Hauraki Gulf Islands  review

<< Back to contents

Issues and options papers

Human Activity/Natural Environment

Issue
As the first plan notified under the 1991 Resource Management Act, the Hauraki Gulf Islands (HGI) Plan accepted the challenge of the new legislation and adopted an effects-based regime in an area of the city that was the least modified by human activity. While the Plan recognises the rights of residents on the Hauraki Gulf Islands to earn a living, achieve quality of life and enjoy the place they choose to live in, it also recognises that careful land management is necessary to protect and sustainably manage the natural environment of the islands. This approach saw the plan win an award from the NZ Planning Institute.

The land management technique (or effects-based regime) used in the Plan is a regulatory system that focuses on protecting the natural environment by identifying matters that must be addressed. However, unlike the other sections of the city's District Plan (for the Isthmus and the Central Area), the HGI District Plan does little to specifically provide for or manage the effects of human activity.

Thus applicants are required to prove, by submitting extensive and detailed information, that the effects of earthworks required to access and establish a dwelling are within the permitted standard; while establishing a restaurant in an existing building requires little information to be provided to address the effects caused by visitors attracted to it. By contrast, the District Plan for the Isthmus identifies and focuses on the traffic and noise effects that visitors to restaurants may generate and specifies in which parts of the city such activities can be located. This example bears out the assertion that the focus of the HGI Plan (as currently written) has been to manage and protect the natural environment. The other side of this argument is that the Plan does not adequately address the effects that activities and development have on people. The outcome has been complaints that the effects of activities have not been adequately addressed in resource consents - primarily because the District Plan does not direct that these effects be considered

An unforeseen outcome of the current approach has been that the cost of obtaining expert assessments of the effects of earthworks and the impact of the removal of vegetation has made it difficult for some parts of the community to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing. This appears to be a particular problem for the community on Great Barrier Island, where accessing such technical expertise is costly. Complaints have been received from time to time that the District Plan is too restrictive and that compliance with the plan is at a very high cost to the community - parts of which are not well resourced and able to meet such costs.

Section 35 of the Resource Management Act specifies the duty to gather information, monitor and keep records. In particular Section 35(2)(b) requires every local authority to monitor the suitability and effectiveness of any policy statement or plan for its region or district. Monitoring the effectiveness of the current approach of the Plan has been difficult, as there is very little data readily available on processed resource consents for the Hauraki Gulf Islands over the life of the Plan. It is necessary to rely on anecdotal information to determine the effectiveness of the Plan.

You may have a better or alternative approach to those outlined below. If so, we would like to hear from you.

• Retain the effects-based approach but examine how the Plan is drafted. Remove uncertainty and lack of clarity through clear drafting with plain English. Ensure consistency within the document so that objectives, policies and rules are linked and flow logically.
• Move the Plan to a more regulated framework, with clearer guidance and greater control over activities. Such a framework could result in the development of a more prescriptive approach, with specific activities identified in the Plan for each land unit, their status made clear and the matters that must be considered in addressing such activities explicitly listed. This approach, providing more certainty, may remove the flexibility that is also valued.
• Combine the two approaches described above. Parts of the Plan, for example those parts that relate more closely to human activity (such as Land Unit 11 - Traditional Residential and Land Unit 13 - Retail) could be given a prescriptive framework with clear guidance and control on activities. The rest of the Plan could take an effects-based approach that is more clearly drafted than at present.

Note:

This issue paper is best read in association with all issue papers.