30
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AOTEAROA
The natural
character
quandry
Text by
Dr Joan Forret and
Robert Davies,
Harkness Henry
Lawyers
Can the ‘natural character’ value of a site be
adequately assesed by simply viewing
photographs on a laptop?
VISIT TOURISM NEW ZEALAND’S website and it won’t
take you long to work out that our country is defined
internationally by its varied landscapes. Images online are of people climbing high country hill tracks,
swimming in azure blue waters, and tentatively exploring thermal wonderlands.
There can be no doubt that New Zealand’s brand is
inextricably linked to our country’s clean, green and
“100% pure” environment.
Setting aside the politics of just how pure we may
or may not be, no-one would disagree that preserving our environment – including recognising and
providing for the things that make it special – is
critical. The purpose of this article is to explore
how that occurs at a practical level, using an example from the Coromandel, to encourage debate on
whether the current approach to assessing natural
character is working.
Variation 1: A very brief history
The Coromandel is a beautiful part of New Zealand.
Located on the Pacific Coast Highway, it’s a coastal
peninsula characterised by the central Coromandel
Range with vast areas of native bush and impressive
landforms. The Coromandel markets itself as being
good for a person’s soul and describes its natural
environment in justifiably glowing terms: “Renowned
for its natural beauty, green pastures, misty rainforests and pristine golden beaches, the Coromandel is
blessed with hundreds of natural hideaways, making it
an ideal place to escape.”
On 13 December 2013, the Thames-Coromandel
District Council (TCDC) notified its proposed district
plan (PDP). As notified, the PDP sought the protection and enhancement of the natural character of the
Coromandel’s coastal environment, wetlands, lakes
and rivers. It did so by imposing a Natural Character
Overlay (overlay) in specified areas distinguished by
their high or outstanding natural character values.
The efficacy of the overlay was challenged by some
submitters to the PDP, who argued that it failed to
give effect to the Resource Management Act 1991
(RMA), the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
(CPS), and the proposed Waikato Regional Policy
Statement (proposed RPS).
Among the myriad of concerns raised (including
some interesting natural justice concerns we are
forced to leave to another article) was the need to
consider carving out areas captured by the overlay
into separate categories to distinguish between areas
of outstanding natural character, high natural character, and general natural character.
Following Environment Court consent orders
issued as part of the proposed RPS process, TCDC
accepted that the PDP did not adequately give effect
to those matters of national importance required
by section 6 of the RMA. This decision led TCDC to
abandon the overlay and initiate what became Variation 1, a response designed to draw a line in the sand
by identifying activities that would affect natural
character values before defining what level of regulatory control was required to preserve those values.