3.4.1 Phillips’ report included a literature review, described his survey methology, briefly described the sites that were to be excluded from the quarrying, but gave a detailed description of the pa which was to be destroyed (approximately 90% of which has already been destroyed by past quarrying). He noted that Fulton Hogan was conducting cultural assessment of the property with local iwi independently of his report. He included an updated Site Record Form for the pa with a plan, a location map of the quarry, a map showing the location of recorded sites, and copy of the 1944 aerial photograph before quarrying had begun.

3.4.2 Phillips recommended that: (i) an authority be granted to destroy the pa, subject to a requirement for an intensive subsurface archaeological investigation both inside and immediately outside the defences and adopting a research design to answer questions about the evolution and design of peripheral pa, (ii) the other three recorded sites should be fenced off with a suitable buffer zone to protect them, and (iii) all undisturbed land should be archaeologically monitored (controlled removal of topsoil supervised by an archaeologist prior to quarrying).

3.4.3 In his statement of evidence given before the hearing of the Special Joint Hearings Committee Phillips repeated the substance of his report, but he added several comments: (i) pa U14/1810 had been highly compromised and that its retention would limit quarry operations to an extent which could not be justified, (ii) if any cultural evidence or finds were made by Fulton Hogan during quarrying or forestry operations they should notify Bay of Plenty Regional Council, (iii) the 6 recorded sites in the eastern part of the quarry extension (Stages 4, 5 & 6) were not within the proposed quarry stage boundaries, (iv) that undisturbed areas in all Stages should be archaeologically monitored, (v) that the logging of the pine plantation should be monitored by an archaeologist.

3.0 Adequacy of Phillips 1999 Assessment