APPENDIX 4: CASE STUDY

Introduction Figure 1: Location of Coromandel Peninsula The Coromandel Peninsula is located on the east coast of the east of and to the north east of Hamilton (see Figure 1). The spine of the Coromandel Peninsula consists of a range of steep-sided mountains rising to almost 900 metres at their highest point. These fall steeply to the sea on the west and provide a backdrop to broad valleys, flatlands, estuaries and sandy beaches on the east. The Peninsula has 395 kilometres of coastline. ‘Nowhere else in is there a coastline or forest of such diversity, from relatively accessible and developed areas to relatively inaccessible and remote all within such close proximity’ (Boffa Miskell Limited 1997: 4). A 1997 landscape assessment study identified the entire coastal cent (see Figure 2). This is in stark contrast to a 14 environment, excluding settlement areas and per cent growth rate for the previous five year some inland areas, as constituting outstanding census period from 1991 to 1996. The population is features or landscapes under section 6(b)) of the predicted to increase from 25,800 in 1991 to about RMA (Boffa Miskell Limited 1997: 73). The 31,000 in 2021 based on Coromandel Peninsula falls within the medium growth projections, an increase of 20 per jurisdictions of the Thames-Coromandel District cent and just over the predicted percentage growth Council and the Regional Council. for the country as a whole of 16 per cent. Pressures on landscapes Many residents of the Thames-Coromandel The main pressure on landscapes in the District have low incomes, with the district having Coromandel Peninsula is the increasing number a median annual personal income of $14,700, of visitors and holiday makers, resulting in the compared to the national average of $18,500. This construction of holiday homes and associated low income may be related to the disproportionate infrastructure. number of older people in the district. The district has 20.5 per cent of its population aged 65 years The Thames-Coromandel District has experienced and over, compared to the national average of 12.1 only a modest growth in the number of residents per cent, reflecting the attractiveness of the (1.4 per cent between 1996 and 2001), less than Peninsula to retirees. half of the national percentage increase of 3.3 per Being located within a ninety- Figure 2: Percentage population growth 1996-2001 minute drive of the Auckland region and Hamilton City, 9% there has been strong 8% pressure for holiday homes. 7% On the 2001 census night, 44.5 per cent of dwellings 6% were unoccupied, the highest 5% rate of all districts, compared 4% to a national average of 9.7 3% per cent. This indicates the large proportion of holiday 2% homes within the district. The 1% growth in the populations of 0% Auckland and Hamilton, New Zealand Auckland Hamilton Thames- where the owners of many Region City Coromandel holiday homes reside, is District

EDS Landscape Report 67 therefore likely to be a greater predictor of identified and categorized the different kinds of pressure on the Coromandel Ranges than landscapes within the district but did not go so far population increase within the area itself. as to ascribe a value to them. Cultural or heritage landscapes were not identified and there was no The major geographical concentration of public input into the assessment. The study unoccupied dwellings is in the , identified the entire coastal environment, Whangamata and Beach census area excluding settlement areas and some inland units (see Figure 3). Whangamata and Pauanui areas, as constituting outstanding features or Beach are both well-established formal beach landscapes under section 6(b)) of the RMA (Boffa settlements. Te Rerenga includes smaller coastal Miskell Limited 1997: 73). Descriptions of the villages and a large rural area. It has the largest different landscape units drawn from the study number of dwellings of all the census area units were included in the proposed district plan and the (4,257) and the second largest proportion of plan states that ‘The District’s landscape contains unoccupied dwellings (58.6 per cent) after Pauanui substantial areas of significant landscape Beach (80.5 per cent). This indicates that many including a coastal environment which is of holiday homes are located outside the larger national significance and has been determined to formal beach settlements. be of outstanding value’ (Issue 212.2). However, Prices for coastal property on the Peninsula have the locations of outstanding landscapes are not been sharply increasing, with beachfront identified on the planning maps or elsewhere in properties with baches or modest homes selling the plan. for over a million dollars (Bayleys Research 2002), indicating continuing strong demand. Coastal Development of district plan provisions holiday homes can have a significant negative Planning controls over subdivision and effect on landscape values if not well designed and development in the rural and coastal areas have sited (see Figure 4). changed significantly over the twelve years since Tourism is another major pressure on the the RMA came into force. The transitional district landscape. In summertime, the population of the plan prepared under the Town and Country district can increase from 25,000 to 200,000 Planning Act 1977 became operative in 1990, just (Thames-Coromandel District Council 2002). The before the new planning regime under the RMA population of the -Pauanui area increases came into play. This plan identified a coastal zone more than ten times during this period and the which generally extended from mean high water Whangamata and - areas springs up to the coastal ridgeline, excluding experience an eight-fold population increase settlement areas. Minimum lot sizes of 20 (Waikato Regional Policy Statement 2000, para hectares for agriculture and 6 hectares for 3.5.3). This has major implications for the capacity horticulture were provided for in the rural and of the infrastructure that needs to be provided for coastal zones, in order to maintain the productive these beach settlements, the level of rates use of the land. In addition, the coastal zone required to fund it, and how the burden of such restricted non-farming activities and incorporated rates fall. design controls on buildings. Bush conservation lots were provided for, with a minimum of 10 Identification of important landscapes hectares of bush to be covenanted for each lot. There were no specific landscape protection A visual assessment of the landscapes of the provisions. Peninsula was carried out in 1997. The study

Figure 3: Number of occupied and unoccupied dwellings on census night 2001

4500

4000 Unoccupied dwellings 3500 Occupied dwellings 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 Whitianga Coromandel Te Rerenga Whangamata Tairua Moanataiari Parawai Pauanui - Beach Thornton Bay

68 EDS Landscape Report Figure 4: Residential development on a headland at Tairua

Source: Brown 2003

In 1992, a council dominated by ‘progressive lots could only be created if at least 20 hectares of green’ councillors was elected. The council land was subject to legal protection. A 4,000 attempted to put in place a strong environmental square metre minimum lot size was imposed on management framework for the Peninsula, within the conservation lots, but they were not required to the broader neo-liberal framework of reducing be contiguous with the covenanted areas. council spending. In 1995, council planners began There was no identification of outstanding work on preparing a proposed district plan under landscapes or specific rules for their protection. the RMA. A similarly orientated council was elected for another term in 1995 and the proposed These provisions generated much controversy. plan was notified in March 1997. Around 1,200 submissions and 18,000 submission points were lodged in respect of the proposed The plan as notified was significantly more plan. The Coromandel Resource Users Association restrictive on rural and coastal development than (CRUA) was formed in 1997, representing land the transitional plan. The minimum lot size for owners and resource users, to oppose the subdivision in the rural and coastal zones as a proposed plan and the re-election of councillors. discretionary activity was increased from 6 or 20 The CRUA developed an alternative district plan, hectares to 60 hectares. One building per lot was less than a tenth the size of the proposed plan, provided for in the rural zone as a permitted which it presented to the council (The Independent activity, and within the coastal zone as a controlled 1998). In 1998, the council began restructuring its activity. Assessment criteria included the design of planning department, resulting in the loss of three the building and the location and detailed planning senior policy planners. of landscaped areas. Production forestry was a controlled activity in the coastal zone and Hearings of submissions to the plan were held industrial and mining activities were prohibited between September 1997 and June 1998. The activities. council released its decisions on submissions on the proposed plan in October 1998, just before the A rural conservation lot could be created as a elections. They had the effect of reducing the discretionary activity if 5 hectares of existing bush minimum lot size in rural and coastal areas from were covenanted, or 5 hectares of land planted in 60 hectares to a 20 hectare average, as a indigenous vegetation and managed according to discretionary activity. The rural conservation lots an approved plan on the parent title. A maximum were retained but the minimum lot size was of two such lots per title was provided for, but two removed. Production forestry in the coastal zone

EDS Landscape Report 69 remained a controlled activity. A section of the plan Chums) Beach and Waikawau Bay, can be identifying objectives, policies, methods and subdivided into lots averaging 20 hectares, as results relating to the coastal zone was removed. discretionary activities, with further rural conservation lots able to be created. In addition, Objectives and policies relating to landscape the changed policies facilitate the granting of non- protection were weakened. For example, the complying consent for subdivision in the coastal proposed plan as notified contained the following zone on the basis of revegetation proposals. policies related to landscape and natural Although buildings on new lots are subject to character: design and location criteria, they are a controlled 1. To ensure key landscape elements are activity and therefore consent cannot be withheld. identified and given a highly protected status The subdivision and development potential of land at Waikawau Bay, under these district plan 2. To ensure the landscape character of different provisions, prompted the government to purchase areas throughout the District is identified, and the land to protect it from unsympathetic enhanced development. 3. To avoid activities or development which have a The proposed plan became a key issue in the 1998 significant adverse effect on key landscape election, along with infrastructure provision, and elements or cause dramatic landscape change many progressive green councillors failed to be re- 4. To ensure activities or development reflect or elected. The level of opposition to the plan was, in enhance the landscape character of an area part, due to the lack of consultation as the plan was being prepared and the suspicion that this 5. To protect and enhance natural vegetation, bred. It was also criticized for a lack of vision and within the District’s settlement. [emphasis a clear description of what it sought to achieve, as added] well as for containing too many petty rules. Several of these policies were deleted or The new council which came into office was reorientated after council decisions to place more dominated by more ‘centrist’ councillors. The emphasis on promoting development to achieve council considered abandoning the proposed plan restoration of the coastline. For example, revised and starting again. However, because of the policies included: amount of money already expended on the plan by ‘To protect existing landscape values within the that time, the fact that it had been through a coastal environment and to encourage and provide public process, and the presence of other more for appropriate development, which will remedy urgent issues relating to infrastructure provision, the adverse effects of past land uses and enhance the council decided to retain the plan, endeavour the natural character and amenity values of the to get it operative and then change it. coastal environment’ (Policy 212.4.2). [emphasis Fifty-one references were lodged in relation to the added] proposed plan. The CRUA lodged a broad ‘To promote the restoration and enhancement of reference against the plan. Carter Holt Harvey existing degraded landscapes and ecosystems’ opposed the forestry provisions in the coastal (Policy 212.4.3). zone. However, in general, the references related to site-specific issues or urban areas rather than ‘Enable subdivision and development where challenging the broader provisions impacting on significant landscape protection and enhancement, the coastal zone. Significantly, no one challenged including the retirement of land with active the weakening of the protection of landscapes in revegetation of indigenous species and the the district. The council proceeded to negotiate restoration of indigenous ecological systems, are settlement of references. By June 2003, over six to be achieved’ (Method 212.5.3.4). [emphasis years after the proposed plan was notified, it was added] not yet operative, 17 references were outstanding One house per lot in the coastal zone continued to and major references by the CRUA, the forestry be a controlled activity but much more stringent industry and the mining industry had yet to be assessment criteria were incorporated into the resolved. Interviewees indicated that the plan. These included colour, reflectivity, bulk, community remains very divided over district plan vegetation clearance, location in relation to issues. headlands and ridgelines and prominence when Few parties have been involved in establishing the viewed from the sea, public roads and cultural or landscape protection provisions of the district heritage sites. plan. The Department of Conservation has not The effect of these provisions is that large engaged in landscape issues on the Peninsula. undeveloped coastal rural blocks of land on the The regional council has not identified regionally Peninsula, such as those at Wainuototo (New significant landscapes in its regional policy statement or coastal plan. The regional council is,

70 EDS Landscape Report Figure 5: Residential development at , more urgent issues, such as Coromandel Peninsula infrastructure provision to cater for the area’s increasing population and visitors, taking priority.

Resource Consent process Little quantitative information was available about the processing of resource consent applications affecting the Peninsula. In the 2001/02 year, the council notified 3 per cent of resource consent applications processed, being half the national average of 6 per cent and substantially down on the 6.8 per cent notified two years Source: Brown 2003 previously (Ministry for the Environment 2003: 48). however, developing an innovative approach to establishing regional parks through natural It seems unlikely that the cumulative effects of heritage partnerships. It is currently exploring resource consent applications on landscape values ways of permanently protecting land that does not are being comprehensively assessed, because the require outright public purchase, and is seeking to council appears to lack an overall vision of what is apply this approach to a farm at Te Kouma on the sought to be achieved in terms of management of northern end of the Peninsula. landscape and the coastal areas. A comprehensive picture of what subdivision and development has In terms of environmental pressure groups, there already been approved in sensitive areas also are some locally based active groups such as the seems to be lacking. Resident and Ratepayers Association and the Beach Ratepayers The resource management system was seen by Association. However, there is a notable absence some interviewees as unfair because it was of any environmental pressure group engaging in thought that a large developer with money to district plan landscape and coastal issues on a engage experts was more likely to get consent Peninsula-wide basis. In contrast, landowners and than a smaller landowner proposing a modest other development interests within the Peninsula development. Several interviewees expressed the have been well mobilized in the form of the CRUA. view that developers were shaping the future development trajectory of the Peninsula, rather There are strong tangata whenua associations than the local community. with the land on the Coromandel Peninsula. However, there has been little incorporation of a Outcomes Maori perspective of landscape into district plan provisions. Local iwi have not had the resources to In terms of the outcomes, opinions differed. Some proactively identify places important to them and interviewees expressed the view that development there is currently a mismatch between what is had already gone so far as to effectively destroy valued by tangata whenua on the Peninsula and the special values of the Peninsula that had drawn what is protected under the current resource them there in the first place, including the feeling management system (Ngamane 2003). of wilderness. Others considered that there were still many undeveloped areas left and development The Environment Court has yet to become involved was providing important ecological benefits in the landscape provisions of the district plan and through revegetation initiatives. Some poorly looks unlikely to do so in the near future, as no located and designed development has had a current references raise general landscape issues. negative impact on landscapes, as can be seen in The current plan seems unlikely to be up to the Figure 5. task of managing the strong development pressures on the Coromandel Peninsula’s The future landscapes, with important landscape areas still to Suggestions from interviewees for improved be identified. The current council has inherited a protection of the Peninsula in the future included: plan it does not particularly like and has had no hand in developing. It does not yet have a well- •Covenanting the title of land on subdivision to defined policy on landscape protection, with other prevent further subdivision

EDS Landscape Report 71 • Initiating a community consultation process, Conclusions building on the landscape assessment carried The coastal areas of the Coromandel Peninsula out by Boffa Miskell Limited, to identify areas are under high pressure for the development of of high landscape value within the district. holiday homes. The increasing number of • Using the long term council community dwellings in the area does not appear to have planning process to develop a future vision for benefited the local community, which has driving changes to the district plan generally low incomes and population growth. Landscape protection has not been a high priority • Negotiating one-on-one with property owners for the council, which has struggled to provide to achieve better protection of significant areas sufficient infrastructure to meet the needs of large •Better harnessing the development impetus numbers of visitors over the summer holiday for environmental gain, through revegetation period. Important landscapes have yet to be initiatives. identified and are not well protected.

People interviewed Interviews were carried out during June 2003 Name Position Organisation Bruce Baker Principal Policy Planner Thames Coromandel District Council Philippa Barriball Deputy Mayor Thames Coromandel District Council Anne Elliot Whitianga resident Environmental activist Joan Gaskill Whitianga resident Ex-chair of Community Board Leigh Hopper Director Hopper Developments Graeme Lawrence Planner Lawrence Cross and Chapman Liane Ngamane Resource management consultant Ngati Maru Chris Lux Mayor Thames Coromandel District Council Evan Penny Councillor Environment Waikato Brain Sharp Councillor Thames Coromandel District Council Mark Tugendhaft Kuaotunu resident Environmental activist, Coromandel Watchdog Peter Wishart Forward Planning Manager Thames Coromandel District Council

References Bayleys Research, 2002, Property Focus: Hardy G W, 2001, Are Constraints on Coastal Waikato/Coromandel, available at Subdivision in New Zealand a Myth or Reality?, http://www.bayleys.co.nz. Research Paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a certificate of proficiency in the Boffa Miskell Limited, 1997, Thames Coromandel Masters of Law paper, Resource Management District: Landscape Resource Evaluation, Law. Auckland: Boffa Miskell Limited. Ministry for the Environment, 2003, Survey of Local Brown S, 2003, Reflections on Landscape Authorities 2001/2002, Wellington: MfE. Management – are we Fooling Ourselves?, in Environmental Defence Society, The Proceedings Ngamane L, 2003, telephone communication, 28 of the New Zealand Landscape Conference, 25-26 June. July. Thames-Coromandel District Council, 2002, Our Fairweather J R and S R Swaffield, 1999, Public People, at http://www.tcdc.govt.nz. Perceptions of Natural and Modified Landscapes The Independent, 1998, Rebel ratepayers blitz of the Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand, Council, 15 July, 6. Agribusiness & Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University, Canterbury.

72 EDS Landscape Report