Analysis of RMA Plans and Issues Arising from the Tenure Review Process for Crown Pastoral Leases

Analysis of RMA plans and issues arising from the tenure review process for Crown pastoral leases

Prepared by Pippa Player

For the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

July 2007

Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The views and conclusions expressed are intended to initiate discussion and stimulate practical solutions to issues faced by landowners, regional and district councils and communities in managing land use change, land use intensification and development. It is noted that the RMA is only one of the tools available to communities.

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This paper has been commissioned within the context of the PCE’s investigation into tenure review under the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1988 and Land Act 1948. There has been ongoing debate around processes and there appear to be differences: between perceptions and reality of the Government’s process; and theory and practice being used at regional and district levels.

The paper deals with a range of issues drawn out from analysis of regional and district plans and discussions with planning professionals and finds that the sources of tension around land use in the high country relates to:

• Significant land use change driven by demand for non-rural/farm related activities.

• Misunderstanding of land use controls and tools.

• A mismatch between societal aspirations (eg strategic statements, policies and objectives) and willingness to address issues in practice.

• Tensions caused by: localised population increase, economic growth (eg shown through land value increases) and economic decline creating both different patterns of land use/management practices and pressure to use more land for urban development and tourism development.

• Resources available for thorough investigation of values and issues.

• Differences between and within approaches (and resources) of government agencies and local authorities regarding use of regulatory and non-regulatory instruments to achieve outcomes (legislative and community-derived).

In conclusions, the paper points to opportunities to reduce the tensions and deliver more sustainable development in the high country within both RMA/local authority planning and the tenure review process.

2 CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2

CONTENTS ...... 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 4

2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 5

3.0 RMA PLANS ...... 6

4.0 ATTITUDES/PERCEPTIONS ...... 14

5.0 TIMING, COSTS ...... 15

6.0 OPPORTUNITIES: MECHANISMS WORTHY OF GREATER USE...... 17

7.0 CONCLUSIONS...... 19

Bibliography ...... 22

Further study...... 25

Appendix 1 Summaries of policies and rules of Regional and District Plans.... 26

Appendix 2 Extract from the Mackenzie District Plan ...... 27

3 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Resource Management Act 1991 plans (RMA plans) component of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s (PCE) Tenure Review Project considers the robustness of RMA plans in Otago and Canterbury in light of land use change triggered through the Crown’s tenure review programme under the Crown Pastoral Lands Act 1998 (CPLA) and Land Act 1948 (tenure review).

1.1 Scope The paper focuses on the Otago and Canterbury regions and the various RMA plans and policy tools of the Otago Regional Council, Environment Canterbury (ECan) and the district councils in Mackenzie, Waitaki, Queenstown Lakes and Central Otago. Compiling the paper involved:

• Summarising provisions in Long Term Council Community Plans (LTCCP's) related to development on High Country lands.

• Summarising the relevant provisions in regional policy statements, regional plans and district plans

• Providing an opinion on the robustness of plan provisions and identifying possible gaps.

• Summarising the direction of plan changes or policy development underway.

1.2 Approach The initial phase of the work involved analysis and summarising the:

• main outcomes of LTCCP's

• the policies, objectives, methods and rules of Regional Policy Statements, Regional Plans and District Plans.

Particular attention was given to rules for soils, heritage, landscape, earthworks, subdivision, activity categories, and vegetation clearance.

Letters were sent to key planning professionals in each Council, and were followed up with telephone discussions. Correspondence by email and in writing provided further commentary from the planning professionals contacted.

Opinions and comments have been used in a non-attributable way within the paper.

Development, land-use change or land-use intensification are not been treated as negative in this paper. The focus of the analysis was how the potential, actual or cumulative effects (positive and negative) of development, land use change or land intensification are assessed and treated through RMA plans at regional and district basis.

A summary of regional and district plan provisions is provided in Appendix 1. This analysis is based on what is operable in terms of regulatory controls (as distinct from the sections of plans still subject of references to the Environment Court). Because of the volume of information, for regional policies and plans emphasis has been placed on policies, objectives and methods; with the focus of analysis of district

4 plans being the various rules, standards and assessment criteria used in decision- making.

1.3 Structure The paper is set out in 6 sections as follows:

2.0 Background 3.0 RMA plans 4.0 Attitudes/perceptions 5.0 Timing/costs 6.0 Opportunities – mechanisms worthy of greater use 7.0 Conclusions.

Appendices include information about regional and district RMA plans:

Appendix 1: Summaries of key policies and rules of Regional and District Plans and LTCCPs. A: Regional policies and rules (includes LTCCP objectives, outcomes and initiatives) B: District LTCCPs (objectives, outcomes and initiatives) C: Land use rules in District Plans

Appendix 2: Extract from Mackenzie District Plan, vegetation clearance rules.

The research and analysis undertaken for this paper has not attempted to understand, document or catalogue data relating to heritage, biodiversity, landscape or other values within a region or district. The focus has been on the tools of RMA plans chosen by each local authority. However through discussions with planning professionals views were sought about confidence levels in the knowledge base of values and issues for which controls in RMA plans are in place (or proposed).

2.0 BACKGROUND This paper has been commissioned within the context of the PCE’s investigation into tenure review under the CPLA and the Land Act 1948 (Land Act). There has been ongoing debate around processes and there appear to be differences: between perceptions and reality of the Government’s process; and theory and practice being used at regional and district levels.

Pastoral lease land forms much of the scenic backdrop that is a major factor in attracting people to live, work and play in Otago and Canterbury.

On 21 June 2007, the Hon David Parker, Land Information Minister, announced a series of changes in the Government’s approach to tenure reviews in the South Island high country. Specifically, “pastoral leases will now be excluded from tenure review if they have highly significant lakeside, landscape, biodiversity or other values that are unlikely to be protected satisfactorily by tenure review. Such land will not be allowed to pass into private hands unless it is demonstrably in the public interest.”

Cabinet papers considered in early June 2007 illustrate the range of concerns regarding tenure review raised in recent years. It is clear in tenure review that the formal assessment process for land considers both present land ownership and future plans for the areas subject to review. The unique position of the Crown is also recognised in managing pastoral leases to effect ‘good husbandry’ and in a way that protects values.

From personal experience in property management and policy development for public land portfolios, dealings relating to land ownership are never straight forward and there is rarely a one-size-fits-all model for agreeing final ownership, tenure and rights.

This paper attempts to illustrate strengths and weaknesses in RMA plans of 6 local authorities and to identify what is causing tensions in RMA planning and decision- making regarding land-use that have been highlighted or anticipated through tenure review process.

3.0 RMA PLANS This section covers the main mechanisms used in RMA plans to manage and control land use in rural areas and the robustness of RMA plans.

Appendix 1 contains a series of worksheets summarising key policies and rules of regional and district RMA plans and LTCCPs for each local authority included in the study as follows:

A: Regional policies and rules (includes LTCCP objectives, outcomes and initiatives) B: District LTCCPs (objectives, outcomes and initiatives) C: Land use rules in District Plans

This analysis is based mainly on what is operable in terms of regulatory controls. Because of the volume of information, emphasis has been placed on policies, objectives and methods contained in regional RMA plans; whereas the focus of analysis of district plans is on the various rules, standards and assessment criteria used in decision-making.

3.1 Main mechanisms used The main mechanisms used in RMA plans to manage effects of land use are outlined below.

3.1.1 District Plan rules: • Activity categories and assessment criteria for activities: permitted, controlled, non-complying, discretionary, prohibited.

• Subdivision controls: lot size, site layout, buildings (height. Location, layout, landscaping), infrastructure servicing.

• Zoning and special concept zones: with zone standards and specific assessment criteria and site standards.

• Specific rules within zones for vegetation clearance, earthworks.

6 • Scheduling sites/areas of significance eg heritage items/sites, landscapes, ‘scenic viewing areas’, indigenous vegetation/habitats.

3.1.2 Regional Policies and Plans Policies and objectives in policy statements, regional plans eg water.

3.2 Robustness of RMA Plans This section provides a range of comments on some of the key issues affecting the robustness of RMA plans including: the status of plans, linkages to LTCCPs, permissiveness of plans, availability of specialist information and a summary of particular rules causing concern.

3.2.1 Status of RMA Plans Many districts throughout New Zealand still do not have fully operative plans and provisions are still being progressed through references to the Environment Court.

Of the councils included in the study, 5 out of 6 have formally commenced processes to review the provisions of RMA plans. Some have prepared considerable review documents, while others have only just commenced a process of community discussion. The reference documents for plan reviews point to a range of acknowledged gaps in the mix of regulatory tools (guidance, assessment criteria, rules and standards) to address adverse impacts from the kind of land-use change occurring in rural areas experiencing rapid growth in residential development and tourism ventures.

• Otago is in preparations for review of its Regional Policy Statement (RPS) however, the LTCCP states it is unlikely to be under formal review until 2008. In addition, Otago has not prepared a ‘Regional Plan: Land’ as stated in the RPS to deal with issues such as retention of primary productive capacity of high class soils or outstanding natural features.

• ECan has prepared several review papers focussing on production values of soils (versatile soils or high class soils) and regional landscape values.

• Mackenzie has commenced processes to strengthen subdivision and rural development policies and rules.

• Central Otago’s Rural Review is also tackling rural building and subdivision aiming to make subdivision fully discretionary. Since 2005 the Council has been working on a comprehensive landscape assessment to inform changes to the district plan and to support assessment of subdivision proposals. However it is unlikely that plan changes will be notified until 2008.

• Waitaki: much of the District Plan is inoperative pending references in the Environment Court. Notably a general indigenous vegetation clearance rule is proposed in lieu of identifying (and scheduling) ‘sites of significant conservation value and geo-preservation sites’. The proposed rule echoes the rule imposed in Central Otago to exempt land that has been freeholded under the tenure review process from the general indigenous vegetation rule.

• Queenstown-Lakes: the District Plan became operative on 14 June 2007, however there are outstanding references to appeal for several aspects eg farm buildings on Outstanding Natural Features and heritage.

7 Because of the time typically taken for review processes of RMA plans, it is unlikely that the reviews of regional and district RMA plans will be completed for some considerable time. This represents both risks and opportunities for the sustainable management and development of the high country.

3.2.2 Linkages to LTCCPs Within the plans viewed in the research there is not yet a clear link between RMA plans and strategic directions and community agreed outcomes confirmed under LTCCPs through Local Government Act processes. An amendment to the RMA in 2005 (the 2005 RMA amendment) focussed on improving local policy and plan making. The results have not yet been seen in regional plans or district plans, but the amendment provides some practical support for regional leadership on significant issues through:

• Requiring regional policy statements to provide clearer and stronger directions on how environmental issues are to be managed.

• District Plans and regional plans must ‘give effect to’ regional policy statements.

• Allowing consultation exercises under other statutes in the previous 12 months (eg Local Government Act LTCCP processes) to inform policy reviews and plan changes, as long as it is made clear that the results are to be used in RMA matters1.

• Approve parts of plans or policy statements that are beyond challenge; variations automatically become plan changes if they have not already been merged with the plan.

The next generation of regional and district policy statements and plans and the role of LTCCPs will present opportunities within the next 5 years to better link regulatory tools to community outcomes and stated objectives which will provide a stronger community base of support for policies, objectives and rules within RMA plans.

3.2.3 Permissiveness of plans – district plans The first and perhaps second generation of district plans (still in the process of becoming operative) have taken a permissive approach to development, particularly evident in the Central Otago and Waitaki districts. In addition, several Environment Court rulings on the use of activity categories ensured that several districts throughout the country shied away from using categories such as non-complying, prohibited and fully discretionary categories, using instead presumptions in favour of development through controlled, and restricted discretionary categories.

The prevalence of structure planning and catchment planning techniques used throughout the country illustrates a move towards a more planned approach (reminiscent of pre-RMA regulation) is being used to manage rapid growth. The structure planning approach provides opportunities to look at issues at a broader scale than just site by site and opportunities to improve knowledge and understanding of complex and emotive issues such as landscape, biodiversity and heritage values. On a smaller scale, this approach can be seen in the use of numerous concept zones and special zones in Queenstown-Lakes District, perhaps to better anticipate intensification in select pockets of land with specific values.

1 RMA 1991: Schedule 1, Part 1 Preparation and change of policy statements and plans by local authorities, 3CPrevious consultation under other enactments

8 The RMA seems particularly poor at managing cumulative effects at a district level. Even non-complying status can be successfully argued to support development on the basis of effects, if no more than minor - the test has been met, so development is allowed irrespective of policy intent in the RMA plan that may limit dwellings, buildings and tourism development to allocated nodes. For example a substantial lodge can be located in an area where relatively few people would see it, and cannot be viewed from a public place, therefore from a landscape perspective they have minor effects.

The irony is that in trying to achieve greater certainty in areas previously protected by Crown ownership (especially relating to sites for buildings, roading, essential services, vegetation clearance and land management), there may be less certainty in other parts of rurally zoned land, particularly to maintain availability of productive land for farming use.

3.2.4 Permissiveness of plans – regional policy statements and plans While there is an obvious desire within regional policy statements of Otago and Canterbury to address particular issues of land use intensification or change, the effect the RMA plans have is probably limited when compared with other regulatory tools such as under the Biosecurity Act and non-regulatory support for sustainable farming eg field days, education, research, ‘care’ programmes etc…

An example from Otago’s Regional Policy Statement is provided below, but it is typical of other regions in New Zealand including Canterbury: a clear aspiration to recognise and protect outstanding landscapes from inappropriate subdivision or development but there is no corresponding practical method that has been pursued, and territorial local authorities are merely required to consider the policy not necessarily deliver on the objectives.

Document Outcome Objectives Policy Methods ref. LTCCP Sustainable use of resources; diverse landscapes, knowledge and learning for prosperity RPS 5.7.7 Otago's 5.4.3 To protect 5.5.6 To recognise 5.6.4 Policies Chapter 5 outstanding natural outstanding and provide for including rules Land features and natural features protection of in RP Land; landscapes are and landscapes outstanding 5.6.6-5.6.12 recognised and from inappropriate natural features education/ protected from subdivision, use and landscapes information/ inappropriate and development. which are unique, guidance subdivision, use representative, initiatives; and development. cultural/historic 5.6.17 Prepare significance; visual inventory or scientific regional significant significance; geological 5.6.20 TLAs features, may include significant to policies and Tangata Whenua rules in DPs.

This weakness in the drafting of Regional Policy Statements through using language such as ‘consider using’ or ‘may use’ rules in District Plans was addressed by the

9 RMA amendment of 2005. The amendment requires TLAs in developing District Plans to give effect to regional policy statements. The amendment will take effect progressively as district plans are only required to ‘give effect to’ regional policy statement when a regional policy statement is reviewed and changed (or not changed), varied or replaced and made operative. Until that time, local authorities need only ensure that their plans are ‘not inconsistent with’ the regional policy statement (the status quo).

As noted above Otago will not be reviewing policy statements until at least 2008 according to their LTCCP. ECan is actively in review of several aspects of its regional policy statement, but will take some years to take effect due to the time the full RMA consultation and appeal process.

3.2.5 Availability of specialist information The impression is that those councils that can, or have been able, to afford commissioning in-depth work to support plan changes or back up policies, rules, assessments and decisions at Environment Court are further ahead in terms of dealing with adverse impacts of land use change relative to local authorities with less resources (people and finances). In this respect Environment Canterbury and Queenstown-Lakes have perhaps used the most resources in supporting their RMA plans. Where Environment Canterbury has dedicated resources for investigations and response to High Country issues and policy work, Queenstown-Lakes has focussed on pockets of development and developed concept or special zones through variations and plan changes, perhaps taking a more case by case approach.

Table 1 (in Section 5.0 below) illustrates the differences in resources available used for land use controls and regulatory work in 2006/07.

Most district councils in recent years appear to have been generating significant information about landscape issues and natural/ecological values, however this information is only just being used in documentation for review of RMA plans. In contrast, heritage values in the high country are greatly valued within the community but are under researched and poorly documented.

3.2.6 Particular rules causing concern

Activity categories Prohibited activity status has not been used well in the past as a result of high profile Environment Court cases eg mining industry. Consequently it is perhaps not used enough now, particularly to control inappropriate building and development in very sensitive areas, for example some planning professionals felt that it could be strategically used in the high country eg providing an altitude limit for subdivision or buildings.

Vegetation clearance Vegetation clearance is contained in all district plans analysed and relates to specific zone-based rules, zone standards, site standards and assessment criteria.

A key tension regarding indigenous vegetation clearance is the debate over what level of clearance is absolutely necessary in typical sustainable farming practices and what level of clearance within blocks of indigenous vegetation can be sustained without significant loss of biodiversity values.

General indigenous vegetation clearance rules imposed in plans by the Environment Court as in Central Otago District and proposed for Waitaki District illustrate a further

10 tension and source of anxiety for some parties because there is an exemption for land that has been freeholded under the tenure review process from the generic vegetation clearance rule.

The Central Otago District Plan rule for indigenous vegetation clearance is provided in the example box below.

Example: Central Otago District Council 4.7.6 KA Clearance of Indigenous vegetation

I. Clearance of indigenous vegetation on land not listed for protection under Schedule 19.6.1 and subject to Rule 4.7.6K where the vegetation:

(a) comprises more than 10ha of snow tussock grassland or 0.5 ha or more of other indigenous vegetation on 1 site; or

(b) involves any species listed as threatened in Schedule 19.6B, and the clearance affects a site containing any such species as identified on the planning maps; or

Provided that this rule shall not apply to: (i) Clearance of indigenous trees that have been windthrown or are dead standing as a result of natural causes and have become dangerous to life or property.

(ii) Clearance of indigenous vegetation on land that has been freeholded under Part 2 of the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998

(iii) The Greenland Recommended Area for Protection on Little Valley Station apart from the land subject to Conservation Covenant No 5013375.2 (Otago Land Registry).

And provided that I(b) of this rule as above shall not apply to: (iv) Grazing. (v) Oversowing and top dressing.

And provided that I(a)and (c) of this rule as above shall not apply to: (vi) Direct drilling associated with existing pasture. (vii) Clearance of matagouri.

II For the purposes of this rule “clearance” is defined as the fellling, clearing or modification of any indigenous vegetation by cutting mechanical crushing, spraying, burning and any activity causing disturbance of the soil.

III The Council shall restrict the exercise of its discretion to the following matters, where applicable: 1. The significance of the ecological values of the site that will be affected. 2. The effect of the clearance on those values. 3. The necessity or desirability of clearance on land previously used for production. 4. The means of protecting the ecological values of the site, including consideration of positive ecological benefits that can be achieved through fencing off and protecting ecological values in conjunction with the clearance activity.

The exemption is also used in the Central Otago District Plan for discretionary and controlled activity rules applying to activities such as building, tracks, fencing, subdivision, earthworks in areas of outstanding landscape and over 900 metres above sea level.

11 The justification given by Central Otago District for the exemption assumes that that the overall ecological and landscape values associated with indigenous vegetation have been adequately identified and addressed through the tenure review process:

“The properties freeholded under tenure review are excluded .....because the tenure review process provides an alternative statutory means to identify and address on a site specific basis the values which are the subject of this rule.” Central Otago District Plan2

Unfortunately this assumption is probably not always the case. This approach undermines RMA processes (particularly for district plan rules) for three reasons:

• that there has been no guarantee that regionally significant values (as distinct from nationally significant values) would have been considered through tenure review, particularly relating to indigenous biodiversity (note that this situation may have changed as a result of changes in Government policy announced by the Minister of Lands on 21 June 2007).

• there is an assumption that the tenure review process is equivalent to RMA assessment, consideration, consultation and decision-making.

• a general assumption that the only vegetation worthy of protection (or special management) is in the public conservation estate (or is subject to Reserves Act or QEII Trust covenants) takes no account of potential biodiversity value, or where the value of management or sustainable farming practices may enhance biodiversity values in the long term.

In contrast to Central Otago and Waitaki, the Mackenzie District appears to have the most comprehensive and practical vegetation clearance rules and assessment criteria. However, it was noted that effective compliance with the Mackenzie District rules could be a subject for further study.

Appendix 2 contains a copy of the vegetation clearance rules from the Rural Zone provisions of the Mackenzie District Plan.

Lot size on subdivision Minimum lot sizes for subdivision seem to be causing concern particularly where diversification from pastoral farming is occurring at a rapid rate. The views of planning professionals range greatly on the subject of prescribing lot sizes. However, it was noted that care is needed in using minimum lot sizes in rural areas dependent on agriculture as it can be a blunt instrument where trends for market gardening, viticulture can usefully operate from smaller allotments as opposed to larger traditional pastoral units. In some plans there is no minimum allotment size or allotment size is a matter which is discretionary.

In Central Otago the reintroduction of a minimum allotment size has been identified through initial phases of a Rural Review. In Mackenzie District, while there is no minimum allotment size, there is a comprehensive range of standards and assessment criteria for permitted, controlled and discretionary activities (particularly building, earthworks and vegetation clearance) that acknowledge sensitive areas.

2 Rural Resource Area, Section 4.7.6 L, 1 April 2007 edition

12 Landscape Landscape is dealt with mainly in general rules in district plans, particularly for areas zoned for rural activities. The tensions are now that for most rural zones the change in ownership brought about by tenure review coupled with major tourism and business development is driving significant land use change in areas previously not anticipated for such uses.

“One driver of farm intensification ... is the splitting of former leasehold runs into separated ‘conservation’ and ‘farmed’ lands. This inevitably will lead to a visual differentiation between public conservation areas and freehold farmed areas in affected landscapes of the Mackenzie Basin. This will lessen the visual unity, which up to now marked the landscape when managed under leasehold conditions.” Landscape Values of the Mackenzie Basin, Graham Densem, February 20073

In attempting to address landscape, there tends to be an approach to ‘stop’ development rather than managing landscape so the debate is reduced to managing wilding pines rather than a comprehensive integrated approach – which from the scale and scope of landscape is not bounded within districts but can be usefully dealt with on regional scales.

Landscape alone appears to be a poor test when the scale, size and remoteness of allotments is considered as some district plans link landscape and visual amenity to the ability of the public to enjoy ‘vistas’ (refer also to comments on district plan permissiveness, section 3.2.3 above).

Queenstown-Lakes District has refined and tested an approach to general categories of landscape (with the assistance of the Environment Court!). The categories of landscape identified for the district are: Outstanding Natural Landscapes (Wakatipu Basin), Outstanding Natural Landscapes (District wide) and Visual Amenity Landscapes and other Rural Landscapes. Appendix 10 of the District Plan contains maps showing indicative outlines for 5 'Historic Landscape': Skippers, Macetown, Moke Lake Seffertown, Glenorchy-Wyuna.

Central Otago has standards within the Rural Resource areas relating to limits on development (buildings/structures, roads, earthworks, forestry and subdivision) for any area identified as an ‘outstanding landscape’ (scheduled in the Plan) or land over 900 metres ASL or land in Upper Manorburn/Lake Onslow area. Since 2005 further detailed assessment for landscape has been undertaken, the results of which are intended to be incorporated into review of the district plan. However, the Central Otago District Plan also provides exemptions from discretionary rules for earthworks, building and establishing woodlots/production forestry where the land has been freeholded under Part 2 of the CPLA or is an unrenewable occupation licence designated for disposal under Part 3 of the CPLA(reference Central Otago District Plan Rules 4.7.6L (1) and (2)). The exemptions apply to land above 900m above sea level or identified as an outstanding landscape.

Mackenzie District recognises a range of sensitive areas eg Lakeside Protection Areas, Sites of Natural Significance; Geopreservation sites; Scenic Viewing Areas; and High Altitude Areas. In assessment and zone standards potential changes to patterns of vegetation cover are considered in terms of pastoral intensification, forestry and tree planting, building and earthworks. The extent to which other

3 Report prepared by Graham Densem (Landscape Architect) for Mackenzie District Council’s review of District Plan provisions

13 mechanisms, agreements or consents protect significant natural values is also considered. However, doubts have been expressed over the effectiveness of these measures in practice in light of recent decisions relating to Lake Pukaki and Lake Ohau, the lack of specific targeted landscape controls and the discretionary status of activities within Scenic Viewing Areas and Lakeside Protection Areas.

Despite policies and LTCCP strategic statements, the regional councils have yet to use regulatory tools for landscape (or biodiversity) that assists districts substantially in identifying areas that would be most sensitive to development.

Most of the districts reference, either formally (or informally) various practical guidance documentation on topics including subdivision layout, design, urban design sensitive to landscape features.

4.0 ATTITUDES/PERCEPTIONS This section compiles comments/thoughts on the range of attitudes about tenure review as it relates to the way the RMA is implemented at regional and district levels.

4.1 Tenure review is about land ownership; RMA is about land- use The distinction that tenure review is about land ownership and the RMA is about land use activities (irrespective of land ownership) is behind many political and local authority attitudes to tenure review. This may be accurate enough, however, the tenure review process is, in some cases, establishing expectations that the RMA controls should not apply ‘because they have already been dealt with during tenure review’. While this may be the case for some aspects from the perspective of Crown agencies and landowners/leaseholders, it cannot be the case regarding RMA processes used to approve district and regional plans, policies and the procedures for assessing activities and assumes that tenure review process results in thorough analysis through RMA criteria.

“...The restraints of the CPLA and Land Act mean that in practice the need to bring the RMA into play on issues relating to pastoral leasehold land has been limited.” Cabinet Paper CBC (07) 86, Minister of Conservation, Minister for Land Information4

4.2 Once freeholded, Crown agencies are not interested in values of the freeholded areas This perception is that Crown agencies have been unsupportive of regional and district policies, objectives and rules in terms of advocacy or sharing knowledge of values gathered through tenure review processes. This contrasts to vigorous advocacy from Crown agencies on other areas outside the tenure review process.

In most cases financial resources available in small rural authorities are so limited that the purchase of restrictive covenants or reserves (and provide for ongoing

4“ South Island High Country: Landscape, Biodiversity and Access Issues” Cabinet Business Committee CBC (07) 86,1 June 2007 (available from the Land Information New Zealand website: http://www.linz.govt.nz/home/news/items/20070621-si-lakesides/cbc-si-cabinet- paper-050607.pdf

14 management) cannot be contemplated except where it can be achieved through financial/land contributions or esplanade reserves on subdivision.

4.3 Tenure review focuses on nationally important biodiversity values There is a perception that tenure review has focussed on biodiversity outcomes and that other values of regional or local importance eg landscape, rural amenity have not been considered. The 21 June Government policy announcements, and conservation resources reports in 2007 for some properties in tenure review dispel this attitude to a large extent.

However, there remain doubts about the overall Government strategy for a network of protected areas in the high country that is excluding lowland areas, as highlighted in 2006 by the publication of work led by Landcare Research ecologist Dr Susan Walker. It appears that the areas most likely to be freeholded are those most underrepresented in biodiversity and ecological terms eg lower mountain slopes, mountain flat lands as opposed to alpine areas, which are the more productive farming areas, or the most easily developed for buildings – and more importantly would be the areas most desired for future development by leaseholders.

In this context, the exemptions from vegetation clearance rules in Central Otago could in the long term undermine the desire to enhance sustainable farming practice, valuing and protecting areas of indigenous vegetation within active farming systems. It also puts a special status on ex Crown land compared with other freehold land in RMA terms that is not warranted.

“Failure to appreciate the non-market values such as ecosystem services carries a risk of deterioration of natural capital in New Zealand with consequences including flood-risk, reduced whitebait catches, impoverished tourism experience and damage to our clean green image....The studies .....prove that public land is not a ‘lock up’ of resources, rather they provide a ‘lift off’ for their sustainable management.” Department of Conservation5

4.4 LTCCPs were just tick the box documents The first generation of plans within local authorities are not being seen as strategic tool —just another document to prepare and sign off to meet statutory requirements. It would be interesting to establish whether community members involved in the processes feel the same or are equally fatigued by the various local government ‘strategic’ planning exercises and consultations of the past few years.

5.0 TIMING, COSTS While the RMA has been applauded for its strong grounding in democratic principles and empowerment of community decision-making, the toll for communities is through the massive costs of the processes, particularly for local authorities with very small resident populations and ratepayer base.

5 Page 6, “The Value of Conservation: What does conservation contribute to the economy?” Department of Conservation, May 2006

15 Again, over time, the 2005 RMA amendment may assist with developing a greater acceptance in RMA processes of strategic community documents and guidance material referenced in site and zone standards and assessment criteria, particularly in the litigious forum of hearings and perhaps the Environment Court.

Table 1 shows the considerable difference in overall resources and spending on resource management and regulation, particularly among the districts considered for this paper.

Table 1: Financial Resources for RMA related activities 2006/07 $m ORC ECAN Queensto Waitaki Mackenzie Central wn-Lakes Otago Resource 3.434 5.0876 3.2287 .4128 1.9589 management and regulation Pest management 9.096 Land activities .84310 7.86611 including policy making Water activities 2.949 14.043 including policy making

Total operating 29.598 93.464 50.018 30.889 7.91813 27.924 expenditure 2006/0712

Population usually 195,00014 481,43115 17,04016 20,08817 3, 71718 14,46319 resident

Activities relating to 24.41%20 33.17% 10.17% 10.45% 5.20% 7.10% RMA and regulatory functions as a proportion of total operating expenditure

6 Includes all regulatory functions (RMA, building control, animal control, environmental health etc...) 7 District and community planning and consultation; an additional $1.5m is spent on other regulatory functions 8 Additional amounts spent on other regulatory services $0.224; and building control $0.242 9 Environmental services – includes planning, building control, environmental health, animal control, liquor licensing etc.. 10 Includes pest management, sustainable farming practice research, information dissemination etc... 11 Includes RMA regulation and enforcement and policy making 12 Total expenditure 2006/07 from ten Year Financial Statements 13 2005/06 from Annual Report 14 2004 estimate Statistics NZ (2001 181,539) 15 2001 Statistics NZ 16 2001 Statistics NZ, but LTCCP notes provisional figure for 2006 is 20,000 (but QLDC believe is may be up to 32,000) 17 2001 Statistics NZ 18 2001 Statistics NZ 19 2001 Statistics NZ

Where resources are stretched, regional and national leadership and pooling resources may be required to deal with issues requiring significant scientific or specialist input to provide sufficient information to decision-makers for both plan review/preparation and actively in consideration of resource consent applications.

Faced with opposition by well funded developers seeking to develop high country areas for resorts, district councils are finding themselves poorly prepared to defend plans which did not anticipate this type of development in these locations. The results may not always be negative, but a careful assessment is needed and cumulative effects need to be considered.

6.0 OPPORTUNITIES: MECHANISMS WORTHY OF GREATER USE The Crown has a unique opportunity to use its various departments with significant knowledge and skills (not to mention resources) to come up with solutions that meet community aspirations on a national, regional and local level. The only requirement to pursue this approach is to operate an inclusive process.

Assuming that the results of tenure review are generating a demand for land-use change (or will cumulatively do so over the forthcoming years), the question that is needed to be asked is: can the tenure review process (and/or the Crown using other resources and processes available to it) address any of the tensions at regional and local level regarding the potential adverse effects of land use change/development on district and regionally significant landscapes, heritage and areas of indigenous vegetation/habitats? The answer to this has to be yes.

It seems that the biggest gap in the tenure review process is the lack of recognition of regional and local values. These can only be considered if local authorities are involved in initial evaluation of the high country allotments.

For their part local authorities can (and are) focussing on addressing weaknesses in particular RMA controls eg buildings/structures, subdivision.

The regional councils are also involved in sustainable land management initiatives and ‘extension’ services through water, biosecurity and soils management initiatives. Historically, catchment boards allowed for the development of soils and water conservation plans which were used to achieve retirement and de-stocking of degraded and at-risk high country land. Grants were made available to farmers as compensation and to assist with fencing. ECan as a series of projects aimed at drawing together diverse range of stakeholders to develop management plans covering issues such as pests, weeds, flood, gravel management, water quality/quantity/allocation, landscape, ecological protection and economic use and development. Examples include:

• Orari Integrated Catchment Management Project – management plan is in final stages of being drafted • Rangitata Gorge Landcare Group – since 1999 landowners from 13 stations have been working towards a coordinated and integrated approach to pest management and good stewardship.

20 Note that the percentages for ECan and ORC are not directly comparable because of how policy, planning and regulatory functions under the RMA are divided among a range of activity groups.

The following mechanisms are seen to be worthy of greater use:

6.1 Statutory • Concept zones/special purpose zones.

• Structure planning/concept planning to assess capacity for ‘nodal’ or ‘cluster’ development.

• Activity categories – greater use of non-complying and prohibited activities.

• LTCCPs – would have greater weight if issues subject to consultation and tools to address identified through RMA plans; or were given more weight in EC/regulatory environment.

6.2 Non-statutory • Resourcing/funding/supporting farm management plans and/or development plans. Ahead of finalising tenure review agreements develop plans that: incorporate sound sustainable farming practices; integrate environmental management (including biodiversity and heritage landscape values); and clearly identify management needs of areas eg areas that need to be left alone, actively managed etc.

• Build on landcare/extension-type services of regional authorities and government agencies.

• Enhance confidence in tenure review process eg

o Take a wider view than just ‘national’ significance; look formally at regional and district-wide significance. Establish what is missing in the High Country in terms of representative range of habitats?

o Involve regional and district councils formally at investigation stage to share knowledge and highlight issues for consideration eg heritage, landscape in addition to biodiversity.

o Prepare landowners for land use controls framework post tenure review by looking at future development.

o Recognise that tenure review can provide valuable data and information for sharing with district and regional councils to support and assist understanding of biodiversity values.

o Share the ‘grand plan’ for the protected network at national, regional and district scales.

• Consider retaining land in pastoral leases; perhaps allow greater development/intensification/diversification on Crown leasehold areas with less significance but in accordance with rules, objectives and policies in regional and district plans.

• Actively use mechanisms other than ‘national park’ type status.

• Recognise ‘working landscapes’ where changing practices in farming acknowledged and valued.

18 7.0 CONCLUSIONS In summary, the sources of tensions for RMA tools within the high country of the South Island revolve around:

• Significant land use change driven by demand for non-rural/farm related activities.

• Misunderstanding of land use controls and tools.

• A mismatch between societal aspirations (eg strategic statements, policies and objectives) and willingness to address issues in practice.

• Resources available for thorough investigation of values and issues.

7.1 What price protection? It is a societal issue how sustainable land management practices are recognised and how significant natural values are valued in an economic sense. What is clear is that neither position is sustainable in the long term i.e. giving up on sustainable land management practices outside public ownership or expecting significant levels of monetary compensation.

The impact of extra regulatory or planning work connected with tenure review could be significant in the next few years for smaller rural authorities with low population/rate-payer base.

A philosophical approach that only ‘public’ ownership can protect areas with landscape, biodiversity, heritage or amenity values is evident in many policy and planning circles. Perhaps Crown ownership is the best way to guarantee protection, but it may not be the only way to enhance and sustain areas, or indeed fulfil potential to contribute to halt declining biodiversity and enhance environmental quality and amenity in the long term.

Bottom lines are: halting the decline in biodiversity, halting further degradation in soil, water and air quality and acceptance of landscape and heritage values. RMA is one tool, but cannot be used properly unless there is political will and resources to follow through on community aspirations. All tools need to be backed up through strategic policies and regulatory rules.

7.2 Greater respect and leadership There needs to be greater respect of community values and responses to issues of concern as expressed, debated and challenged through RMA plans especially relating to matters such as:

• Buildings and subdivision design - design principles and guidance for rural areas • Landscape values

19 • Vegetation clearance • Soils • Water quality and quantity • Recognising, managing, maintaining and enhancing areas of national, regional and local indigenous vegetation and habitats for fauna.

There also needs to be a greater level of regional leadership in supporting assessment of values of landscape, heritage, biodiversity of significance on regional and district scales.

Scheduling areas of significant values on private land in RMA plans eg Significant Natural Areas, or sites of significance, as attempted over the past 10 years has been fraught, alienating and litigious. Equally repugnant to landowners and developers has been an assessment-based approach in drafting generic rules and assessment criteria.

The permissiveness of district plans, in particular, regarding subdivision and building, vegetation and landscape has shown major gaps in dealing with the effects of rapid urban/tourism development in areas previously not anticipated for such development. Districts are now beginning to address the gaps through reviewing activity categories, zone/site standards and assessment criteria to reverse the permissiveness that has resulted in development that in some cases has caused unacceptable impacts on landscape, rural amenity and threatens the quality of water, soils and biodiversity values.

In all the LTCCP documents studied for this paper, processes have shown the importance communities are placing on landscape and sustainable farming practices – which provide a unique identity and character for the district. However, the conviction to follow through is not necessarily evident in district plans at this stage and is unlikely to be seen for some years.

7.3 RMA plans cannot guarantee protection Tenure review cannot strictly rely on RMA plans as a substitute protection mechanism in some areas because:

• There are gaps in knowledge of values of national, regional and local significance.

• There are weaknesses in drafting of rules in RMA plans (regional policy statements, regional plans and district plans) to give effect to policies and objectives.

• Land use intensification is occurring at a faster rate than the information, scientific data, issues and methods to address them can be debated and practical responses made through RMA plan processes.

“Pressures for changes to the farmed landscape in the Mackenzie mainly originate from circumstances beyond RMA control, particularly tenure review, water allocation, world prices for farm products and urban demand for rural lifestyle. If the landscape values of the Basin derive partly from the state and condition of the land, the Council must find a formula to maintain the uniqueness of the landscape while allowing farmers freedom to respond to the business challenges confronting them.”

20 Landscape Values of the Mackenzie Basin, Graham Densem, February 200721

7.4 Opportunities Therefore the next review of RMA plans, particularly regional plans and the tenure review process represent opportunities for the high country that are not necessarily available for other landholdings to deliver more sustainable development.

If not specific regulatory responsibility, a matter to debate further is whether there is a moral obligation to address regional and district issues of concern as part of the initial assessment in tenure review processes.

The management of Crown pastoral leases and the tenure review process have huge potential to provide best practice in farm planning/management and diversification of land use that actually reduce adverse impacts on the environment.

Pippa Player

July 2007

21 Report prepared by Graham Densem (Landscape Architect) for Mackenzie District Council’s review of District Plan provisions

21 Bibliography

Website resources Organisation Resources Website Office of the Various papers including www.pce.govt..nz Parliamentary investigations and Commissioner for the research publications Environment Ministry for the Resource Management www.mfe.govt.nz Environment Act resources Quality Planning Ministry for the www.qualityplanning.org.nz resources Environment, NZ Planning Institute and Local Government New Zealand initiative for best practice in RMA planning. Department of Publicly available www.doc.govt.nz Conservation research and publications database. Land Information New Information and media www.linz.govt.nz Zealand statements on Tenure Review Environment Canterbury Plans, policies, reports www.ecan.govt.nz Otago Regional Council Plans, policies, reports www.orc.govt.nz Central Otago District Media statements www.codc.govt.nz Council Queenstown-Lakes Plans, policies, guidance www.qldc.govt.nz District Council material, media statements, reports Mackenzie District Plans, policies, reports www.mackenzie.govt.nz Council Waitaki District Council Plans, policies www.waitaki.govt.nz

Landcare Research Plans, policies, research www.landcareresearch.co.nz reports, library

Specific papers/documents Title Publisher Reference Environment Canterbury Long Environment Canterbury, July ISBN1-86937-609-9 Term Council Community Plan 2006 2006-16 Review of Canterbury Regional Environment Canterbury Policy Statement: settlement and the built environment, transport and versatile soil Review of Canterbury Regional Environment Canterbury Policy Statement: natural features and landscape Canterbury Regional Policy September 2003, Environment Statement – Review of Canterbury (Boffa Miskell Ltd)

22 Title Publisher Reference Provisions relating to versatile soils: Report 1 Background material Canterbury Regional Policy January 2004, Environment Statement – Review of Canterbury (Boffa Miskell Ltd) Provisions relating to versatile soils: Report 2 Issue Option and Preliminary Response Long Term Community Plan Otago Regional Council 2006-2016 Regional Policy Statement for Otago Regional Council Otago Biodiveristy policy for Otago Otago Regional Council The 10 Year Plan, Council Queenstown Lakes District Community Plan– 2006/2016 Council Queenstown-Lakes District Plan Queenstown Lakes District Council Proposed Waitaki District Plan Waitaki District Council, 6 July Proposed Variation Number 3, 2005 General Indigenous Vegetation Clearance Rule, Rural Zones (Section 32 report) Central Otago District Plan Central Otago District Council (April 2007 updated edition) Variation I to Proposed Central Central Otago District Council Otago District Plan, 2006 Report to Planning and 20 December 2006, Central Environment Committee, Rural Otago District Council Study Long Term Council Community Central Otago District Council, Plan 2006/16 Waitaki Community Plan Waitaki District Council 2006/2016 Waitaki District Plan (July 2004 Waitaki District Council updated edition) Mackenzie District Plan Mackenzie District Council (Operative May 2004) Landscape and the Mackenzie Consultation package for Basin – Review of District Plan landowners, February 2007, Provisions Mackenzie District Council Mackenzie District Plan – Graham Densem (Landscape Landscape Values of the Architect) for Mackenzie Mackenzie Basin (paper for District Council, February 2007 Review of District Plan provisions) Illuminated or blinded by Parliamentary Commissioner ISBN 1-877274-09-7 science? A discussion paper for the Environment, July 2003 on the role of science in environmental policy and decision-making Weaving resilience into our Parliamentary Commissioner ISBN 1-877274-05- working lands: for the Environment, June 04 recommendations for future 2002

23 Title Publisher Reference roles of native plants Growing for good, intensive Parliamentary Commissioner ISBN 1-877274-45-3 farming, sustainability and New for the Environment, October Zealand’s environment 2004 Draft Guidelines for Undertaking Allan Hewitt and Grant Hunter, the Promotion of Ecological Landcare Research Contract Sustainability in Tenure Review Report: LC304/145, Land Information New Zealand June 2004 Superb or Suburb? Parliamentary Commissioner ISBN 1-877274-07-0 International case studies in for the Environment, April 2003 management of icon landscapes High Country Tenure Review – Doug Bray (Robert McClean, implications for historic heritage Paulette Wallace), NZ Historic and landscapes in the South Places Trust, 12 March 2007 Island High Country Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 Southland District Plan (1998, Southland District Council, 2001 updates) Royal Forest and Bird September 2004 Environment Court Protection Society Inc/DG of Decision No A Conservation vs Central Otago 128/2004, District Council Protecting our Places – Ministry for the Environment, ISBN 0-478-30135-9 information about the statement April 2007 of national priorities for protecting rare and threatened biodiversity on private land Cabinet Business Committee, , Government papers: CBC South Island High Country: (07) 86 Landscape, Biodiversity and access Issues Cabinet Policy Committee, Government papers: POL Min Minute of decision, South Island (05) 2/9 High Country Objectives Resource Management Ministry for the Environment, Amendment Act 2005 – August 2005 Improving local policy and plan making The Value of Conservation: Department of Conservation, What does conservation May 2006 contribute to the economy?

24 Further study • Identifying best practice drafting of district plan objectives, policies and rules relating to rural land from around the country.

• Case studies to investigate practical effectiveness of rules for biodiversity protection and vegetation clearance/earthworks (including monitoring and compliance activities).

• Commissioning studies to look at development capacity for high country land

• Case study examples of development on freeholded lease land - good and bad.

25 Appendix 1

Summaries of policies and rules of Regional and District Plans

A: Regional policies and rules (includes LTCCP objectives, outcomes and initiatives) A1 Regional Policy Statement for Otago/LTCCP 2006-2016 A2 Canterbury Regional Policy Statement/LTCCP 2006-2016

B: District LTCCPs (objectives, outcomes and initiatives) B1 Waitaki Community Plan 2006-2016 B2 LTCCP Central Otago 2006-2016 B3 Council Community Plan, Queenstown-Lakes District Council, 2006- 2016 B4 LTCCP Mackenzie District Council, 2006-2016

C: Land use rules in District Plans C1 Queenstown-Lakes District Plan C2 Waitaki District Plan C3 Mackenzie District Plan C4 Central Otago District Plan

26 Appendix 2

Extract from the Mackenzie District Plan22

Section 7 Rural

12 VEGETATION CLEARANCE 12.1 Permitted Activities - Vegetation Clearance Reference in this rule to the Mackenzie Basin means that part of the District known as the Mackenzie Basin and identified as such on the map in Appendix E of the Plan 12.1.1 Clearance of vegetation is permitted where it complies with the following standards: 12.1.1.a Riparian Areas Clearance of vegetation shall not exceed 100m2 per hectare in any continuous period of 5 years - within 20m of the bank of the main stem of any river listed in Schedule B to - the Rural Zone; or - within 10m of the bank of any other river; or - within 75m of any lake listed in Schedule B to the Rural Zone; or - within 50m of or in any wetland or other lake. Exemptions: (i) This standard shall not apply to any removal of declared weed pests or vegetation clearance for the purpose of track maintenance or habitat enhancement; (ii) This standard shall not apply to any vegetation clearance which has been granted resource consent for a discretionary or non-complying activity from the Canterbury Regional Council under the Resource Management Act 1991. (iii) This standard shall not apply to any vegetation clearance which is provided for in any one of the following mechanisms: • Section 76 Reserves Act 1977 Declaration • Section 77 Reserves Act 1977 Conservation Covenant • Section 27 Conservation Act 1987 Covenant • Section 29 Conservation Act 1987 Management Agreement • Queen Elizabeth II National Trust Act 1977 Covenant

Provided such mechanism: • Protects the natural character and functioning of the riparian area, • and • Remains current for the duration of the activity, and

22Source: http://www.mackenzie.govt.nz/planning/dplan/S07%20-%20Rural.pdf

27 • the terms of the mechanism have not been breached, and • has been lodged with the Council.

12.1.1.b Sites of Natural Significance Clearance of indigenous vegetation shall not exceed 100m2 per hectare in any continuous 5 year period within any Site of Natural Significance identified on the Planning Maps. Exemptions: (i) This standard shall not apply to any clearance of indigenous vegetation which are provided for in any one of the following mechanisms: • Section 76 Reserves Act 1977 Declaration • Section 77 Reserves Act 1977 Conservation Covenant • Section 27 Conservation Act 1987 Covenant • Section 29 Conservation Act 1987 Management Agreement • Queen Elizabeth II National Trust Act 1977 Covenant

provided such mechanism: • Protects the significant natural character of the Site of Natural • Significance, and • Remains current for the duration of the activity, and • the terms of the mechanism have not been breached, and • has been lodged with the Council.

(ii) This standard shall not apply to any earthworks for the purpose of track maintenance.

12.1.1.c Tall Tussock and Canopy There shall be no clearance of: - indigenous vegetation which has an average maximum canopy height of greater than 3 metres and exceeds 500 square metres - more than 100 square metres of tall tussock (Chionochloa sp.) Exemptions: (i) This rule shall not apply to any removal of declared weed pests or vegetation clearance for the purpose of track maintenance; (ii) This standard shall not apply to any vegetation clearance which has been granted resource consent for a discretionary or non-complying activity from the Canterbury Regional Council under the Resource Management Act 1991.

28 12.1.1.d Wetlands In any wetland exceeding 1,000m2 in area there shall be no modification by clearance of indigenous vegetation, cultivation, or damage by deposition of material. Exemptions: This rule shall not apply to: • any removal of declared weed pests; or • any vegetation clearance for the purpose of track maintenance.

Note: Consent may be required from the Canterbury Regional Council for any damming, drainage or diversion, or vegetation clearance alongside or within waterways and wetlands.

12.1.1.e High Altitude Areas Clearance of indigenous vegetation shall not exceed 100m2 per hectare in any continuous 5 year period on land above 900m in altitude. Exemptions: (i) This standard shall not apply to any removal of declared weed pests or vegetation clearance for the purpose of track maintenance. (ii) This standard shall not apply to any vegetation clearance which has been granted resource consent for a discretionary or non-complying activity from the Canterbury Regional Council under the Resource Management Act 1991.

12.1.1.f Shrublands On any site in the Mackenzie Basin in any continuous period of five years there shall be no clearance of:

(i) Bog pine (Dacrydium bidwillii) shrublands (ii) More than 2000 square metres of: • Open indigenous shrublands containing at least three of the following indicator species where these shrubs are prominent: native broom (Carmichaelia species) or; tauhinu (Cassinia species) or; porcupine shrub (Melicytus species) or; Coprosma intertexta* or; prostrate kowhai* (Sophora prostrata); Refer to Appendix N for drawings of these specific indicator species. • Dense indigenous shrublands containing at least five of the following indicator species: Coprosma species or; Corokia cotoneaster* or; climbers (Clematis, Rubus, Parsonsia, Muehlenbeckia species) or; mountain wine berry* (Aristotelia fruticosa) or; Hebe species or; Olearia species or; native broom species (Carmichaelia) Refer to Appendix N for drawings of these specific indicator species. • Matagouri-dominated shrublands (Discaria toumatu) on river flood plains, river terraces, alluvial fans or lower mountain/hill slopes which have an average canopy height of greater than 1.5 metres, where there are more than

29 5 shrubs of this height and where the vegetation has not been cleared since 1985, provided that any matagouri that has been induced by regular oversowing and topdressing shall be exempt. For the purposes of this rule, regular oversowing and topdressing is defined as having occurred at least three times since 1985. Exemptions This rule shall not apply to: • Any removal of declared weed pests; or • Vegetation clearance for the purpose of track maintenance or fenceline maintenance within existing disturbed formations; or • Any vegetation clearance including burning which has been granted resource consent for a discretionary or non-complying activity from the Canterbury Regional Council/Environment Canterbury under the Resource Management Act 1991.

For the purpose of this Rule: • Open indigenous shrublands excludes scattered individual outlier plants that do not visually contribute to the makeup of the shrubland; • Dense shrublands are characterised by a generally closed canopy, although there will be open patches within the shrubland. As a rule of thumb, a person would have difficulty walking through a dense shrubland and would expect to get scratched; • Lower mountain/hill slopes are characterised as being underlain by bedrock in contrast to moraine slopes which are composed of glacial till.

12.1.1.g Short Tussock Grasslands An interim Rule that will be reviewed three years after the Plan becomes operative.

On each of the individual farm properties existing in the Mackenzie Basin Map as at 1 January 2002 in any continuous period of five years there shall be no clearance including cultivation above the following thresholds of short tussock grasslands, consisting of silver or blue (Poa species), or Elymus solandri, or fescue tussock where tussocks exceed 15% canopy cover: (i) 40 hectares or less – Permitted Activity (ii) Greater than 40 hectares – Discretionary Activity

Performance Standards for Permitted Activity • The landholder shall notify the Mackenzie District Council of the proposed clearance 4 months prior to the clearance being undertaken and shall supply a map of the proposed site. • The clearance shall be more than 150m from the boundaries of any existing Sites of Natural Significance.

30 Exemptions This rule shall not apply to: • Any removal of declared weed pests; or • Vegetation clearance for the purpose of track maintenance or fenceline maintenance within existing disturbed formations; or • Any vegetation clearance including burning which has been granted resource consent for a discretionary or non-complying activity from the Canterbury Regional Council/Environment Canterbury under the Resource Management Act 1991; or • Any short tussock grassland where the site has been oversown, and topdressed at least three times in the last 10 years prior to new clearance so that the inter-tussock vegetation is dominated by clovers and/or exotic grasses.

12.1.1.h Indigenous Cushion and Mat Vegetation and Associated Communities An interim Rule that will be revised three years after the Plan becomes operative.

On each of the individual farm properties existing in the Mackenzie Basin as at 1 January 2002 in any continuous period of five years there shall be no clearance including cultivation above the following thresholds of indigenous cushion, mat (Raoulia species) or herb and scabweed vegetation where at least 50% of the vegetation ground cover comprises vascular and non-vascular indigenous species, OR where the number of vascular indigenous species is greater than 20:

(i) 10 hectares or less – Permitted Activity (ii) Greater than 10 hectares – Discretionary Activity

Performance Standards for Permitted Activity: • The landholder shall notify the Mackenzie District Council of the proposed clearance 4 months prior to the clearance being undertaken and shall supply a map of the proposed site. • The clearance shall be more than 150m from the boundaries of any existing • Sites of Natural Significance. Exemptions This rule shall not apply to: • Any removal of declared weed pests; or • Vegetation clearance for the purpose of track maintenance or fenceline maintenance within existing disturbed formations; or • Any vegetation clearance including burning which has been granted resource consent for a discretionary or non-complying activity from the Canterbury Regional Council/Environment Canterbury under the Resource Management Act 1991; or

31 • Any indigenous cushion or mat vegetation where the site has been oversown, and topdressed at least three times in the last 10 years prior to new clearance so that the site is dominated by clovers and/or exotic grasses. For the purposes of Rule 12.1.1(g) and 12.1.1(h): • The intention of the landholder notifying the Mackenzie District Council of permitted clearance activities is to allow interested parties to assess their interest in the proposed area, to discuss the proposal with the landholder and to undertake an inspection where appropriate. All inspections will be the result of voluntary agreement between the parties. • The Mackenzie District Council will maintain a publicly available register of permitted clearance activities as notified by landowners under these Rules. • For Discretionary Activities, the Mackenzie District Council will require areas of short tussock and indigenous cushion and mat vegetation to be significant in terms of the primary and secondary criteria for significance in Rural Policy 1B (i.e., the criteria used to identify Sites of Natural Significance) if these areas are to be protected from clearance. When assessing ‘significance’, the Mackenzie District Council shall restrict its assessment solely to the criteria set out in Rural Policy 1B.

12.1.1.i Areas outside the Mackenzie Basin An interim rule that will be reviewed upon completion of the Eastern Mackenzie landscape and ecological values study. There shall be no clearance of: • Matagouri which has an average maximum canopy height greater than 1.5 metres and exceeds 500m2 (in one continuous block) in any continuous period of 5 years. • more than 100m2 of tall tussock (chionochloa sp.) • indigenous vegetation which has an average maximum canopy height greater than 3 metres and exceeds 500m2. • more than 5000m2 of indigenous vegetation except where the clearance is carried out within an area of improved pasture Exemptions: This rule shall not apply to: • any removal of declared weed pests or vegetation clearance for the purpose of track maintenance; or • any vegetation clearance which has been granted resource consent by the Canterbury Regional Council under the Resource Management Act 1991.

For the purpose of this rule improved pasture shall mean an area where species composition and growth has clearly been significantly modified or enhanced within the last 10 years by cultivation or top dressing and over sowing or direct drilling, and where exotic species are obvious.

32 12.2 Discretionary Activities - Vegetation Clearance 12.2.1 Any clearance of vegetation not provided for as a Permitted Activity or Non- complying Activity.

12.3 Non-Complying Activities 12.3.1 Clearance of more than 10% of the total area of indigenous vegetation cover present on any Site of Natural Significance identified on the Planning Maps.