32
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AOTEAROA
pieced together by circumstance and, in the case of
the Coromandel at least, the proposed RPS, which describes ‘natural character’ as “…the degree of naturalness of an area, as evidenced by the degree to which
it possesses qualities and features that are products of
natural…activities.”
Setting aside the politics,
no-one would disagree
that preserving our
environment – including
recognising and providing
for the things that make
it special – is critical.
It’s undeniably tricky when something as important
as ‘natural character’ is uncertain or vague. Outside
of case law, the only high-level guidance is from the
CPS, which includes a list of matters which might be
considered when determining what ‘natural character’
includes. Otherwise, determining what does and does
not qualify as an area of natural character can be a
fraught and haphazard process.
The proposed RPS required district plans to identify
areas of high natural character in the coastal environment using specified criteria. These criteria set out
both the biophysical characteristics and perceptual
values that were to be used as the basis on which to
identify these areas within the Coromandel. Many
of these criteria required a physical assessment as
opposed to a desktop analysis.
This was because the values of the site’s experiential attributes and habitat, along with its context and
setting, could not be rigorously assessed from the
relative comfort of an office environment. Accurately
assessing these attributes and features required, in
our minds at least, boots on the ground. We felt that
assessing a site’s natural character required an evaluation of those sensory perceptions and biophysical
characteristics unique to it. Such an assessment can
be contrasted with a desktop landscape assessment,
which is limited to assessing visual characteristics using resources like maps and photographs, and which
is required when assessing natural landscapes.
Notwithstanding the difference between landscapes and natural character areas, we felt the recent
Man O’War decision was relevant to assessments of
the kind required as part of Variation 1 because, in
the words of Justice Andrews, “the identification of
outstanding natural landscapes drives the policies.”
While Man O’War concerned the criteria needed to
assess outstanding natural landscapes, it reinforced
the importance of using objective and correct methodology when assessing areas for protection.
The section 42A report on Variation 1 noted that a
large number of submitters had sought the removal
of natural character overlays from their properties
because of the presence of modified land cover and
the belief that areas of forestry, farming, and human
activity should be excluded from areas of high natural
character. In response, TCDC argued that the determination of whether an area exhibited natural character required an overall judgement; one made “on
balance”. TCDC said that it was common for coastal
areas to have “pockets” of modified land and few attributes with either ‘high’ or ‘very high’ ratings.
While it’s true that land which has been modified
can also exhibit natural character qualities, the level
to which natural processes dominated the site must
inform the degree of its overall naturalness. In the
case of sites exhibiting highly modified forms as a
consequence of managed human activity, the question
must be whether some other natural characteristic
exists that is so great it overcomes these modified
qualities, justifying the high natural character overlay.
In the absence of such a characteristic, the overlay
cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
Preservation of natural character is a key requirement
of the RMA, CPS and both regional and district planning instruments, as it should be.
However, difficulties and differences in applying the
term ‘natural character’ now mean that it is time to
provide some statutory guidance. In particular, is it
time for clarity around how authorities assess whether certain areas exhibit ‘natural character’ qualities,
and confirmation that preserving natural character
and protecting natural features and landscapes are
two distinct statutory requirements, requiring
separate assessment methodologies. We think it is,
and that doing so will help to preserve New Zealand’s
vibrant and diverse environment.