Council’s Methodology for Identifying Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes

Introduction

The landscape of the Tasman District is a product of natural processes and human activity. Landscape is the context and setting that gives a ‘sense of place’ to those that live and visit here. It contributes to the identity of people who use and appreciate its wider expanses and smaller enclaves.

The Golden Bay sub-region comprises a number of different landscapes. The coastal and marine landscape of the wild and isolated Northwest Coast is different to the more protected coastal and marine landscape of Golden Bay, with its indented pattern of inlets and estuaries. The two lowland valleys of the Aorere and Takaka Rivers have different land use and settlement patterns. They themselves are defined by their settings within the uplands and mountains of the Wakamaramas to the west, the steep slopes of the Pikikiruna Range to the east, and the central ranges of the Kahurangi National Park and Mount Parapara. The Abel Tasman National Park links Golden Bay across the Pikikirunas to Tasman Bay.

The whole of Golden Bay (and part of Tasman Bay) has been characterised in two separate reports by Frank Boffa of Boffa Miskell (2005 and 2011). The 2005 report examined only the coastal areas of Golden Bay and Tasman Bay. The landscapes of the balance pastoral hinterland extending down to the Nelson Lakes National Park and Shenandoah have yet to be analysed. Characterisation of a landscape is an objective, descriptive process that helps clarify how areas differ from each other; to determine if a landscape is outstanding requires a more complex methodology.

Council has decided to focus on Golden Bay in the first instance. The purpose of the 2011 Boffa Miskell Report was to assist Council in meeting its duty under section 6(b) of the Resource Management Act, to recognise and provide for the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. Mr Boffa has recommended 4 options for defining outstanding natural features and landscapes in Golden Bay. In order to assess these options and arrive at a preferred approach, Council is doing further analysis using the methodology outlined below.

How to Recognise an Outstanding Natural Feature or Landscape

The issue of how to recognise an outstanding feature or landscape has been the subject of numerous judgements from the Environment Court. The Court has asserted, on occasion, that an area of outstanding landscape should be so obvious that expert analysis is unnecessary. However, the Court has also given guidance as to particular factors that may be evaluated to demonstrate a level of significance. These 7 factors are sometimes referred to as ‘the amended Pigeon Bay factors (or criteria)’.

The factors for evaluating a landscape comprise:

Natural science factors
Aesthetics
Legibility (expressiveness)
Transient values
Shared and recognised values
Tangata whenua values
Historical associations

The datasets for each of the above can be more simply grouped under 3 headings:

Biophysical factors include the natural science, legibility and transient categories above. They are generally natural in origin, and range from the geology and landform that shapes a landscape, to the ecology and land use that evolve within it.
Sensory qualities comprise the aesthetics category above. They are biophysical and other less tangible phenomena as perceived and experienced by humans, such as the view of a scenic landscape or the distinctive smell of the foreshore. Some transient factors also fall into the category of sensory qualities.
Associative meanings includes the categories of historical association, Tangata whenua values, and ‘shared and recognised values’. These are cultural or social associations with particular landscape features, such as a historic settlement site; and patterns of social activity that occur in particular parts of a landscape. This information helps understand the sense of attachment and belonging to a landscape, and how and why it is valued. This category also allows for a level of agreement to be negotiated in the recognition of what is outstanding.

In addition, the Environment Court has considered the meaning of ‘natural’ in relation to an outstanding landscape or feature, and has determined that a landscape need not be pristine to be a ‘natural landscape’. The acceptable degree of modification is relative. A small settlement of dwellings may contribute to the ‘aesthetic’ of a landscape depending on the topography and surrounding vegetation (for example Totara Avenue). Exotic planting is also a form of modification. The recent NZ Coastal Policy Statement (Policy 13) lists a number of matters that also contribute to ‘natural character’. The degree of naturalness is another criterion we are considering in our evaluation methodology.

Furthermore, a landscape does not end at the high water line, but may include parts of the Coastal Marine Area. In the course of the Aquaculture Inquiry, the Environment Court found that ‘Golden Bay is an outstanding natural landscape / natural feature which is of national importance and is to be noted as such’.

Mapping the Information

Council has created a GIS computer tool to map all the datasets associated with the 3 categories above. We can layer one dataset of information on top of another, and identify areas that have a wealth of valued attributes and qualities.

We also have layers derived from previous landscape studies of Golden Bay that identified areas of outstanding significance. In addition, there are layers compiled from responses to a community questionnaire in 2008, and meetings with interest groups and stakeholders.

In order to identify whether an area is outstanding we can evaluate its quality using all the information sources we have gathered. Some information has already been through a ‘vetting’ process, for example, Farewell Spit is listed as one of six internationally significant wetlands in New Zealand that are recognised under the Ramsar Convention, and is designated a wetland of international importance by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Land acquired and held by the Department of Conservation has a high level of significance which is documented in DoC’s regional Conservation Management Strategy and the relevant National Park Management Plans.

In practice, we can use the cumulative information to assess the relative quality of a landscape ... does it achieve a high, moderate or low score for its biophysical significance, its sensory quality, its associative importance, and its naturalness?

Defining the Boundaries of a Landscape

The four options proposed by Frank Boffa use a number of tools to define the boundaries or ‘edges’ of possible outstanding natural landscapes.

All four options include an outstanding natural seascape. The Coastal Marine Area extends from mean high water springs out to 12 nautical miles. The ‘outstanding seascape’ would include the whole of the enclosed area of Golden Bay and the coastal area offshore along the Northwest Coast out to 3 nautical miles. This would include all estuaries, inlets and bays within the ‘outstanding seascape’. The Coastal Environment Area in the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) is an overlay extending 200 metres inland from mean high water springs. This could be included as an outstanding landscape if there is adequate justification provided by the mapping assessment to do so, namely if the sand dunes, barrier islands, wetlands within 200 metres are considered to be part of the ‘foreground’ of the seascape. In some places the coastal processes may extend further inland than 200 metres. It may be appropriate to exclude towns and settlements within residential and commercial zones from any ‘outstanding natural landscapes’, because of the degree of modification. Cadastral boundaries would form the ‘edge’ for definition purposes, except where coastal processes (or other discrete attributes) can be specifically identified.

Option 1 would include areas recommended for ‘outstanding’ status in the Boffa Miskell 2005 report (Northwest Coast to Farewell Spit, the Golden Bay coastal area from Farewell Spit to Collingwood, Wainui Bay, and the inlets and estuaries), plus the DoC estate (Kahurangi and Abel Tasman National Parks and other reserves and conservation land). The DoC estate comprises 76% of the land area of Golden Bay; the amount of ‘outstanding area’ would increase to over 80% of Golden Bay with the inclusion of the private land above.

Option 2 recognises that the land form, land cover and land use adjacent to the edges of the conservation estate in many places are similar in quality to the landscape within it, and proposes to extend any ‘outstanding natural landscape area’ down to the 200 or 300 metre contour line to include this land. Using a contour line is a fairly broad-brush approach. An alternative is a boundary incorporating the DoC estate and any indigenous vegetation or covenanted land abutting it. This would introduce an ‘edge’ defined by a fence-line or vegetation, rather than a contour line.

Option 3 would use a zoning tool (the extent of Rural 2 land) to extend the ‘outstanding natural landscape area’. This would warrant extensive on-site investigation to confirm the quality of the landscape, and the contiguity of elements within it. It is useful to note the comments of the Environment Court in this regard:

‘When considering the issue of outstanding natural landscapes we must bear in mind that some hillsides, faces and foregrounds are not in themselves outstanding natural features or landscapes, but looked at as a whole together with other features that are, they become a part of a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. To individual landowners who look at their house, pasture, shelterbelts and shed and cannot believe that their land is an outstanding natural landscape we point out that the land is part of an outstanding natural landscape and questions of the wider context and of scale need to be considered. The answer to the question where the outstanding natural landscapes and features end is not a technical one. It is a robust practical decision based on the importance of foregrounds in (views of) landscape. We do not consider this over-emphasises the pictorial aspects of landscape, merely uses them as a determinative tool.’ (C180/99 p59)

Option 4 in the 2011 Boffa Miskell Report recommends that the whole of Golden Bay be considered an outstanding natural landscape (although the settlements would still be excluded). This is on the basis that there is only 7% of land area remaining once Option 3 land is included. Taking into account the Environment Court advice above, this balance land becomes part of the ‘wider context and scale’.

The Issue of Scale

Areas can be represented at differing scales. What is identified at a larger scale, may be generalised at a smaller scale. As the Tasman District Council is a Regional Council (of which Golden Bay is a sub-region), it is possible to consider Option 4 in this context. There is a parallel with the landscape assessment of Banks Peninsula. A recent regional-level study undertaken by Boffa Miskell has proposed the whole of Banks Peninsula as an outstanding natural landscape. Yet within the District Council planning documents (at a District scale) only parts of Banks Peninsula have been identified as such.

One advantage of Option 4 is that it avoids internal definition of ‘edges’, implicit in the other options. If such an approach were adopted it would be accompanied by a detailed schedule and maps indicating those areas containing important qualities in all of the three categories for analysis. (It is likely this proposed schedule will sit within the TRMP irrespective of which option is arrived at.)

A disadvantage is the perception that this would ‘dilute’ the ability to manage activities in, on or around particular features or smaller ‘landscapes’ of importance, for example the estuaries or the hill faces. Alternatively, this may result in rules that are more stringent than they need to be for many locations or activities.

Our response to this valid concern is to reiterate a number of ‘position statements’.

‘The Tasman Resource Management Plan already requires a resource consent for many activities. Chapter 9 Landscape already has excellent objectives and policies that seek to protect the landscape. We may not need to make much change to the Plan.’ (From the ‘Feedback on Policy Options’ paper prepared for the meeting at the Kahurangi Centre on 9 December 2010)
‘Given the private land has to be managed and the owners of this rural land are the best custodians of the rural landscape, the intent is to make farming less rule driven and more responsive to facilitating better and more efficient land use and land management practices.’ (Boffa Miskell 2011 Report 6.13 p10)
‘That zone rules specific to the landscape character areas be reviewed with the objective of facilitating more sensitive, responsive and more effective land management practices in order to ensure the integrated management of the entire Northwest Coast / Golden Bay area as a sub-district wide ONLF.’ (Boffa Miskell 2011 Recommendation 7.3 p10 – not formally adopted by Council.)

Whichever option is arrived at, this will occur through a continuing consultative process, through the proposed ‘working group’ and other meetings as requested.

Further Considerations

Council staff are continuing to document the cumulative data for presentation and discussion. The data is being collected by area, either modified ‘biogeographic units’ (coastal and marine areas, lowland valleys, uplands and mountains), specific character areas (eg Wainui Bay), or discrete features.

The Environment Court has developed the concept of a ‘visual amenity landscape’ though its deliberations in the Queenstown Lakes District Council area. While a number of Councils have adopted the concept of a visual amenity landscape in their planning documents, this concept is under appeal by the Masterton District Council, and is not subject to any national guidance through MfE policy documents. It is considered that the proposed schedule will enable areas with significant attributes to receive consideration, whether they are inside or outside an outstanding landscape area.

Results of Landscape Identification

It is likely that the final position will be a variant of all the above options. Whether or not a place is considered an outstanding natural landscape or feature must rest on the merits of the landscape itself. It is not appropriate to include an area within an outstanding natural landscape area just because there is desire or need to manage a perceived threat.

What Follows Landscape Identification?

The purpose of landscape identification is to understand the degree of significance and particular sensitivities of a place, and so help in assessing the risks from changing land use. Ways of managing landscape change, including existing planning controls, need to be considered before any new landscape policy can be developed.

Following the identification of outstanding natural landscapes or features, any changes to the TRMP to improve managing landscape change will be subject to rigorous consultation, combined with a continuing commitment to reduce the complexity of the planning documents and recognise any potential impacts on the owners / caretakers / guardians of the place. The final version will be put through a statutory public submission process.

Further Information

For further information about this methodology or project contact Shelagh Noble - Policy Planner, Tasman District Council.