Spatial Planning Terminology Research Study

Transcription

1 Spatial Planning Terminology Research Study Ministry for the Environment Prepared by Planz Consultants July 2015 Final

2 Planz Consultants Quality Assurance Statement: Application Prepared By: Planz Consultants Ltd, 124 Peterborough Street, PO Box 1845, Christchurch 8140, Danielle Blakely, Senior Planner Tim Joll, Senior Planner DDI: (03) DDI: (03) E: E: Reviewed By: Dean Chrystal, Director DDI: (03) E: Project Number: Document Status: Final Date: 27 July 2015 The information contained in this document produced by Planz Consultants Ltd is solely for the use of the Client for the purpose for which it has been prepared and Planz Consultants Ltd undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document. All rights reserved. section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of Planz Consultants Ltd. T: E: W: planzconsultants.co.nz A: 124 Peterborough St PO Box 1845 Christchurch 8140 New Zealand

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF STUDY SCOPE OF STUDY PROJECT DELIVERABLES RESEARCH METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW PLAN SAMPLE COLLATION OF RAW DATA GROUPING OF DATA FINDINGS FROM SAMPLE DATA COMMONALITIES ACROSS PLAN STUDY SAMPLE Heritage Natural Feature Natural Hazard Airport Related Overlays and Features Utilities and Roads Designations INCONSISTENCY ACROSS PLAN STUDY SAMPLE Location of Spatial Planning Tools within Plans Presentation of Spatial Planning Layers (maps, figures, appendix) Structure Plans What is Adopted as a Separate Planning Layer verses a Zone Underlying Information Source OTHER MATTERS Spatial Planning Tools without Rules Use of Scheduled Activity is Inconsistent across Plans, Making it not a Suitable General Descriptor Impact of SPT Rules on Zone CONSIDERATION OF INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES EXAMPLE 1: LONDON, ENGLAND The London Plan London Borough Hounslow Unity Development Plan Conclusion EXAMPLE 2: NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA Sydney Metropolitan Strategy A Plan for Growing Sydney Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order Blacktown Local Environmental Plan Conclusion DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND KEY OBSERVATIONS TERMINOLOGY METHODS OF MAPPING Where Spatial Planning Layers and Features Are Located in Plans Consistency in how Spatial Planning Tools are illustrated across Plans REFERENCE TO NOTIFICATION IMPLICATIONS REPETITION OF RULES THAT APPLY TO SPATIAL PLANNING TOOLS NARROW USE OF SPATIAL PLANNING TOOLS IN THE REGIONAL PLAN SAMPLE

4 5.6 USE OF STRUCTURE PLANS IS BECOMING MORE WIDESPREAD PRECINCTS APPROACH OF AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN COULD BE ADOPTED FOR ALL STRUCTURE PLANS ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE PLANNING IMPLICATIONS OF SPATIAL PLANNING TOOLS FOR DEVELOPMENTS STRUCTURE PLAN DETAIL SHOULD PROVIDE FOR FLEXIBILITY IN THEIR APPLICATION INCLUSION OF OVERLAYS FOR KEY INVESTMENT INDICATORS HOW THE PLAN IS PUT ON THE INTERNET IMPACTS ON ITS USER-FRIENDLINESS CONCLUSION APPENDICES: Appendix 1: Appendix 2: Spatial Planning Data Groupings District Plan Sample Data

5 Executive Summary OVERVIEW Planz Consultants (Planz) were engaged by the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (MfE) to undertake a study of the spatial planning tools (SPTs) which currently apply across New Zealand. The study sought to identify how SPTs were used across New Zealand, identifying commonalities and differences. The study reviewed a plan sample of 30 plans which were selected jointly by Planz and MfE, and included: 26 district plans (including 3 unitary plans: Marlborough Unitary Plan, Gisborne District Combined Regional Land and District Plan and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan); 4 regional plans. The key data collected through the review of the plan sample was collated on a spreadsheet and included: The names of SPT in each of the sample plans; How the SPT was presented in the plan; The impact the SPT had on the activity status and the notification process; Any additional standards or rules which applied to the SPT; The findings of the sample plan review were collated into a series of general descriptors which sought to group similar SPTs with the potential of developing a set of consistent spatial planning terminology. The key findings of the study were then documented in this report, identifying commonalities and inconsistencies in the use and terminology relating to SPTs across the plan sample, and comparing the use of SPTs in New Zealand to two international examples: London, United Kingdom; and NSW Australia. FINDINGS FROM DATA Through the detailed review of the 30 sample plans, a number of commonalities and inconsistencies were identified in the use of SPTs. It was clear through the review and collected data that similar information was being presented, however the way it was expressed spatially and the use of terminology differed across plans. The key common groups identified across the sample data were: Heritage Heritage SPTs were identified across all the sample plans with the exception of the Regional Plans. There was a largely uniform approach to how they were presented spatially and were also listed within an Appendix contained in the plan. It was noted that some plans included an annotation on the planning maps which included the heritage item number which corresponded to the listing in the Appendix, which increased ease of finding the item description and applicable rules. Natural Feature SPTs relating to natural features were present in each of the sample plans, with the exception of the Regional Plans and the Lower Hutt District Plan. While all plans included natural features SPTs, there were some plans which included locally specific natural feature SPTs such as the Special Ecological Area overlay in the Tauranga District Plan. However these could be clearly identified as falling within the natural feature general descriptor category. Natural Hazard SPTs for natural hazards were consistently found in the plan sample, and identified uniform features: flooding; coastal hazard areas; and geological / fault lines. Some plans contained additional natural hazards SPTs which were of local relevance such as the Potential Harbour Storm Surge Area overlay in the Tauranga District Plan. Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research - 1 -

6 Airport Related SPTs SPTs for airport related activities were identified in approximately 60% of the sample plans, and were uniformly presented on the planning maps, which was likely a result of the legislative framework under which these overlays are prepared. Utilities and Roads the road hierarchy was illustrated on most of the planning maps as well as transmission corridors, and therefore were identified as a common SPT. Designations some land which was subject to a designation relating to utilities or infrastructure was also identified using a specific utilities or infrastructure layer. Identified inconsistencies in the use of SPTs across the plan sample included: Across each of the sample plans there was a range of locations where the various layers and features were contained. In several instances, SPTs could be located in multiple locations within a single RMS plan making it difficult to identify all relevant SPTs for a site. How the SPTs were presented within the sample plans, including the use of maps, figures and appendix schedules. Varying degrees of scale and detail included in Structure Plans. What was adopted as a zone verses a SPT. Limited availability of underlying data, making it difficult for users of plans to determine how SPT areas where selected or whether sufficient investigations had been undertaken to identify the SPT boundaries. The referencing to underlying data sources identifying the various layers and features. INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES Two international examples were also considered to identify opportunities for how SPTs could be used in New Zealand. These examples were: London, England where there is an over-arching spatial plan for London. Each of the London boroughs must develop their plans in general conformity with the Mayor s London Plan. The use of overlays at a borough level is guided by Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12), which sets out the Government's policy on local spatial planning. Sydney, Australia where the State government has introduced a Standard Instrument which includes the specific drafting of rules, mandated zone structure, and standardised SPT mapping and terminology requirements. The application of how these two international examples could be applied to the structuring of SPTs in future RMA plans was considered in the discussions section of the report. KEY OBSERVATIONS The key observations from the collected sample plan data sought to identify opportunities for the use of SPTs to be more streamlined nationally. The key areas were a more streamlined approach could be adopted were identified as: The use of terminology, both within individual plans, and across district / unitary plans nationally; Consolidating where SPTs are located within plans, and having this consistently applied nationally; Proposing a standardised approach to how key features illustrated in SPTs are presented on maps within RMA plans, so that they are consistently presented across all district / unitary plans; Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research - 2 -

7 Consider how the precincts approach in the Auckland Unitary Plan could be more widely adopted, and how they may remove need for other SPTs; Creating consistency in how rules applying to SPTs are cross-referenced or annotated for ease of identification; Standardising how RMA plans are presented and made available on the internet, and the potential for a single website could be created where all current operative RMA plans are loaded in a uniform way, similar to the NSW Legislation website; Standardised plans prepared under the NSW system have the benefit of all users being easily able to navigate through the consistent structure and mapping of planning controls, utilising consistent legends across local government areas; The use of Structure Plans is becoming more widespread, and would benefit from a standardised approach on how they apply and they information they contain, as well as how they are spatially presented; Including consistent cross-referencing of specific SPT features with their applicable rules, such as annotations on planning maps to make it quicker and easier to identify the implications of a SPT on the site; Providing information on the SPTs as to whether the provisions applicable to a layer were more or less restrictive than the zone provisions; and Including SPTs for key investment indicators such as height and floor space ratio, which combined with the land use zone Through identifying these key areas where streamlining of SPTs could be applied, it was also noted that a more consistent approach to SPTs would improve the user-friendliness of RMA plans, which could inturn increase the ease of doing property-related business nationally. CONCLUSIONS Based on the data collected from the plan sample, it was clear that SPTs were used consistently to address features and issues which are not locally specific. For example, all districts will have natural features and hazards, and the ability for these features to be mapped lends themselves to being presented through SPTs. However, there are other features which were consistently adopted across most of the sample plans such as Structure Plans, however the method which these features are spatially represented and where this information is located within the plans is not consistent. These features lend themselves to being presented in a more uniform manner which would improve user-friendliness of district plans nationally. Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research - 3 -

8 1 Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY Planz Consultants (Planz) was engaged by the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (MfE) to undertake a study of the spatial planning tools which currently apply across New Zealand. The objective of the study was to: Identify the terminology RMA district and regional plans use, in addition to zones, to describe various layers and features and how they use them to link planning provisions to particular geographic areas, properties, and individual items. The study sought to identify: The types of information contained in spatial planning tools (SPTs) including overlays; The terminology used to describe spatial planning tools; How information contained in spatial planning tools are presented in District, Unitary and Regional Plans; and Commonalities and differences between the use of spatial planning tools across New Zealand. The findings of this study are intended to be used in conjunction with the findings of other research pieces being undertake on behalf of MfE to identified ways in which a more standardised approach to Resource Management Act Plans can be adopted across New Zealand. Specifically, the spatial planning tool research seeks to assess the terminology and methodologies for the use of spatial planning tools across New Zealand. 1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY The scope of this study was outlined in the Request for Proposal (RFP) prepared by MfE dated March The RFP required a review of 30 RMA district plans (including some unitary plans) and sufficient number of regional plans to cover a variety of regional RMA functions.. Based on this requirement the research study included a review of: 26 District Plans (including 3 Unitary Plans: Marlborough Unitary Plan; Gisborne Combined Regional and District Plan; and Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan). 4 Regional Plans. A spreadsheet was created to capture the following key data on each of these plans, most importantly the name of the various layers and features in the plan, how it was shown and its impact on the activity status of planning rules that applied to development within land affected by the layer or feature. The data was collected over a six week period to 26 June 2015, with findings consolidated at regular intervals, to ensure data collection and spatial planning tool identification was consistent. 1.3 PROJECT DELIVERABLES The findings of the spatial planning tool research resulted in the preparation of two deliverables: 1. The raw data spreadsheets of the spatial planning tools which were identified in each of the sample RMA plans (Attached to this report as Appendix 2). 2. This report, which summarised: The range of spatial planning tools which were identified across the sample of RMA plans; The commonalities in approach to spatial planning tools across the sample; The inconsistencies in using spatial planning tools across the sample; Any other key findings from the data collected; Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research - 4 -

9 Consideration of two international examples of the use of spatial planning tools: London, England where spatial planning tools are managed by individual boroughs, and New South Wales Australia where the state government has introduce a standardised approach to planning instruments including the use and visual representation of spatial planning tools. A discussion of the findings of the study and key learnings from within New Zealand, the England and New South Wales, Australia. A discussion of the key observations arising from the study. Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research - 5 -

10 2 Research Methodology 2.1 OVERVIEW The research methodology was prepared in consultation with MfE. The consultation included an inception meeting to discuss the sample of plans to be investigated to ensure there was a suitable crosssection of plan types, the structure and content of the data collection spreadsheet, and the extent of SPTs to be included. 2.2 PLAN SAMPLE The selection of the Resource Management Act plans was determined jointly by MfE and Planz, to ensure the sample included a cross-section of: First and Second Generation District Plans Unitary Plans Regional Plans Metro, rural and provincial districts Growth Councils. A list of the plans which were reviewed is provided in Table 1 below. If a proposed plan had been prepared for the district or region, and had progressed through the public notification process to public hearings, the proposed plan was reviewed to ensure that the most recent thinking of Councils was captured. It is also noted that the plan sample specifically excluded plans which are part of a rolling review (with the exception of Whangarei) to ensure that the sample considered plans which had been adopted at specific times. Table 1 - List of Resource Management Act Plan Sample included in the Study Plan Type Generation Context Auckland Unitary Plan Unitary 2 nd Metro Hamilton District Plan District 2 nd Metro Tauranga City Plan District 2 nd Metro Wellington City District Plan District 2 nd Metro Christchurch City Plan District 1 st Metro Dunedin City District Plan District 1st Provincial Lower Hutt District Plan District 1 st Provincial Whangarei District Plan District 1 st Provincial Hastings District Plan District 1 st Provincial Timaru District Plan District 1 st Provincial Queenstown Lakes District Plan District 2 nd Provincial Upper Hutt District Plan District 2 nd Provincial Gisborne District Combined Regional Land and District Plan Unitary 2 nd Provincial Proposed Gisborne Coastal Environmental Plan Regional 1sr Provincial Marlborough Unitary Plan (Vol 2 Sounds Plan) Unitary 2 nd Provincial Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research - 6 -

11 Whakatane District Plan District 2 nd Provincial South Taranaki District Plan District 1 st Provincial Horowhenua District Plan District 2 nd Provincial Wairarapa Combined District Plan District 2 nd Provincial Selwyn District Plan Township District 1 st Metro Selwyn District Rural District 1 st Rural Waimate District Plan District 2 nd Rural Central Otago District Plan District 1 st Rural Hurunui District Plan District 1 st Rural Kaikoura District Plan District 2 nd Rural Opotiki District Plan District 1 st Rural Manawatu District Plan District 1 st Rural. Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Environment Plan Regional 2 nd Provincial Hawkes Bay Combined Regional Policy Statement and Regional Plan Regional 1 st Provincial Horizons One Plan Regional 2 nd Provincial Canterbury Regional Council Land and Water Plan Regional 2 nd Provincial 2.3 COLLATION OF RAW DATA The raw data was collated between 20 May and 26 June The data collection for each of the sample plans included a review of: The planning maps to determine what layers and features were spatially illustrated; Each chapter of the District or Regional Plan to determine what additional SPTs were used, however not reflected on the planning maps; Any Appendix relating to the District or Regional Plan; and Section 32 Report where available to identify any underlying data which guided the development of the SPT. The data was collected on a spreadsheet for each of the sample plans, which included: The name of the SPT. A description of what the SPT showed. How the SPT was presented in the plan documentation. Whether the SPT had an effect on the activity status of certain activities. Whether the SPT resulted in additional rules or bulk and location standards applying to activities. Any stated impact on the notification process for an activity affected by the various layers and features identified on the SPT. Any cross-reference to other legislation, policy or register. The underlying information which the SPT was based. It was also agreed that the following items should be excluded from the SPT data collection, as they were being considered in other research work being undertaken by MfE: Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research - 7 -

12 Designations; Airsheds; and Maori Statutory Acknowledgements. 2.4 GROUPING OF DATA The raw data collected was grouped into general descriptor categories, to initially determine what types of data was presented in SPTs. The grouping of data using the general descriptors allowed for the highlevel identification of consistencies and differences in the information which is presented by means of SPTs across New Zealand. The groupings were identified to capture a broad range of data sets which were presented in SPTs. The groups used were: Heritage - Relates to a wide range of heritage items including protected buildings, places, objects, trees, sites and places of cultural value or significance; and archaeological areas. Natural Feature - Relates to natural areas and features which are of value or importance to the district, including coastal areas; indigenous forests; aquifers; surface water bodies; riparian areas; areas of high indigenous biodiversity; prominent ridgelines; conservation areas; surf breaks; river mouths and peak lakes. Natural Hazard - Includes areas prone to flooding and ponding; coastal hazards; erosion, fault lines; unstable land; and filled areas. Designation - As per Section 166 of the RMA, and includes land designated by a requiring authority for a specific purpose. Infrastructure and Utilities - This category includes transmission corridors; power stations; airports, sea ports and harbours; areas of known public works; existing and proposed utilities; road and rail corridors; and fire stations. Many of these features are also designated. Special Amenity Area Overlay - Identified areas which exhibit special, representative or distinctive characteristics from its surrounding area. Structure Plan - An area of proposed development often provided for by way of a plan change that does not appropriately fall under any of the zone descriptions used in the District Plan. ise Control - Includes buffer areas around airports; sea ports; quarries; and noisy transportation routes to provide greater protection for existing or planned infrastructure and minimise reserve sensitivity. Built Form Control Spatial plans which seeks to manage built form outcomes in certain areas by imposing additional restrictions on the form and location of buildings and trees within the area they apply. They are also used for managing development around key infrastructure including airports and ports, view shafts and esplanade reserves as well as introducing buffer zones around potential natural hazard areas designed to reduce the risk to property or life. The general groupings sought to capture all the various layers and features identified through SPTs. However, once collection of the raw data was completed, it was identified that the following additional general descriptors applied to the data: Precincts - Identifies areas where spatial overlays are used to identify, manage and maintain local differences, which can vary the outcomes sought by the underlying zone. The provisions associated with Precincts can be either more enabling or restrictive than the underlying zone. Urban Design - Identifies areas were built form management measures are imposed to achieve urban design outcomes. This category includes the identification of key built frontages which may require additional built form features such as verandas or restrict the types of activities that can occupy units along these frontages. Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research - 8 -

13 Identified Growth Area - Areas identified in District Plans where growth is encouraged, these can include provision for higher densities of residential or commercial development or the provision of bulk retail developments. Air Quality - With reference to District Plans this general descriptor identifies areas with existing reduced air quality amenity, where additional restrictions on activities are required. Transport Management - This category includes road hierarchies across Districts; roads identified to be stopped; areas where new roads are proposed; overlays which restrict vehicle access to classified roads; and the identification of areas where additional parking provisions are considered necessary. Environmental Protection - Areas were additional protection measures are proposed to manage the environment. These include soil conservation and recommended areas for protection. This grouping covered the majority of overlays used in Regional Plans. The additional general descriptors were added to the raw data set. However, there were some overlays which still sat outside these general descriptors, but were considered to be outliers and therefore were grouped as Other. The identified outliers were: Salmon Spawning Sites Overlay in the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan; Community Footprint Overlay in the Christchurch City Plan; Contaminated Sites Overlay in the Gisborne Combined Regional and District Plan; Sustainable Land Use Overlay in the Hawkes Bay Regional Resource Management Plan; Areas Excluded from Conditions (c) Overlay in the Hawkes Bay Regional Resource Management Plan; Earthworks Overlay in the Lower Hutt District Plan; Piggery Overlay in the Manawatu District Plan; Goat Management / Control Area Overlay in the Opotiki and Whangarei District Plans; Commercial Centres Network Overlay in the Tauranga District Plan; Events Area Mt Manganui Main Beach Overlay in the Tauranga District Plan; Liquor Ban Area Overlay in the Whakatane District Plan; Goat and Deer Farming Rules Overlay in the Whakatane District Plan; Effluent Disposal and Effluent Unsuitability Areas Overlays in the Whangarei District Plan; and Scheduled Activity / Sites Overlays, which was used in various ways in different plans within the sample. Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research - 9 -

14 3 Findings from Sample Data Through the detailed review of each of the 30 selected sample plans, several commonalities and inconsistencies were identified. There was a clear indication that while similar information was being presented through spatial planning tools, the method and terminology used to express this information differed, while other data was consistently presented and referenced throughout all of the sample plans. 3.1 COMMONALITIES ACROSS PLAN STUDY SAMPLE Heritage Heritage Items were spatially represented in each of the District Plans reviewed. This was also one of the more uniformly approached SPTs, with data typically shown on the planning or overlay maps and also listed in an Appendix. In almost all instances the list of heritage items contained in an Appendix included an item number which was annotated on the planning or overlay map. One exception to this was the Opotiki District Plan, which listed heritage items within Appendix 4 of the Plan but did not contain any reference to the items on the Planning Maps. It was also noted that almost all plans provided a reference to legislation and registers the heritage data was based on. While heritage items were represented in all plans within the sample, variation in the characterisation of heritage items which were represented were observed. An example of this is outlined in Table 2 below which shows the categories of heritage items which were included in SPTs in five of the sample plans. The selected sample in Table 2 also illustrates that some plans include specific spatial overlays to manage demolition within areas where buildings from a particular era (eg. Wellington District Plan and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan) which could also be categorised as a Special Amenity Area, with the special amenity being its heritage value. Table 2 Example of the Different Terminology and Grouping of Heritage Items within five Sample Plans Hamilton Dunedin Wellington Auckland Unitary South Taranaki Significant Trees Significant Trees Heritage Trees table Trees Significant Natural Heritage table Tree Built Heritage A and B Ranking Heritage Structures and Facades Heritage Buildings Heritage Objects Pre 1944 Building Demolition Control Historic and Cultural Heritage Residential Area where pre-1930 demolition controls apply Special Heritage Areas Heritage Precincts Townscape Precincts Erskine College Heritage Mount Street Cemetery Heritage Area Historic Heritage Places Historic Heritage Extent of Place Archaeological and Cultural Sites (Group 1 and 2) Archaeological Sites Sites of Significance to Tangata Whenua or other Maori Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua Significant Natural Heritage Historic Site Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

15 3.1.2 Natural Feature A Natural Feature layer(s) was utilised in all of the sample District plans. While not grouped as natural features in the raw data collected, the SPT contained in the Regional Plan predominately related to the protection of natural features. One of the most consistently adopted Natural Feature spatial layers identified was the Outstanding Natural Feature / Landscape which was present in 20 of the 30 sample plans, of which all contain changes to the activity status or rules. While natural features were identified in all the district plans within the sample, there were some natural features which were unique to specific plans. Examples of these include: Surf Breaks (Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Plan); Summit Road Protection Act (Christchurch City Plan); Lake Rotorangi Protection Area (South Taranaki District Plan); Visually Prominent Area and Visual Recessive Area (Dunedin District Plan); Riparian Areas (Hastings District Plan and Marlborough Unitary Plan Vol.2); Muunoa West Forest Park (Horowhenua District Plan); and Special Ecological Area (Tauranga District Plan). These plan-specific features indicate that plans have adopted specific spatial layers to identify and manage activities which could impact on the unique natural character of the district or region. A summary of the terminology used to describe Natural Feature SPT in a selection of the samples plans is summarised in Table 3 below. The selection of plans is the same as those contained in Table 2 where there was a strong consistency across the plans, whereas the data presented in Table 3 below shows that the terminology used for Natural Feature SPTs is less-consistent and more reflective of the locational characteristics of the district. It was also noted that there was an anomaly in the Natural Features layers contained in the Proposed Hamilton District Plan. While Significant Trees where included as a heritage related SPT in the plan sample, the Proposed Hamilton District Plan included them in the Natural Environment section. This anomaly indicated that items are identified and associated rules drafted to achieve different outcomes and purposes. Table 3 Example of the Different Terminology and Grouping of Natural Features within five Sample Plans Hamilton Dunedin Wellington Auckland Unitary South Taranaki Significant Natural Areas Outstanding Landscape Area Outstanding Natural Landscape Significant Natural Areas Areas of Significant Conservation Value Coastal Landscape Preservation Area Earthworks Urban Coastal Edge Outstanding Natural Feature Coastal Natural Character Area (High and Outstanding) Outstanding Natural Features & Landscapes Coastal Environment Visually Prominent Area Landscape Conservation Area Wellington City Council Ridgeline & hilltops Ridgeline Protection Indicative Stream Scheduled River / Stream Aquifer Significant Ecological Areas (Land and Marine) Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

16 Significant Trees Urban Landscape Conservation Area Visually Recessive Area Natural Stream Management Area High Use Stream management Area Lake Management Area Lake Rotorangi Protection Area Natural Hazard Natural Hazards were identified in all of the sample plans with the exception of Queenstown Lake District Plan, Bay of Plenty Regional Plan, Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan and the Hawkes Bay Regional Resource Management Plan. There was a uniform approach to the information being displayed which included flooding, coastal hazard areas, and geological / fault lines, albeit that the use of terminology differed across the sample plans. An example of the Natural Hazard terminology used in the same selection of the sample plans used in Table 2 and Table 3, is illustrated in Table 4 below. The selected sample indicates that there is limited consistency in terminology across the plan sample even though the natural hazards which are displayed by way of SPT are relatively consistent across the plans. Table 4 Example of the Terminology and Grouping of Natural Hazards within five Sample Plans Hamilton Dunedin Wellington Auckland Unitary South Taranaki Low Flood Hazard Area Medium Flood Hazard Area High Flood Hazard Area Flood Hazard Subcatchment Boundary Culvert Block Flood Hazard Area (Culvert Block Flood Level) Temple View Flood Hazard Area Waikato River Bank Stability Area Landscape Management Areas Esplanade Strip Hazard Flooding Area Natural Hazards Coastal Inundation Hazard Fault Line Area Hazard (Ground Shaking Area) Coastal Roads Subject to Rules and (NB: Roads prone to coastal hazard) Residential Coastal Edge Natural Hazards Earthquake Faultine Coastal Protection Area Across the plan sample there were additional natural hazards identified which were specific to particular plans. These include: Land Instability (Gisborne Combined Regional and District Plan); Potential Harbour Storm Surge Area (Tauranga District Plan); South Brighton Coastal Management Area (Christchurch City Plan); Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

17 Stopbanks (Timaru District Plan); Debris Flow and Landslide Hazards (Whakatane District Plan); Areas of subsidence or slippage (Central Otago District Plan); and Ground Shaking Area (Wellington District Plan) Airport Related Overlays and Features Approximately 60% of the plan sample included a SPT relating to airport operations. These layers related to approach paths, airport related noise, buffer zones and airport height controls. As illustrated in Table 5 below, the Airport Approach Path layers were uniformly presented within the plan sample. It was also noted that most of the sample plans contained details of the legislative framework which the overlay had been prepared in accordance with, and it is almost certain that the national regulation around aviation has guided the development of a uniform approach to the airport approach path layers. Table 5 Example of the Different Terminology and Grouping of Airport Related Overlays and Features within five Sample Plans Hamilton Dunedin Wellington Auckland Unitary South Taranaki Airport Protection Overlay Air ise and Outer Control Boundary Wellington International Airport Air ise Boundary Airspace Restricted Designations Airport Protection Areas Designation G2 Wellington Airport Ltd Airport Approach Paths Designation A2 Airways Corporation of NZ Ltd Utilities and Roads The presentation of roads and utilities was included on almost all planning maps within the plan sample, however the information which was presented varied across plans. A large number of the plans included transmission lines, transmission line buffer areas, drainage pipelines, water supply restriction areas, and railway lines, however it was noted that several of these utilities were also managed through Designations. In addition, as illustrated in Table 6 below, some plans such as the Proposed Hamilton District Plan have multiple layers relating to different Electricity Transmission Corridors. The identification of roads generally relates to national routes, arterial roads and district arterials and was regularly illustrated through a separate road hierarchy overlay. The rules relating to these roads were largely related to transport management, and therefore the SPTs used to identify roading were categorised in the Transport Management general descriptor, however there were some road hierarchy layers where the rules were more related to identification of infrastructure and therefore classified as being part of the Infrastructure / Utilities general descriptor. Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

18 Table 6 Example of the Different Terminology and Groupings of Infrastructure and Utilities within five Sample Plans Hamilton Dunedin Wellington Auckland Unitary South Taranaki Electricity Transmission Corridor A - Greenfields Transmission Lines Electricity Transmission Corridor Powerline Corridor Electricity Transmission Corridor B - Greenfields Transmission Line Buffer Electricity Transmission Corridor A Urban Areas Electricity Transmission Corridor B Urban Areas Transmission Line Structure Pole Transmission Line Structure Tower Electricity Transmission Lines Railway Line Railway Line Railway & Designated Area Vector Gas Pipeline Corridor Pipeline Corridor Operational Port Area Road Hierarchy Plan Road Hierarchy Hierarchy of Roads Arterial Road Road network Transport Support Structure and Line Restricted Water Area Boundary Indicative Roads and Open Space Quarry Transport Route Water Supply Management Area Designations While the study excluded a detailed review of designations within the plan sample, it was identified that all plans, excluding the Regional Plans, reviewed contained designations, and most included them as either a layer of identified feature in the sample plans. The methodology employed for designations to be presented through SPTs within the sample plans was consistently applied, being that designations were annotated on the planning maps and also listed in an Appendix which included details of the land (usually address and legal title description). While data was not collected on designations, it was noted that some land which was subject to a designation relating to utilities or infrastructure was also identified using a utilities or infrastructure specific layer. 3.2 INCONSISTENCY ACROSS PLAN STUDY SAMPLE Through the review of the 30 sample plans, a number of inconsistencies where identified, specifically with regards to the way SPTs were used and located within the plans, terminology adopted, and information which was being presented. The key inconsistencies identified across the plans are discussed in detail in the subsections below. Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

19 3.2.1 Location of Spatial Planning Tools within Plans Across each of the sample plans there was a range of locations where the various layers and features were contained. In some instances the various layers and features were included on the Planning Maps (eg Auckland, Dunedin, Horowhenua, Manawatu and Queenstown), while other plans include a separate Overlays Plan (eg. Christchurch and Tauranga). Across all of the sample plans, only the Auckland Unitary Plan included all SPTs on the planning maps. For some of the other plans within the sample included a separate Overlays Map within the planning maps. However these Overlay Maps did not comprehensively include all SPT overlays and features, with numerous additional maps found embedded in Appendices or Rule sections of the plans. This inconsistent approach to the location of SPTs to identify layers and features within plans caused difficulty in identifying all SPTs that may apply to a site. In several instances the additional maps and figures contained in Appendices or Rules sections were not listed in the table of contents of the plan, and therefore were only identifiable by scanning through all pages of the plan Presentation of Spatial Planning Layers (maps, figures, appendix) The presentation of layers within the plan sample included illustration or annotation on the planning maps (or associated overlay maps), illustration or listing in an appendix, or included on a figure located in the objectives or rules sections of the plan. However, the method of presentation used for the identified layer or feature overlay did not appear to have any correlation to the number of rules which apply to it. In the Christchurch City Plan, SPTs are shown on a separate map (Planning Maps B ), within Appendices and within Rule sections of the plan. While the Road Hierarchy is not shown on the overlay map, it is included in Volume 3, Chapter 8 Appendix 4 with over 70 rules referring directly to this overlay contained throughout the plan. By comparison the Summit Road Protection Act feature is shown on the overlay map, however it has only four rules associated with it. The review of the plan sample did not identify any consistency in the importance or types of rules which applied to the various layers or features which were shown on planning maps or located within other parts of the plan Structure Plans Approximately 75% of the plan sample included structure plans, however various types of structure plans where identified in the sample plans. In plans such as the Wellington and Queenstown, Structure Plans were used to manage future subdivisions or development areas which would result from a plan change process. These structure plans presented a significant level of detail, in some instances where road connections were to occur and allotment layouts. In other instances, Structure Plans were used to manage future development within existing urban areas, such as the Kaikoura District Plan and the Wairarapa Combined District Plan. These structure plans introduced additional rules or exemptions relating to the activity status or built form standards for future development within these areas. Across the plan sample, it was noted that there was no consistency in the scale of land to which a structure plan related. While all structure plans were graphically presented, it was not always possible to determine the scale of land which they related to, however areas ranged from 720ha (Peacocke Structure Plan in the Hamilton District Plan), to single sites (a single school site in the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan). The review of the plan sample identified there were inconsistencies across the adoption of structure plans with regards to: How they are presented on the planning maps, in separate figures or maps contained in Appendices or Rule Sections of the plan. Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

20 Scale of sites ranging from single urban properties to 700+ha areas. Terminology the plan sample used a range of terminology to refer to structure plans including Development Areas (eg. Hastings), Outline Development Plan (eg. Kaikoura), Precincts (eg Queenstown), Concept Plans (eg. South Taranaki) and Structure Plans (eg. Horowhenua). What they show some provided sub-zones, while others proposed future development layouts including the location of future infrastructure. How they are used some introduced exemptions from rules, while others introduce additional site-specific rules. The scale of land which they related to and the terminology used in the plans What is Adopted as a Separate Planning Layer verses a Zone It was identified that in a couple of the sample plans there was a clear overlap between what was identified as a zone and what was identified through other spatial planning tools such as overlays. An example of this is the Hamilton District Plan, where the Special Heritage Area. Special Residential Area and Special Natural Area directly correspond to the Special Heritage Zone. Special Residential Zone and Special Natural Zone respectively. It was unclear as to why the additional rules which related to these overlays were not included in the zone rules to eliminate the need for the overlays Underlying Information Source The referencing to underlying data sources identifying the various layers and features was inconsistent across the plan sample. In most instances no data source was provided, making it difficult for users of the plan to determine how the SPT areas were selected or whether sufficient investigation into the suitability of the SPT boundary had been undertaken. In the plan sample, some plans included a general reference to studies being undertaken, but did not provide sufficient detail to source the underlying data. For example, the Upper Hutt District Plan referenced Council s report Ecology and Heritage Assessment as the basis for the selection of the historic items schedule, however it did not indicate the date or author of this report, or where it could be obtained. By contrast, the Wellington District Plan includes specific details on the source of information which several of the SPTs are based on, such as: Port Redevelopment Precinct. Port ise Emissions Levels and Insulation Rules. Wellington City Council Ridgelines and Hilltop. The Particular Provisions Overlays which relate to several Structure Plans that appear to be the outcome of Environmental Court consents resulting from the District Plan review process in the late 1990 s. However, it is noted that even within the Wellington District Plan the underlying data source is not provided for all SPTs. 3.3 OTHER MATTERS Spatial Planning Tools without Rules Across a number of the sample plans there were SPTs identified without applicable rules or reference to the impacts they have on activity status. Some examples of these include: Ground Water Protection SPT in the Dunedin City District Plan; Strategic Management Area SPTs in the Hastings District Plan; Coastal Hazard SPT in the Kaikoura District Plan; Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

21 Building Restriction Area SPT in the Queenstown Lakes District Plan; Coastal Environment SPT in the South Taranaki District Plan; and Liquor Ban Areas SPT in the Whakatane District Plan Use of Scheduled Activity is Inconsistent across Plans, Making it not a Suitable General Descriptor Within the reviewed plan sample, five of the plans included a SPT relating to Scheduled Activity / Area, and one (South Taranaki) included a Scheduled River/ Stream overlay. While the Scheduled Activity category was identified within these plans, it was noted the use of the term differed across plans, referring to: Christchurch District Plan generally related to the Living Zones and characterised by distinctively different functions which would not otherwise be supported by the underlying zone. This generally related to identification of sites which had existing activities which were not supported by the current zoning eg Service stations, hotels, hostels etc. Hastings and Whangarei District Plans sites across all zones where specific provisions are imposed to support additional activities over and above those supported by the underlying zoning. Kaikoura District Plan supports land uses on specific sites which require special recognition, but do not justify the adoption of special zoning. South Taranaki (Scheduled River / Stream) waterways which require consideration of additional criteria for development within their vicinity. Tauranga sites which include a specific outline development plan. Due to the divergence in the use of the term Scheduled Activity it was determined that this was not a suitable term for a general descriptor to apply to the raw data collected Impact of SPT Rules on Zone Review of the SPTs and associated rules identified some consistency in the impact of the applicable SPT rules on the activity status and development standards for development. Across the plan sample, there were consistencies in the impact of the rules relating to the following SPTs: Heritage generally introduce more restrictive rules on a property than the underlying zone. Natural Feature generally introduce more restrictive built form controls than apply to the underlying zone. Natural Hazard generally introduce more restrictive built form controls than apply to the underlying zone. Infrastructure and Utilities - generally introduce more permissive controls than the underlying zone for the site. However, the identification of these SPTs can have more restrictive rules imposed on properties adjoining these SPTs. Urban Design generally introduced more restrictive built form controls than the underlying zone, through imposing more prescriptive controls. Across the other SPT categories there were both instances where the SPT introduced more permissive rules, and others which imposed more restrictive rules. Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

22 4 Consideration of International Examples A review of two international examples of planning systems which use SPTs was undertaken as part of this study. The purpose of which, was to identify what SPT are being adopted, how these are presented, and how applicable the use of similar SPT would be within the New Zealand planning framework. The examples chosen are London, England and New South Wales, Australia. These two examples provided contrasting planning frameworks: London, England where there is an over-arching spatial plan for London however each of the London boroughs must develop their plans in general conformity with the Mayor s London Plan and include SPTs which are guided by Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12); and Sydney, Australia where the State government has introduced a Standard Instrument which standardises the applicable rules, SPT mapping and terminology requirements. 4.1 EXAMPLE 1: LONDON, ENGLAND The London Plan The London Plan is a statutory spatial development strategy for the Greater London area written by the Mayor of London and issued by the Greater London Authority. The London Plan identifies the needs and aspirations for development and land use for the next 15 years, based on the sub-regional structure of the Greater London City area. Within the London Plan, the Key Diagram brings together the main components of the spatial strategy of this Plan. It shows the emphasis upon growth within the existing London boundary while protecting the Green Belt and open spaces, and with policy and transport linkages in the main development corridors into the surrounding regions. It outlines growth areas of national importance: Thames Gateway and London Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough, as well as those of importance to the wider south east: London-Luton Bedford; Wandsworth-Croydon Crawley ( Wandle Valley ) and the Thames Valley/ Western Wedge. Figure 1: Key Diagram The London Plan Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

23 The Central Activities Zone is highlighted together with the Metropolitan town centres which are considered to be crucial to sustainable communities. The other main spatial categories opportunity areas, areas for intensification, and areas for regeneration are shown diagrammatically. The Key Diagram, illustrated in Figure 1 below, also includes the largest new transport proposals and existing airports. The London Plan notes that the Key Diagram should be looked at in conjunction with Map 2.2 (Outer, Inner, CAZ), Map 2.4 (Opportunity and Intensification Areas), Map 2.5 (Regeneration Areas), and Map 2.6 (Town Centres). At a local level, each of the 33 London Boroughs is required to prepare spatial planning strategies for their area, referred to as Local Development Frameworks, these documents replace Unitary Development Plans. All Local Development Frameworks within the Greater London Area must be in general conformity with the Mayor s London Plan London Borough Hounslow Unity Development Plan At a local level, the London Borough of Hounslow s, Unitary Development Plan (UDP) forms part of the Local Development Framework for the borough. The UDP uses spatial overlays to identify key regional feature which are vital to the growth of the borough, as illustrated in Figure 2 below. The importance of these features are reinforced by the primary objectives of the UDPs. Figure 2: Regional Setting Key Diagram London Borough of Hounslow Unitary Development Plan The use of overlays at a borough level is guided by Planning Policy Statement 12 (PPS12), which sets out the Government's policy on local spatial planning. PPS 12 states that the adopted proposals map should: Identify areas of protection, such as nationally protected landscape and internationally, nationally and locally-designated areas and sites, and Green Belt land; Show areas at risk from flooding; and Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

24 Allocate sites for particular land use and development proposals included in any adopted development plan document and set out the areas to which specific policies apply. 1 The adopted proposals map, must also identify minerals and waste matters including safeguarding areas, and any minerals and waste allocations which are adopted in a development plan document by the borough council. PPS 12 notes that insert or overlay maps may be used to show policies for part of the authority s area, such as the policies for area action plans, which must all be shown on the adopted proposals map. Where inset maps are used, the geographical area they will cover must be identified on the main adopted proposals map. The use of SPTs to identify policies on the proposals maps within the UDP is restricted to the following: Areas of Public Accessible Open Space Deficiency; Green Chains & Corridors; Areas of Special Advert Control; Viewpoints & Landmarks; Archaeological Priority Areas; Waterways & Areas of Flooding; London Cycle Networks; and Heathrow Airport Public Safety Zones; These overlays are referenced in the applicable UDP Chapter with the associated policies identifying the key matters for consideration when assessing planning applications and referencing back to the information contained in the overlays Conclusion Owing to the directive nature of key government policies on local spatial planning in England, the use of SPTs is more restricted than within the New Zealand planning framework and does not appear to readily provide for their use at a very local level. It was further noted that through the avoidance of prescriptive rules within the UDP, the English planning system provides a far greater level of discretion for Planning Officers processing applications under this system. Conversely, this may provide less certainty for investors and developers. Overall, the use of SPT within the English planning system is not considered directly applicable within the New Zealand context. 1 Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning (PPS12) Section 8. Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

25 4.2 EXAMPLE 2: NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA Sydney Metropolitan Strategy A Plan for Growing Sydney 2015 The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (the Metro Plan ) is the principle spatial planning policy to guide growth in Sydney. The Plan is revised every two years, with the current plan A Plan for Growing Sydney released in January The plan is prepared by the New South Wales Government Department of Planning, and outlines the spatial planning framework and key planning directions for growth and development across Sydney. Figure 3: Sydney Metropolitan Strategy A Plan for Growing Sydney The Metro Plan sets out the priorities and provides the direction for metropolitan planning across Sydney. It identifies major transport corridors and infrastructure requirements, focus areas for new housing and jobs, how to target growth in strategic centres, and delivering social and economic outcomes. Spatial planning layers are also contained in the Metro Strategy to delivery each of the key policy Directions. These include growing the Sydney CBD to be more internationally competitive, Growing Parramatta to be Sydney s second CBD and establishing new priority growth areas. The Metro Plan map and Directions maps do not introduce new planning controls or rules within the Metro Plan, however as these plans are used to guide the development of local planning instruments, the identification of sites or key priorities on these spatial planning maps is likely to result in local instruments adopting planning controls or rules which will influence the future use and development of these lands. Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

26 Figure 4: Example of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy Directions Spatial Maps At the high-level spatial planning, the Metro Strategy divides Sydney into six subregions, each with unique priorities around centre development, delivery of priority precincts, employment growth and the delivery of housing. The subregional planning is the link between the metropolitan level planning directions contained in the Metro Strategy and the detailed planning controls which are to be included in local council planning instruments. Figure 5: Sydney Metropolitan Plan - Sydney Sub-Regions Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

27 4.2.2 Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 Detailed spatial planning tools which govern the use and development of land in NSW are contained in Local Environmental Plans (LEPs). These environmental planning instruments set out the zoning for all land within the Council area, and any development standards (rules which require a merit based assessment to vary) which apply. In 2006 the NSW government gazetted the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 (the Standards Instrument Order ) requiring all Councils across NSW to prepare new LEPs in accordance with a template prepared by the NSW Department of Planning. The Standard Instrument Order includes mandatory provisions which are compulsory for inclusion in all LEPs, as well as optional provisions which if included in an LEP must be adopted without variation. The Standards Instrument Order also permits additional provisions to be included in LEPs, but only if they are not inconsistent with the mandatory provisions. The Standard Instrument Order requires all LEPs to include the following spatial planning Maps: Land Application Map showing the land which the LEP applies; Land Zoning Map showing all land which the LEP applies (using the Standard Instrument Order zones); Land Reservation Acquisition Map showing all land that may be compulsorily acquired, or which a notified land resumption scheme has identified is required for infrastructure upgrades. This may also include future public works lands as identified in an Infrastructure Contributions Scheme; Lot Size Map specifies the minimum allotment size for all land which the LEP applies; Height of Buildings Map specifies the maximum height in metres of any development on all land which the LEP applies; Floor Space Ratio Map the maximum Floor Space Ratio of development. Heritage Map identifies built and cultural heritage items or areas, which are also required to be listed in Schedule 5 of the LEP. Land which does not have a control or restriction is shown as blank on the LEP maps Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2015 An example of a more recently adopted LEP is the Blacktown LEP 2015, which came into effect in May Blacktown is a local government area (LGA) in Sydney s Central West. The LGA consists of a central business district, residential suburbs, wide range of employment lands, rural areas, ecological corridor and an urban growth area. The Blacktown LEP 2015 includes the following spatial planning maps which have been prepared in accordance with the Standard Instrument Order requirements: Land Application Map Land Zoning Map Lot Size Map Active Street Frontages Map Terrestrial Biodiversity Map Design Excellence Map Floor Space Ratio Map Heritage Map Height of Buildings Map Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

28 Key Sites Map Land Reservation Acquisition Map Urban Release Area Map. Each of these Maps is contained in a single tab at the top of the specific LEP page on the New Legislation Website ( and therefore enable a party to review each of these maps in a single location to determine the applicability of the provisions. The Blacktown LEP 2015 includes specific provisions which directly relate to the application of these maps, including what matters are to be considered prior to development occurring within areas identified on the maps. For example, the lands shown on the Active Street Frontages Map are affected by Clause 7.4 Active Street Frontages which states: Clause 7.4 Active street frontages (1) The objective of this clause is to promote uses that attract pedestrian traffic along certain ground floor street frontages in Zone B3 Commercial Core and Zone B4 Mixed Use. (2) This clause applies to land identified as Active street frontage on the Active Street Frontages Map. (3) Development consent must not be granted to the erection of a building, or a change of use of a building, on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the building will have an active street frontage after its erection or change of use. (4) Despite subclause (3), an active street frontage is not required for any part of a building that is used for any of the following: (a) entrances and lobbies (including as part of mixed use development), (b) access for fire services, (c) vehicular access. (5) In this clause, a building has an active street frontage if all premises on the ground floor of the building facing the street are used for the purposes of business premises or retail premises. Figure 6: Blacktown Local Environmental Plan Active Frontages Map (Extract) Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research

29 A further example relates to the Urban Release Areas Map which includes a number of provisions that are specific to land identified on these maps. All the Urban Release Area provisions are contained in Part 6 Urban Release Areas of the Blacktown LEP. Figure 7: Blacktown Local Environmental Plan Urban Release Map (Extract) Conclusion The NSW example shows a highly prescriptive system to ensure planning policies are uniformly adopted across the State. While this requires each Council to confirm to a state-wide framework of rules and SPTs, the system provides users with greater certainty through using a clearer framework adopting: technically drafted provisions, logical sequence of rules, and a single location when SPT plans and maps are centrally located. Ministry for the Environment July 2015 Spatial Planning Terminology Research