Whangarei coastal management strategy - structure plans

Location and local authority

In late 2002, Whangarei District Council (WDC) adopted as formal policy the District Wide Coastal Management Strategy. This Strategy established a long term vision for the coast and developed objectives, policies and implementation priorities for a wide range of council, community and stakeholder activities aimed at improving coastal planning and management. A key outcome of the Strategy was the identification of 'policy areas ' and the establishment through community consultation of local visions for policy areas. The Strategy also sets the scene for local implementation through a range of measures, a key tool being the use of structure planning.

The Strategy identified a total of 12 high priority areas for structure planning, and these were prepared as the second phase of work in the Coastal Strategy. The Plans were for:

Waipu Cove
Waipu Township
Parua Bay
MacLeods Bay/Reotahi
Taurikura
Urquharts Bay
Pataua North and South
Ngunguru
Tutukaka
Matapouri
Woolleys to Sandy Bay
Oakura.

An additional 11 medium and low priority structure plan areas were identified for work in future years as council time and resources permit.

The Plans were prepared for Whangarei District Council. The 12 Structure Plan areas are shown on Figure 1.

Figure 1: Whangarei District Coast and Indicative Structure Plan Locations

See figure at full size including text description

Design detail

Structure plan process

It is important to recognise that these Structure Plans were a continuation of the wider District Coastal Management Strategy. The development of the Strategy had already been undertaken through extensive community and stakeholder consultation and there was a high degree of community involvement and 'buy-in ' to the strategic planning process.

The Structure Plans were prepared through an eight-step methodology as outlined below:

Step 1

Confirmation of management direction for the Policy Area and initial definition of Structure Plan boundaries.

This phase included detailed assessment and definition of the area to be subject to the Structure Plan, through deliberation of the particular resource demands, issues and conflicts that had been identified for Policy Areas in the Coastal Management Strategy Process. While the definition of Structure Plan areas tended to focus on anticipated areas for future residential expansion, this was not comprehensively the case. For example, other issues, including access between settlement areas and key recreation areas or between residential and conservation areas often assisted in defining the boundaries for the Structure Plan area.

Step 2

Collation and mapping of existing constraints and opportunities within the defined Structure Plan area.

Data collation and mapping included:

Aerial photographs showing the Structure Plan area;

Detail on current zoning and designations;

Identification of sites of ecological, heritage and cultural significance, protected areas and other sensitive areas identified from the Technical Studies (recognising that in many instances the accuracy of information, particularly pertaining to heritage and archaeological sites was an issue in the Structure Plan process).

Step 3

Workshop with community to identify key Structure Plan concepts (including areas for growth and development for how we live, work, and play in and protect the coastal environment) and identification of key desirable outcomes.

This first phase of consultation focussed on bringing the community together to identify their existing issues/concerns in the Structure Plan area and where/how they wanted the area to look over the next 20 years. The themes of 'live ', 'work ', 'play ' and 'protect ' (initiated through the Coastal Management Strategy consultation) were deployed in this consultation exercise to focus the community on the different values and resource demands they had.

Step 4

Validation of the Structure Plan direction with the Policy Area Vision and the desired outcomes.

As discussed above, following the consultation process a technical assessment was undertaken to assess the degree to which the local structure plan concepts met or addressed the wider Coastal Management Strategy and Policy Area Visions.

Step 5

Concept development for Structure Plan including mapping and identification of key infrastructure components.

Collating the community feedback from Step 3 and mapping Structure Plan elements included consideration of key infrastructure requirements, future land use patterns, key development initiatives, sense of place features, features and values for protection etc (discussed in further detail below).

Step 6

Workshop with community to review Structure Plan mapping, key infrastructure components, and key outcomes. Identification and development of 'triggers ' for implementation measures and programme.

Step 7

Development of implementation programme (including 'triggers ', timeframes and statutory changes (e.g. to District Plan)).

Step 8

Finalise Structure Plan and presentation to Council for adoption.

Land mix

A wide ambit of future land uses were incorporated in the Structure Plans on the basis of the 'living ', 'working ', 'playing ' and 'protecting ' themes. Indicative land use patterns included:

Future residential areas, differentiating between clustered settlement areas (conventional 'urban ' residential land use), low density residential areas ('large lot ' was defined as average lot sizes >1,000m 2) and rural living environments;
Economic development opportunities and business expansion areas, including potential for establishment of new 'Business Environment ' areas through the District Plan (recognising the need for a wider District Plan amendment to provide for a Coastal Business Environment, not currently recognised in Council's District Plan);
Areas for protection, including future recreation and conservation reserves;
Preliminary identification of hazard issues (while no technical investigation was undertaken specifically for the structure plan process, information from other studies was incorporated and potential issues/constraints associated with hazards identified as issues for further subsequent investigation); and
Rural development opportunities and rural land use issues including reverse sensitivity issues and rural land buffering.
- Infrastructure requirements were identified on the basis of growth/development but also in terms of community aspirations. Infrastructure issues considered in the Structure Planning process included:
  - Wastewater servicing requirements, highlighting areas of demand for reticulated servicing, areas where lack of servicing was a constraint to growth/development opportunities and other servicing issues for asset management planning.
  - Stormwater, for example:
    - Areas for future comprehensive stormwater catchment plans
    - Low impact stormwater design principles and areas where there application may be appropriate
    - Areas of priority for stormwater mitigation and asset development
Water Supply
Reserves and reserve access, for example, highlighting areas of existing and future demand for reserve development, reserve management planning and improved maintenance of existing reserve assets
Major roading requirements and traffic management measures (e.g. traffic calming needs etc).

Other matters

In addition to identification of future land use patterns and infrastructure requirements to meet these, the Structure Plans identified a number of other variables that contributed to the 'vision ' for these settlement areas. It is important to note that these were often not District Plan mechanisms but rather highlighted areas where other Council mechanisms may be employed or in many instances where Council , the community and other agencies may be challenged to work collaboratively to deliver outcomes. For example:

Sense of Place, through signage and 'place marketing ' measures to enhance the 'sense of place ' of areas and the values associated with these;
Heritage, collaborative arrangements to recognise heritage values of an area and enhance community understanding of this heritage;
Protecting and enhancing biodiversity, for example through community led initiatives or in collaboration with the Department of Conservation. One particular example in the Whangarei context is the kiwi protection measures being implemented by the local community (e.g. the Manaia Vision group).

Consultation

Consultation phases summarised in methodology set out above. Two key consultation phases were undertaken specifically for the Structure Planning process (Steps 3 and 6 above), though it is important to note that this was largely a continuation of the consultation process already initiated for the Coastal Management Strategy.

Consultation for the Structure Planning was initially through community based workshops. In Phase 3 (as defined above) collaborative community workshops were undertaken to brainstorm issues, identify opportunities and concur on broad Structure Plan outcomes being sought by the community. The workshops were generally attended by between 30 and up to 130 people (though one workshop session in Waipu had over 200 in attendance). People were then separated into 'working groups ' of between 12 and 15 people, with information collected bought back to the whole workshop in reporting phase.

In Phase 6, once drafts of the Structure Plan concept were released a more informal information 'kiosk '/Open Day consultation approach was used. Local residents were firstly sent a copy of the draft structure plan concept. Individuals could then either attend the Open Day to review and comment on the concepts, and make written or verbal submissions, or they could respond in writing directly to the Study Team. At the Open Day, invitations were also made for attendees to draw/write comments directly on the concept plans presented so others in the community could review and comment on their suggestions.

Overall, the consultation process was considered successful, particularly for the following:

A high degree of community involvement, with attendance representing a significant proportion of the population in settlement areas (in areas with a high proportion of holiday homes, workshop sessions were programmed to tie with long weekends to ensure greater representation of these traditionally 'silent ' residents);
The process highlighted to the community the differences within the community on expectations and aspirations;
Enhanced community/ Council relationships; and
High degree of community 'ownership ' of outcomes.

Statutory methods

The Structure Plans were intended as a non-statutory implementation tool prepared under the Local Government Act 2003. In this respect, the Plans are intended as a record of partnership between council and the community aimed at improving coastal planning, management, development and conservation at a local level.

The adoption of the Structure Plan indicates Council's policy direction for infrastructure, land use and other resource management, providing a broad concept or picture as to how a community should look in 20 years time. Work towards this vision is then achieved through specific actions such as changes to the District Plan, infrastructure studies and asset planning, capital works, parks planning and community run projects etc.

Importantly, not all of the actions identified in the Structure Plans were the responsibility of the District Council. The Structure Plan records actions that others should be taking including other statutory agencies and the local community themselves, to work towards the vision.

Unique features

These Structure Plans were started at the same time as the introduction of the Local Government Act 2002 and the amendments to community consultation and community planning that were initiated by this legislation. These Structure Plans emphasised a move from Council away from their traditional focus on resource management and asset management to more strategic and community outcomes focus.

The overall Whangarei Coastal Management Strategy, including the Structure Plan process, was awarded an NZPI Award in 2004. The award citation recognises the broad strategic and community driven approach toward the integrated management of the coastal environment and the high level of community involvement in the formulation of the Strategy.

Lessons learnt

The process was been very effective with widespread community participation and encouraging feedback about the consultation efforts and the outcomes achieved.
The major conclusion of the structure planning exercise was that in most areas it was not a matter of investing significant additional resources into new capital works, projects or studies, rather it was a matter of doing better with what the Council and community already had and making the most of existing resources and opportunities.
There was also a common theme throughout the structure plan consultation that developers must pay the fair and reasonable cost of the infrastructure and service demands they create. There were some who perceived that this was not currently the case, placing an unreasonable/unequal demand on council and the community to fund growth.
Assisted Council in LTCCP and Local Government Act planning requirements, getting direction from the community on the roles and responsibility of Council and particular areas where they felt the Council should target resources and in some cases these differed from Council's traditional areas of focus.
The process provided a targeted scope for implementation works, including asset management planning and subsequent district plan amendments and established a transparent process for the community to see how their aspirations and the community outcomes were being 'processed ' by Council actions.
Collation and Mapping of base data (step 2 above) was a key element for a successful process, particularly given the community lead focus of the Structure Planning exercise. This provided a collating and conveying detail on existing constraints and issues and conveying this information in a simple form were important elements. This initial constraint and opportunity mapping, and the wider Coastal Management Strategy findings were important to 'set the scene ' on limitations but also on demands (for example, growth pressures and demands) so the community was looking for ways to accommodate realistic development/growth scenarios, avoiding a simple 'no change ' philosophy.