINZ advised me to directly negotiate with the Ahuriri Iwi regarding the replica lighthouse on the property until recently. However, it seems that the treaty negotiations no longer include the prison property. This led to a change in the situation on that historic hillside which then prompted my last-minute proposal, first to the Mana Ahuriri Trust and later LINZ, after it appeared that the treaty negotiations no longer included the prison site.
Considering all of the above, I can confirm that Napier will not be receiving a replica lighthouse for various reasons. The responses from Heritage New Zealand, the Napier City Council, and LINZ/Crown Property Management have been published below.
I believed that this final and viable proposal would have been a fantastic opportunity for Napier as a port city to enhance its character with the history and historic track on that hillside. Perhaps someone else will take on the task of repurposing the prison in the future. I wanted to make one final attempt to present this proposal to the appropriate parties and have it documented. If the Mana Ahuriri Trust had taken the property for their treaty settlement, it would have been challenging for me to convince an Iwi to erect a replica of the 1874 lighthouse and care for New Zealand’s colonial maritime and prison history on that site. It was a difficult task, but I gave it my best shot to see if this property could be saved with this alternative option.
The fate of the property now seems to once again lie with the Crown. Perhaps the Government will decide to restore the prison at some point. For the Iwi, taking on this property would not be a fair settlement in my opinion, but rather a burden. Resolving this complex issue on that hillside, due to its Heritage I status, will take time. So far, nobody else has presented any other viable proposal of how to save this prison. Ripping away half of New Zealand's unique maritime history from this prison was a loss for Napier. How else can this prison survive unless the lighthouse is being put back? A replica lighthouse would serve as a large advertising board for the prison, both visually and historically.
I know that because for the past five years, I have been researching the Old Napier Prison lighthouse on Marine Parade, with my ultimate goal being to restore a lighthouse on Bluff Hill if possible. My interest in this topic stemmed from living near the historic reserve managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC). This reserve was originally established in the 1920s for a new lighthouse on Bluff Hill, which resulted in the naming of Lighthouse Road. The decision to relocate the Napier Lighthouse was made due to ships encountering difficulties in identifying the light beam from the lighthouse next to Napier Prison as the city expanded. Unfortunately, the construction of the new lighthouse was halted after the 1931 Napier earthquake due to unstable land conditions on the Ahuriri Bluff. The Bluff Hill Bowling Club, now leases the property from the Department of Conservation. Presently, this property falls within the historic Napier Bluff Hill Character Zone. My strong connection to both my property and the surrounding Ahuriri Bluff, as well as the prison property, originated from my deep affection for the area where I have resided for 25 years. Additionally, my passion for heritage protection of Napier’s unique maritime and prison history further fuels my interest in these locations.
Heritage NZ response to replica lighthouse proposal
Thank you for your patience while Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) Central Region staff reviewed your proposal to reconstruct a lighthouse on the Napier Prison (Former) property, a Category 1 Historic Place entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero. We appreciate your commitment to the well-being and future of this important heritage place and also engaging in some creative thinking and problem solving. A thorough consideration of the proposal’s impact on heritage utilising best-practice principles in the ICOMOS NZ Charter (attached), which guides the heritage advice of HNZPT—unfortunately—does not allow us to advocate for this proposal.
General
Relevant Central Region staff have reviewed the proposal as outlined on your website: Proposal (napierlighthouse.co.nz). They have provided me a thorough assessment from the standpoint of heritage and best-practice heritage principles. In our view, the proposal to reconstruct a lighthouse on the site of the Napier Prison (Former) site is not appropriate, and is largely inconsistent with recognised best-practice. The ICOMOS NZ Charter discourages the full reconstruction of places:
Given this guidance, and the fact the proposal constitutes a full reconstruction and also not in the original location, HNZPT cannot support the proposal on heritage grounds. Furthermore, a reconstructed lighthouse on the site is, in our view, not essential or necessary for understanding the cultural heritage values of the prison or the wider site. HNZPT would advocate for the appropriate adaptation of the Napier Prison (Former) to enable the place to be recognised, understood, and sustainably used into the future. An adaptive reuse concept would need landowner approval and any removal and/or changes to structures will require a heritage assessment to ensure the values of the place are maintained. Adaptive reuse could potentially include some activities, like the café and gift shop presented in your concept. HNZPT would also welcome the removal of some vegetation around the site, especially trees which may impact the physical integrity of the historic buildings/structures.
Resource consent
If you wish to proceed with an application for resource consent, Napier City Council will require an independent Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by a suitably qualified heritage expert to accompany your application. I have attached a copy of the ICOMOS NZ consultant’s directory should you choose to engage an independent expert.
Archaeology
HNZPT oversees the archaeological provisions of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 and manages the associated archaeological authority process. Given the site is known to be a place of pre-1900 human settlement, any redevelopment of the site would need to consider the need for an archaeological authority. A professional consultant archaeologist can look at the history of the site in more detail and determine the likelihood of encountering archaeology and can confirm whether an authority is required before any works can commence. Activities such as removal of mature trees, and construction of a path up the hill, may also trigger the need for an archaeological authority.
Current property management
HNZPT has also been in correspondence with LINZ regarding the urgent need to repair the prison walls. It is my understanding that they have commissioned engineering and heritage assessments with a view of undertaking necessary repair and strengthening work on the walls. We have also been informed that LINZ have commissioned a Conservation Plan for the site.
In summary
I acknowledge that this response may not be what you were hoping to receive from HNZPT. We do however share your concerns about the present condition of the site and the future ability of the heritage site to be appreciated and understood. We will continue to advocate for protection and upkeep of the site, and for an appropriate use of the former prison in the future.
The Napier City Council response to replica lighthouse proposal
The prison restoration and installation of a replica lighthouse is an exciting proposal which could benefit Napier. There are however a number of considerations with the first and foremost being who owns the property.
Napier Operative District Plan (ODP)
From a planning / resource consent perspective the site is zoned Napier Hill Character under the operative District Plan (ODP) and is identified as containing Archaeological Sites “Napier Prison” and Heritage Items “Lower Prison Wall”. The ODP does not address archaeology and instead relies upon Heritage New Zealand and therefore it is recommended that you speak with them before progressing any further. The Lower Prison Wall is identified as a Group 2 item, there is also a Napier Prison Wall which is identified as a Group 1 Item. The ODP states “Group 1 Identifies individual buildings and streetscapes which are of prime importance to the heritage of the City and must be protected and Group 2 Identifies buildings that individually are of primary importance to the heritage of the City and the protection of which is seen as reasonably able to be achieved.” Repair and maintenance of a heritage item is a Permitted Activity in accordance with Rule 56.8. External safety alteration to any Group 2 heritage item necessary for the primary purpose of improving structural performance, fire safety or physical access is a Controlled Activity. Internal and/or external alterations (excluding safety alterations), relocation and/or demolition of a Group 1 heritage item is a Discretionary Activity.
When considering an application under the ODP Council would generally look at the following matters:
Whether the form, mass, proportion and materials of the alteration or addition will be compatible with the prevailing architectural style of the existing heritage item.
Whether any existing traditional fences or walls at the road frontage can be reasonably preserved and/or reinstated subsequent to the alteration or addition.
Whether the adverse effects of the alteration or addition on the character of the heritage item and surrounding environment can be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
Whether any cumulative adverse effects on the heritage item and any other heritage items in the surrounding environment can be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
Alteration, Addition, Relocation and/or Demolition of a Group 1 Heritage Item; Demolition of a Group 2 Heritage Item
Whether the proposal follows appropriate conservation method. The conservation method should:
Whether the proposal respects existing evidence of the heritage item and to what extent.
Whether the proposal conserves the historical setting of the place and to what degree.
Whether the proposal will assist in risk mitigation, that is, in the prevention of potential risk from any natural process or event.
Whether the contents of a place that contribute to its cultural heritage value are conserved.
Whether works of art and special fabric will be retained.
Whether invasive investigation can be justified.
Whether non-intervention is a desirable alternative.
Napier City Proposed District Plan (PDP)
The site is zoned General Residential and is subject to an Amenity Precinct: Napier Hill – Mataruahou and is identified as containing Lower Prison Wall Cat B, Napier Prison Wall Cat A and Old Napier Prison Cat A and two Archaeology Sites. It is worth noting that the entire prison complex is protected and resource consent and permission from Heritage New Zealand would be required.
HH-R1: Maintenance and repair to the interior and/or exterior of a Group A or Group B heritage item; internal alterations, and/or internal safety alterations to a Group B heritage item is Permitted subject to any materials removed to carry out the repairs must be limited to the amount necessary to carry out the works and there must be no damage to the heritage item when undertaking the repairs and maintenance, and protective material must be used where necessary to prevent damage.
HH-R6 Internal or external alterations (excluding safety alterations) to a Group A heritage item is a Discretionary Activity.
Other
It is recommended that you engage the services of a Heritage Specialist and liaise with Heritage New Zealand who hold further information about the feature. Should you choose to proceed with a resource consent application it is recommended that you engage the services of an experienced local planner as Council will need to careful assess the potential effects of any additions and alterations. A lighting specialist may also need to be engaged to assess the effects of light spill on the adjacent and wider environment. The height of the lighthouse would also be a key consideration. Earthworks consent maybe required for the earthworks associated with the path. Should you require any further information regarding your proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Over the past five years, I have submitted three proposals in an effort to bring back a lighthouse to the Ahuriri Bluff. Unfortunately, all three proposals have been rejected for various reasons. Thanks to Photoshop, anyone can view each proposal on this website. Researching these proposals was romantic and revealing but also concerning as they raised heritage protection issues, highlighting how heritage is gradually lost over time in the three locations around the Ahuriri Bluff. I want to express my gratitude to Maritime New Zealand for their help and enthusiasm with my proposal. Looking back, Maritime New Zealand provided the most support and enthusiasm for this project.
I am relieved that a conclusion has finally been reached. What people must realise is that presenting individualistic or offbeat proposals, like a replica lighthouse, requires courage and resilience, as I take a risk with each proposal. Each time I prepared and researched a possible replica location, I put in a lot of energy and had high hopes and enthusiasm for a replica lighthouse, only to face repeated rejections. I often felt that I wasn’t taken seriously, leaving myself vulnerable to criticism and ridicule from people or the media after conflict arose with impacted parties when heritage was threatened on the Bluff. It raises eyebrows for people when someone starts talking about wanting to put up a lighthouse in 2024 when such a navigation device is now obviously outdated. Not everyone was interested or even cared about heritage protection. This experience occurred with the Old Napier Prison, the DOC reserve, and the Napier Lookout proposal.
Each proposal was emotionally taxing due to the criticism and rejections I faced over the past five years while attempting to bring back a lighthouse to the Ahuriri Bluff. I became accustomed to being treated like the; out in left field “eccentric lighthouseman” by some people during my research on the Napier Lighthouse replica idea. One must be quite resilient to handle such continuous criticism and scrutiny when unconventional ideas are presented to the Napier public or government agencies. At this point, I feel that I have done all I can for this prison, and continuing to pursue lighthouse replicas is emotionally draining for me. Hence, my urgency now for a conclusion to this five-year endeavour of trying to bring back a lighthouse to Napier. Maybe my work motivates Crown Property Management to allocate more funds to LINZ so the prison can be maintained better in the future so my work was not in vain.
An idea like this doesn’t just pop up overnight; from its early beginnings, each proposal slowly develops and becomes more realistic and viable over time. In the case of putting up a replica lighthouse, I made my first proposal to Council (Lookout) and then to DOC (Lighthouse reserve). I would have first contacted the Crown/LINZ to discuss placing the replica next to the prison in Napier, which seemed like the most logical location. Unfortunately, this option wasn’t available five years ago, as Crown Property Management and LINZ were in negotiations with Mana Ahuriri Trust for their Waitangi Treaty Settlement. I wasn’t able to intervene in these negotiations, even though I didn’t believe the property was suitable for Maori due to its heritage status. How would Maori maintain the prison if the Crown couldn’t do it themselves? LINZ advised me to directly negotiate with the Ahuriri Iwi regarding the replica lighthouse on the property until recently. However, it seems that the treaty negotiations no longer include the prison property. This led to a change in the situation on that historic hillside which then prompted my last-minute proposal, first to the Mana Ahuriri Trust and later LINZ, after it appeared that the treaty negotiations no longer included the prison site.
Considering all of the above, I can confirm that Napier will not be receiving a replica lighthouse for various reasons. The responses from Heritage New Zealand, the Napier City Council, and LINZ/Crown Property Management have been published below.
I believed that this final and viable proposal would have been a fantastic opportunity for Napier as a port city to enhance its character with the history and historic track on that hillside. Perhaps someone else will take on the task of repurposing the prison in the future. I wanted to make one final attempt to present this proposal to the appropriate parties and have it documented. If the Mana Ahuriri Trust had taken the property for their treaty settlement, it would have been challenging for me to convince an Iwi to erect a replica of the 1874 lighthouse and care for New Zealand’s colonial maritime and prison history on that site. It was a difficult task, but I gave it my best shot to see if this property could be saved with this alternative option.
The fate of the property now seems to once again lie with the Crown. Perhaps the Government will decide to restore the prison at some point. For the Iwi, taking on this property would not be a fair settlement in my opinion, but rather a burden. Resolving this complex issue on that hillside, due to its Heritage I status, will take time. So far, nobody else has presented any other viable proposal of how to save this prison. Ripping away half of New Zealand's unique maritime history from this prison was a loss for Napier. How else can this prison survive unless the lighthouse is being put back? A replica lighthouse would serve as a large advertising board for the prison, both visually and historically.
I know that because for the past five years, I have been researching the Old Napier Prison lighthouse on Marine Parade, with my ultimate goal being to restore a lighthouse on Bluff Hill if possible. My interest in this topic stemmed from living near the historic reserve managed by the Department of Conservation (DOC). This reserve was originally established in the 1920s for a new lighthouse on Bluff Hill, which resulted in the naming of Lighthouse Road. The decision to relocate the Napier Lighthouse was made due to ships encountering difficulties in identifying the light beam from the lighthouse next to Napier Prison as the city expanded. Unfortunately, the construction of the new lighthouse was halted after the 1931 Napier earthquake due to unstable land conditions on the Ahuriri Bluff. The Bluff Hill Bowling Club, now leases the property from the Department of Conservation. Presently, this property falls within the historic Napier Bluff Hill Character Zone. My strong connection to both my property and the surrounding Ahuriri Bluff, as well as the prison property, originated from my deep affection for the area where I have resided for 25 years. Additionally, my passion for heritage protection of Napier’s unique maritime and prison history further fuels my interest in these locations.
Heritage NZ response to replica lighthouse proposal
Thank you for your patience while Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) Central Region staff reviewed your proposal to reconstruct a lighthouse on the Napier Prison (Former) property, a Category 1 Historic Place entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero. We appreciate your commitment to the well-being and future of this important heritage place and also engaging in some creative thinking and problem solving. A thorough consideration of the proposal’s impact on heritage utilising best-practice principles in the ICOMOS NZ Charter (attached), which guides the heritage advice of HNZPT—unfortunately—does not allow us to advocate for this proposal.
General
Relevant Central Region staff have reviewed the proposal as outlined on your website: Proposal (napierlighthouse.co.nz). They have provided me a thorough assessment from the standpoint of heritage and best-practice heritage principles. In our view, the proposal to reconstruct a lighthouse on the site of the Napier Prison (Former) site is not appropriate, and is largely inconsistent with recognised best-practice. The ICOMOS NZ Charter discourages the full reconstruction of places:
Given this guidance, and the fact the proposal constitutes a full reconstruction and also not in the original location, HNZPT cannot support the proposal on heritage grounds. Furthermore, a reconstructed lighthouse on the site is, in our view, not essential or necessary for understanding the cultural heritage values of the prison or the wider site. HNZPT would advocate for the appropriate adaptation of the Napier Prison (Former) to enable the place to be recognised, understood, and sustainably used into the future. An adaptive reuse concept would need landowner approval and any removal and/or changes to structures will require a heritage assessment to ensure the values of the place are maintained. Adaptive reuse could potentially include some activities, like the café and gift shop presented in your concept. HNZPT would also welcome the removal of some vegetation around the site, especially trees which may impact the physical integrity of the historic buildings/structures.
Resource consent
If you wish to proceed with an application for resource consent, Napier City Council will require an independent Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by a suitably qualified heritage expert to accompany your application. I have attached a copy of the ICOMOS NZ consultant’s directory should you choose to engage an independent expert.
Archaeology
HNZPT oversees the archaeological provisions of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 and manages the associated archaeological authority process. Given the site is known to be a place of pre-1900 human settlement, any redevelopment of the site would need to consider the need for an archaeological authority. A professional consultant archaeologist can look at the history of the site in more detail and determine the likelihood of encountering archaeology and can confirm whether an authority is required before any works can commence. Activities such as removal of mature trees, and construction of a path up the hill, may also trigger the need for an archaeological authority.
Current property management
HNZPT has also been in correspondence with LINZ regarding the urgent need to repair the prison walls. It is my understanding that they have commissioned engineering and heritage assessments with a view of undertaking necessary repair and strengthening work on the walls. We have also been informed that LINZ have commissioned a Conservation Plan for the site.
In summary
I acknowledge that this response may not be what you were hoping to receive from HNZPT. We do however share your concerns about the present condition of the site and the future ability of the heritage site to be appreciated and understood. We will continue to advocate for protection and upkeep of the site, and for an appropriate use of the former prison in the future.
The Napier City Council response to replica lighthouse proposal
The prison restoration and installation of a replica lighthouse is an exciting proposal which could benefit Napier. There are however a number of considerations with the first and foremost being who owns the property.
Napier Operative District Plan (ODP)
From a planning / resource consent perspective the site is zoned Napier Hill Character under the operative District Plan (ODP) and is identified as containing Archaeological Sites “Napier Prison” and Heritage Items “Lower Prison Wall”. The ODP does not address archaeology and instead relies upon Heritage New Zealand and therefore it is recommended that you speak with them before progressing any further. The Lower Prison Wall is identified as a Group 2 item, there is also a Napier Prison Wall which is identified as a Group 1 Item. The ODP states “Group 1 Identifies individual buildings and streetscapes which are of prime importance to the heritage of the City and must be protected and Group 2 Identifies buildings that individually are of primary importance to the heritage of the City and the protection of which is seen as reasonably able to be achieved.” Repair and maintenance of a heritage item is a Permitted Activity in accordance with Rule 56.8. External safety alteration to any Group 2 heritage item necessary for the primary purpose of improving structural performance, fire safety or physical access is a Controlled Activity. Internal and/or external alterations (excluding safety alterations), relocation and/or demolition of a Group 1 heritage item is a Discretionary Activity.
When considering an application under the ODP Council would generally look at the following matters:
Whether the form, mass, proportion and materials of the alteration or addition will be compatible with the prevailing architectural style of the existing heritage item.
Whether any existing traditional fences or walls at the road frontage can be reasonably preserved and/or reinstated subsequent to the alteration or addition.
Whether the adverse effects of the alteration or addition on the character of the heritage item and surrounding environment can be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
Whether any cumulative adverse effects on the heritage item and any other heritage items in the surrounding environment can be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
Alteration, Addition, Relocation and/or Demolition of a Group 1 Heritage Item; Demolition of a Group 2 Heritage Item
Whether the proposal follows appropriate conservation method. The conservation method should:
Whether the proposal respects existing evidence of the heritage item and to what extent.
Whether the proposal conserves the historical setting of the place and to what degree.
Whether the proposal will assist in risk mitigation, that is, in the prevention of potential risk from any natural process or event.
Whether the contents of a place that contribute to its cultural heritage value are conserved.
Whether works of art and special fabric will be retained.
Whether invasive investigation can be justified.
Whether non-intervention is a desirable alternative.
Napier City Proposed District Plan (PDP)
The site is zoned General Residential and is subject to an Amenity Precinct: Napier Hill – Mataruahou and is identified as containing Lower Prison Wall Cat B, Napier Prison Wall Cat A and Old Napier Prison Cat A and two Archaeology Sites. It is worth noting that the entire prison complex is protected and resource consent and permission from Heritage New Zealand would be required.
HH-R1: Maintenance and repair to the interior and/or exterior of a Group A or Group B heritage item; internal alterations, and/or internal safety alterations to a Group B heritage item is Permitted subject to any materials removed to carry out the repairs must be limited to the amount necessary to carry out the works and there must be no damage to the heritage item when undertaking the repairs and maintenance, and protective material must be used where necessary to prevent damage.
HH-R6 Internal or external alterations (excluding safety alterations) to a Group A heritage item is a Discretionary Activity.
Other
It is recommended that you engage the services of a Heritage Specialist and liaise with Heritage New Zealand who hold further information about the feature. Should you choose to proceed with a resource consent application it is recommended that you engage the services of an experienced local planner as Council will need to careful assess the potential effects of any additions and alterations. A lighting specialist may also need to be engaged to assess the effects of light spill on the adjacent and wider environment. The height of the lighthouse would also be a key consideration. Earthworks consent maybe required for the earthworks associated with the path. Should you require any further information regarding your proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me.