Structuring and organising regional and district plans

Abstract

For resource management matters, regional or district plans are the primary policy reference document. Such plans should be easy to read and navigate while enabling councils to meet their statutory duties. Since 1991 many different plan structures and styles have evolved, and while there are good reasons for policy to vary from place to place, it is in the interest of all plan users that plans are well structured with some consistency in organisation. The intention of this guidance note is to assist the development of the next generation of RMA plans. It is a companion to the “Writing Provisions for Regional and District Plans” guidance note. This guidance note looks at:

• Who the plan is for
• Plan structure: Overarching principles
• Plan structure: Common first generation types
• Plan structure: Ideas for usability
• Plan content: Issues, objectives, policies and rules
• Arranging plan provisions
• A possible second generation plan structure
• Example second generation plan structures

This guidance note concludes in combining the themes above to provide a short discussion around, and examples of, what second generation regional and district plans could look like (in terms of structure and organisation).

back to top

Guidance note

Introduction

The way in which a plan is structured, and the content within organised is critical in assisting the understanding and effectiveness of that plan. Good structure and organisation can help ensure important plan provisions are not overlooked, enable better integration between provisions, and improve understanding as to the origin and intent of provisions (particularly rules). However, where the intent and origins of plan provisions are unclear, or not well integrated, then those provisions could become prone to legal challenge and be less defensible.

The Resource Management Act contains provisions relating to the overall content of plans but little guidance has been available as to the structure and organisation of plans. The philosophy that local authorities should decide for themselves has, consequently, seen the structure and organisation of plans vary markedly between, and sometimes within councils. Amendments made to the Resource Management Act in 2005 allow for streamlining of plans but the potential exists for greater diversity in plan structure as local authorities have more choice over what they can include in plans than before.

A degree of commonality and consistency in plan structure and organisation is important to:

• assist those who use the plans of many councils (such as consultants and the Environment Court) to quickly find the information they need without having to first work out the structure and organisation of each plan and internal linkages
• better enable business and the public to understand the role and structure of RMA plans through adopting a structure that is familiar to them regardless of which plan they are looking at
• allow similarities and differences between plans to be quickly identified and evaluated by those preparing, using or monitoring plans
• make it easier for central government to prepare national policy statements and national environmental standards that align with how plans are structured, organised and written
• allow staff transferring from one council to another to quickly adapt to using the plan of their new employer (thereby creating less down time and greater efficiencies in administration).

This guidance note suggests an example structure to assist in achieving a degree of commonality and consistency between plans; is it not intended to remove the ability of local authorities to structure plans in a way they consider best meets local circumstances.

back to top

Who the plan is for

The purpose of regional or district plans under the RMA is to assist a regional council or territorial authority to “carry out [any of] its functions in order to achieve the purpose of this Act” (s.63 and s.72). This implies that the intended primary users are local authorities.

The reality is that district and regional plans are also regularly used by others including the general public and businesses (who may be considering applying for a resource consent for the first time) developers, consultants, surveyors, architects, lawyers, judges, commissioners, various environmental or business interest groups. The level of knowledge and regularity of use by each of these parties varies widely but catering to their need for quick and easy access to the information they need from a plan will benefit all.

back to top

Plan structure: Overarching principles

Before deciding on a particular plan structure and organisation, consider a number of key principles.

1. Structure around user expectations and conventions: Many publications follow a particular organisational style and format that people sub-consciously absorb and expect to see in other documents (tables of content and an introduction at the start, appendices and an index at the back, for example). The format of legislation also follows a set pattern and style. These styles reflect writing, non-fiction publishing and legal conventions and principles.
2. Keep it simple: Avoid the temptation to put ‘everything’ into the plan (thereby adding additional sections and chapters that most readers will never use). It can be helpful to ask the following when considering sections or chapters that are not related to core provisions:
   • Does this add value to the plan and make it easier to use?
   • Would plan users actually need, or use, this information?
3. Keep the bigger picture in mind: Second generation regional and district plans form part of a much wider suite of plans and strategies than those prepared in the 1990s. For example, plans must give effect to regional policy statements; take into account planning documents recognised by iwi authorities, and should have some form of relation with Long Term Council Community Plans, and with Regional Land Transport Strategies. The following links demonstrate some of the relationships with other documents:
   • Linkages between RMA plans and documents
   • Linkages between plans and selected non-RMA documents

4. Consider how the plan will be monitored and enforced: Developing the plan monitoring strategy (or monitoring indicators) alongside the plan provisions is very useful for improving clarity and enforceability of plan provisions (eg, how the council knows provisions are being complied with), weed out provisions (or possible monitoring indicators) that may be unnecessary or impractical, and better align monitoring reports (particularly those under s.35(2A)) with plans. Until the amendment of the RMA in 2005, environmental results expected (EREs – formerly Anticipated Environmental Results) provided a tangible link with, and starting point for, indicators in plan monitoring strategies. With the removal of the mandatory requirement for plans to contain EREs greater emphasis needs to be placed, at the time the plan provisions are being prepared, on how the plan will be monitored, and include reference to the monitoring strategy.

back to top

Plan structure: Common first generation types

Most first generation regional and district plans in use in New Zealand generally fall into one of six basic plan-types:

1. Area-based plans
2. Topic-based plans
3. Self-contained zone plans
4. Activity-based plans
5. Effects-based plans
6. Hybrid-plans

These six types represent a simplification of styles and approaches and in reality most plans incorporate some features from more than one type. ‘Activity-based plans’ still incorporate standards relating to environmental effects, and ‘effects-based plans’ still use some form of spatial differentiation (‘zones’, ‘environments’ or ‘management areas’) to detail where certain effects are more or less acceptable, for example.

Of the six plan types outlined, the topic-based model was the style most commonly used by regional councils for first generation regional plans, while the hybrid model was most commonly used by territorial authorities in preparing their district plans.

Hybrid plans allow for region or district-wide issues to be incorporated into the same plan as localised issues without repeating provisions in each zone or area-based chapter. Those issues that are found throughout a region or district can be incorporated into ‘general chapters’ and be cross-referenced from other parts of the plan; those issues specific to an area, zone or (in the case of regional plans) possibly district can be dealt with in discrete chapters that relate solely to those areas. As regional councils look at consolidating and combining existing regional plans, it is likely that their plans will also bear an increased resemblance to the hybrid style.

back to top

Plan structure: Ideas for usability

Having a plan structure that mirrors what people are intuitively looking for, and matches the writing and drafting conventions familiar to readers, goes some way to making that plan useable. Research by the Planning Under a Cooperative Mandate (or PUCM) Programme at Waikato University, and the Ministry for the Environment, have suggested a number of other practical measures that can be undertaken to assist in making plans more user-friendly:

• a detailed table of contents (front of plan) and keywords index (back of plan)
• an overview of the structure of the plan (front of plan). This should explain to the reader where difference types of provisions are to be found, and could also explain the need to look at both general (district or region-wide provisions) and area-specific provisions (see for example the Thames Coromandel Proposed District Plan )
• users guides to the plan (these may sit outside the plan itself), see Wellington City’s ‘Guide to the District Plan’.
• glossary of terms or definitions (all in the one place, either at the front or back of the plan so that they are easy to find)
• a clear, distinct numbering system that easily distinguishes between issues, objectives, policies and rules (no bulleted lists)
• cross-referencing (rules to policies, policies to objectives, and between related provisions).
• clear illustrations, diagrams that explain rules, and tables (eg, activity status tables)
• clear, detailed maps and aerial photographs
• references to documents and strategies used outside the plan that contain or implement methods, other than rules in the plan, to manage issues or achieve plan objectives.

back to top

Plan content: Issues, objectives, policies and rules

Incorporation of issues, methods, explanations, reasons and EREs is no longer a mandatory requirement, and is at the discretion of each local authority. Amendments made to the Resource Management Act in 2005 allow local authorities greater scope to decide what policy framework elements they will place in their regional or district plans (the requirements as to the content of regional policy statements remained unchanged). Sections 67 and 75 now only require plans to contain the following three items:

• objectives
• policies to implement the objectives
• rules (if any) to implement the policies.

The intent of the 2005 Amendment to the RMA was to make plans shorter, less complex, and easier to read. It also reflected the reality that most users, including the Environment Court, often referred to little more than the objectives, policies and rules of a plan when making decisions on resource consents (for example MacKenzie District Council v Glacier and Southern Lakes Helicopters [1997] C083/97). Views of senior practitioners at a workshop convened by the Ministry for the Environment in November 2005 suggested that there was still a role for issues to be contained in plans as they have benefit of providing:

• a means to enable clear linkages to matters contained in other strategic or higher-level documents (Long Term Council Community Plans, growth strategies, and regional policies statements) that do not sit within the regional or district plan
• the context to the plan provisions that followed
• a logical starting point or heading around which related objectives and policies could be grouped.

The removal of methods (other than rules) can make plans shorter but may make other ways of meeting objectives and policies of the plan less obvious. A number of local authority practitioners have found that many methods (other than rules) in their plans were referred to infrequently while other methods were not used at all (apparently due to lack of support, the cost to implement them, or time constraints).

Methods could be contained in documents other than the plan itself, and simply referred to by way of an explanatory note (underneath the relevant policy, for example). Reference documents that could then contain the methods (other than rules) may include:

• section 32 reports (which must discuss other methods as part of section 32(3)(a))
• external ‘guides to the plan’
• codes of practice
• urban design strategies
• Regional Land Transport Management Strategies
• Long Term Council Community Plans
• Annual Plans.

To a lesser extent, reserve management plans and asset management plans could also contain methods that are applicable to meeting the objectives and policies of a regional or district plan.

back to top

Arranging plan provisions

Provisions in plans are typically arranged within plan chapters in one of three ways.

1. Grouping according to issues or topics: where provisions flow naturally from one or more issues down to rules, before moving on to the next issue or set of topic-grouped issues.
2. Grouping according to type of provisions: where provisions are grouped together according to whether they are issues, objectives, policies or rules.
3. Rules grouped separately: often a derivative of 1 or 2 above, in which the rules are physically separated from the issues, objectives and policies, often through inclusion in one or more separate chapters, or occasionally in an entirely separate plan volume.

Examples of each type (and their advantages and disadvantages) are outlined in organising plan provisions.

In the example structures provided in this guidance note, the ‘rules grouped separately approach’ has been adopted as it is believed to be easier for plan readers to find the provisions (rules) that most affect them. Many plan readers are unlikely to have to refer to the objectives or policies unless they are applying for a resource consent, so are primarily concerned with the content of rules. In addition, rules often derive from a range of issues, objectives and policies, so collating rules can avoid significant repetition.

The ‘rules grouped separately approach’ can also allow for a basic issue-objective-policy flow that, if done simply, can reduce or eliminate cross-referencing in policy chapters of the plan. However there is still a need for cross-referencing from rules back to policies so that linkages are clear.

back to top

A possible second generation plan structure

Type of plan:

The example second generation plan structure shown in this guidance note can be referred to as the ‘quadrant approach’ to structuring a plan. It is an adaption of the hybrid-style of plan, chosen for its ability to cover a broad range of issues and topics that occur over a range of differing geographic scales and locations. Provisions are grouped according to issue or topic, but unlike the ‘Grouping According to Issues’ example provided in ‘Organising Plan Provisions – Common Approaches’ rules are separated from objectives and policies and are  consolidated instead.

Why use the quadrant approach?

The quadrant approach is based on trying to structure a plan in a way that it follows a logical progression, is able to handle complexity without repetition, and is orientated to what most users will be looking for.

To avoid duplication, provisions are grouped in terms of whether issues apply across a district or region, or to only part of the district or region – so avoiding repetition of district-wide issues in every chapter. This is used in relation to both the policy sections and rules sections of the plan.

The policy sections run in logical fashion from issues through to policy, so that cross-referencing for these sections is minimised and the relationship from issue to policy (and back again) clearly evident.

Most people use a plan to determine how to design their proposal to fit plan rules and thereby avoid the need to obtain a resource consent. In this respect, most plan users are primarily interested in the rules that apply to them. Having all rules together without the need to sift through pages of issues, objectives and policies is beneficial to plan users. If a resource consent is required, cross-references can refer the plan user back to the relevant policy, objective or issue.

Types of provisions included

Under the RMA, plans are required to contain objectives, policies and rules. In addition it is suggested that issues are also included in this suggested structure so as to provide a convenient and logical way of grouping objectives and policies, and provide context as to their origin. The structure outlined below assumes that environmental results expected, and monitoring procedures, have been transferred to a monitoring strategy (such as one used to fulfil s.35 duties). Methods (other than rules) and principal reasons have been identified in the s.32 report and, where appropriate, other documents such as the Long Term Council Community Plan. Explanatory notes (such as in the margins of the policy chapters) could be used to alert plan readers to the location of other methods contained in external documents.

Order of plan parts

1. Frontispiece Carrying the Council Seal: This page carries the title of the plan, the seal to show that the plan is officially operative, and the date the plan was made operative. It is important that readers are quickly able to make a decision on the status of the plan and whether it is the most recent version.
2. Contents page: This is critical to the reader’s navigation of the plan as it can provide an overview of the structure of the plan and where information is most likely to be found. The contents page should at least show the parts (or chapters) of the plan and key headings (possibly down to the objective level in regard to the policy chapters, and activity class headings within each chapter of rules).
3. Purpose of Plan: This is a short section to explain the purpose of the plan and provide an overview of the matters it covers. This is placed close to the front so that first-time plan readers can quickly understand what the plan covers (important when a local authority has multiple plans, or for the public to distinguish between regional and district plans).
4. Definitions: Definitions and maps are among the most referred-to sections in a plan. Definitions are critical to interpretation of the plan and need to be in a place that enables them to be located quickly. Intuitively many people will look at the front or the back of the plan (expecting definitions to been in an introduction, glossary, or an appendix). Ideally the front of the plan should be used as:

1. it matches the structure often found in legislation; and
2. the terminology used in the plan should be consistent throughout; hence definitions are as important to the policy sections of the plan as they are to the rules. Having the definitions before the policy chapters reflects this.
   
   All definitions should be in a single ‘definitions’ section of a plan rather than scattered throughout the document. This avoids definitions being overlooked, enables the plan writer to avoid inadvertent duplications or unintended minor variations to the same definition, and enhances usability and certainty. The exception is where particular rules need to use a term in a manner that differs from the primary meaning (for example ‘building height’ is usually measured from ground level but could be measured from mean sea-level in some circumstances).
   
   For terms that are defined by other statutes, it is suggested that a glossary could follow the definitions chapter. The glossary should be marked out as not forming part of the plan, so as to avoid the need to go through the plan change process should those terms be altered in legislation through an amendment.

5. Issues, objectives and policies dealing with region-wide (if a regional plan) or district-wide (if a district plan) matters: These are separated from, and placed ahead of, those relating to specific locations (zones or policy areas for example). This order reflects the importance, and often integrated nature, of region or district-wide issues. It avoids the need to replicate general issues, objectives and policies in each zone or area-specific chapter (or section) in the plan and also matches the legislative drafting convention of putting the general before the specific.
6. Issues, objectives and policies for specific geographic areas or zones: These chapters of the plan contain issues, objectives and policies that relate solely to a particular zone or defined area, and do not apply across the region or district generally. For some regions, there may be specific rules that only apply in specified territorial authority districts, catchments, or management areas for example. For district plans, these sections could contain the policy framework for zones or ‘environments’. The order of each section or chapter within this part could be arranged alphabetically according to territorial local authority name, management area, or zone name.
7. Rules for region or district-wide issues: These are placed ahead of those relating to specific geographic areas, thus:

1. reflecting the need to ensure district or region-wide issues are managed in an integrated manner;
2. ensuring that those who read the plan for the first time will most likely encounter them before the area or zone-specific rules (and are therefore less likely to overlook them);
3. reducing the need to repeat the same rules in each area management or zone chapter of the plan;
4. matching the philosophy of sequencing according to ‘writing and considering the general before the particular’ and ‘placing the fundamental before less fundamental’ (see ‘Legislative Drafting Style’, while noting that in general terms of weighting rules, the specific overrides the general).

8. Rules applying to specific geographic areas: These chapters contain rules that are specific to certain zones, policy areas, or management areas (depending on the terminology the plan uses). Reference as to where to find the region or district-wide rules can be made as part of, or at the end of, each set of zone or policy area rules, to ensure that the region or district-wide rules are not overlooked (for example Palmerston North District Plan). These could take the form of statements such as :

1. “For rules relating to transportation refer to Chapter X”; or
2. “For general rules relating to diffuse source discharges to water see X.Y”; or
3. “Compliance is also required with rule W.W.Y”.

9. Appendices / Annexes / Schedules: Following publishing and legislative drafting convention, these sections are placed at the back of the plan. Often these will contain material (large tables or small maps) whose size or format can not be easily incorporated into plan provisions in the main text of the plan. Statutory acknowledgements that relate to the area the plan covers could also be placed here in the plan (depending on their nature and whether they directly affect plan provisions).
10. Maps: These form a separate volume to allow them to be open at the same time as the provisions volume, and to be printed on paper of a larger size. Plans with relatively few maps (due to the small size of the area covered by the plan for example) could incorporate maps as another appendix.

back to top

Example second generation plan structures

The following example structures have been drawn up to mimic a table of contents that could be found within the plan itself (though less detailed as to heading wording and content). Page numbers have been replaced by explanatory comments for the purposes of this guidance note; in most instances actual provision headings are absent or abbreviated to save space.

• Combined regional plan (all regional plans in the one document)
• Single-topic, single-issue regional plans (Regional plans covering only one topic area, such as water quality)
• District plan

Best practice examples

Regional plans

Nelson City Council Resource Management Plan
Provides in one plan a compact way of integrating material that would otherwise have been contained in many plans.

Regional Freshwater Management Plan for Taranaki
Provides a logical structure for a regional plan covering a discrete topic area. The use of tables for rules provides a succinct way of showing the activity class, applicable standards or conditions, and cross-references to policies.

District plans

Proposed Combined Wairarapa District Plan
Currently the only district plan where three separate districts have combined to produce a single plan under s.80 of the RMA . The hardcopy version of the plan makes good use of tabs to help guide the reader to chapters.

Hurunui District Plan
Provides one possible model for differentiating between issues that apply across a district and those that apply only to certain areas (not necessarily being zones).

Invercargill District Plan
Has a good map format and presentation for rural areas showing a range of information without being cluttered. Invercargill City also has good natural-hazard maps.

• Example Rural Map 5
• Example Hazard Map 5

Manukau District Plan
Provides good examples of succinct explanations of the relationships between the district plan and other plans and documents (see sections 1.5 to 1.7).

Wellington District Plan
Provides examples of activity class summary tables at the start of each chapter and short explanatory notes and diagrams being used to help explain rules.

On-line plans

Matamata-Piako District Plan
Provides an example of an on-line plan that retains the structure of a hardcopy plan, but is made more interactive and user-friendly through use of technology (hyperlinked cross-referencing and navigation).

back to top

RMA provisions

Section 30: Functions of regional councils

Section 31: Functions of territorial authorities

Section 32: Consideration of alternatives, benefits, and costs

Section 35: Duty to gather information, monitor, keep records

Section 61: Matters to be considered by regional councils (policy statements)

Section 62: Contents of regional policy statements

Section 63: Purpose of regional plans

Section 66: Matters to be considered by regional council

Section 67: Content of regional plans

Section 72: Purpose of district plans

Section 73: Preparation and change of district plans

Section 74: Matters to be considered by territorial authority

Section 75: Content of district plans

Section 78A: Combined regional and district documents

Section 80: Local authorities may combine to prepare, etc, plans

Schedule 1, Part 3, Incorporation of documents by reference in plans and proposed plans.

back to top

Case law

Vision statements

St Columba’s Environmental House Group v Hawke’s Bay Regional Council [1994] W085/94
The Court expressed reservations about the practice of some councils that included vision statements within regional policy statements; as such statements could create ambiguity and uncertainty.

Relationship with regional policy statements

Auckland Regional Council v North Shore City Council [1995] 3 NZLR 18; CA29/95
Declaration by the Court of Appeal concerning the directive nature of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement. The Court declared that a regional council has the power to include provisions in its regional policy statement that permit urban development only in urban areas defined by the RPS; that territorial authorities incorporate limits to urban development in their district plans; and rural areas are to be managed in such a way that limits non-rural activities and gives effect to RPS objectives and policies concerning the management of rural areas.

Canterbury Regional Council v Waimakariri District Council [2002] C009/02, 7 NZED 210.
The Court held that the requirement to “have regard to” the regional policy statement does not require a district plan to actually implement the regional policy statement where the objectives and policies of the regional policy statement are not couched in mandatory language and provide for flexibility within themselves. (Note: ‘have regard to’ has been superseded by ‘give effect to’ in sections 67 and 75 following the RMAA 2005).

Re: An Application by North Shore City [1994] A087/94.
Regional policy statement provisions can not be rules, and prohibit, regulate or allow activities. This function is for the territorial authority through district plans. However a regional policy statement can contain policies and methods directed towards a specific outcome. Such methods and policies would then be implemented through the district plan which is required not to be inconsistent with the regional policy statement (s75(2)(c)) [note the requirement to ‘not be inconsistent with’ regional policy statements was superseded by ‘give effect to’ in the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005].

Content and interpreting plan provisions

MacKenzie District Council v Glacier and Southern Lakes Helicopters [1997] C083/97.
The Court outlined a four-step process for interpreting district plan rules:

1. give words their ‘plain and ordinary meaning’
2. look at the words in the context of the rules as a whole
3. examine the objectives and policies of the plan
4. have regard to the purpose and scheme of the [Resource Management ] Act

Yachting New Zealand v Tasman District Council [2003] W078/03.
S.67 does not require objectives and policies to be validated by a plan rule. The Court found that the words “including rules if any” anticipated that rules, as a method of implementation of policies may be optional. Note that s.67 was amended in 2005, but similar wording still exists.

Powell v Dunedin City Council [2004] 3 NZLR 721, [2005] NZRMA 174.
The Court of Appeal endorsed a ‘top-down’ rather than a ‘bottom-up’ approach. The Court stated in the interpretation of planning documents “it is appropriate to seek the plain meaning of a rule from the words themselves, but it is not appropriate to undertake that exercise in a vacuum. As the Court made it clear in Rattray, regard must be had to the immediate context and, where obscurity or ambiguity arises, it may be necessary to refer to the other sections of the plan and the objectives and policies of the plan itself. Interpreting a rule by a rigid adherence to the wording of the particular rule itself would not, in our view, be consistent with a judgement of this Court in Rattray or with the requirements of the Interpretation Act 1999.”

back to top

Related guidance notes

The following guidance notes are related:

• Plan development
• Writing plan provisions for regional and district plans
• E-planning [under development]

back to top

Relevant publications

New Zealand legislative drafting practice

Law Commission (1996) Legislation Manual: Structure and Style, Report NZLC R35, Law Commission, Wellington.

Legislation Advisory Committee (2001): Guidelines on Process & Content of Legislation, Legislation Advisory Committee , Wellington

New Zealand plan quality and user-friendliness

Borrie N, Memon A, Ericksen N, Crawford J (2004) Planning and Governance under the LGA: Lessons from the RMA Experience. International Global Change Institute, University of Waikato, Hamilton.

Ericksen N, Chapman S, Crawford J (2003) A Guide to Plan-making in New Zealand: The Next Generation. International Global Change Institute, University of Waikato, Hamilton.

New Zealand plan style

Ministry for the Environment (2006) Consolidated notes from the Plan Structure and Provision Writing Workshop November 2005, Unpublished.

Observations on Policy Statements & Plans (PDF 1 MB)
Published by Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand Inc - January 1994
This paper makes some observations on the zoning versus effects based debate which has been the subject of recent discussions. It also considers why the drafting of policy statements and plans is not going as well as it might.

Overseas plan formats and requirements

Government of New South Wales (2006) Standard Instruments (Local Environment Plans) Order 2006, No. 155. An order under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

This document takes the form of a State Government regulation and sets out the basic order that Local Environment Plans should follow, and the compulsory components each plan must contain. Pages 8–56 set out templates for land use zones and waterways complete with objectives, lists of activities permitted without consent, activities permitted with consent, prohibited activities, and requirements for consents. Pages 57–86 provide a ‘dictionary’ of plan terms that must be included.

Government of South Australia (2002) A New Generation of Development Plans for South Australia: Proposals to Improve the Structure and Processes Related to Development Plans and Their Llinkages to the Planning Strategy. Department of Transport and Urban Planning, Adelaide.

A discussion document that sets out proposed reforms of South Australian Planning documents to ‘increase clarity, consistency, and certainty’. This document provides a number of ‘development plan templates’ in relation to structure (via diagrams, a model ‘index’, and commentaries), zone-based chapter layouts, and maps. The document is part of the ‘Better Development Plans Project’.

In general it was proposed that Development Plans follow the basic format of:

• index
• general provisions (objectives and provisions that apply council-wide)
• zone provisions (with zones arranged in alphabetical order)
• tables
• zoning maps.

Government of Victoria (1999 and later amendments) Victoria Planning Provisions
This website contains links to pdfs of documents associated with the State Government of Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP). VPP is a state-wide reference document or template from which planning schemes are sourced and constructed. VPP is a statutory device to ensure that consistent provisions for various matters are maintained across Victoria and that the construction and layout of planning schemes are always the same.

 

Current challenges in practice

Is the plan an electronic or physical document?

The definition of ‘Plan’ in the RMA simply states that it can be a regional plan or a district plan. This definition does not mention whether plans should exist in hardcopy format or should be entirely electronically based. A number of local authorities currently distribute their plan in electronic format but retain a some hard copies for reference and use by the Environment Court (for example Christchurch City Council Christchurch City Plan).

Regardless of the choice of presentation format there are several considerations that suggest a physical document is still necessary:

1. Plans are still required to have seals affixed to them to make them operative (RMA clause 17(3) Schedule 1). Legal advice will need to be sought as to whether and what form a seal would need to take for an electronic document.
2. The Environment Court still refers to hard copy versions of plans in their proceedings
3. Not all people are computer literate or able to view plans via the internet. In the interest of equity of access provision needs to be made for such persons.
4. Hard copy plans serve a useful ‘back-up’ function when the technology necessary to view electronic plans fails.
5. Some people who are computer literate still find hard copy documents easier to view and use.

While a physical document may still be necessary, the growth of the internet has increased the viability of putting plans on-line and user expectations. Further information on on-line plans can be found in the Quality Planning website’s “putting plans on line” guidance note.

While hyperlinks and search tools can overcome some matters related to cross-referencing, or enable site specific provisions to be ‘brought up’ on screen, they can not entirely replace the need for plans to be well structured. Ultimately all plan provisions fit into an overall context that needs to be understood to ensure accurate and effective administration of the plan.

Plans on-line

The increased use of the internet and the move toward broadband by internet service providers brings with it opportunities and challenges. There is likely to be an increasing expectation that all RMA plans (including maps) will be on-line, up-to-date and also in a much more interactive format than an unembellished portable document file (PDF) format. These expectations are likely to require more work on behalf of information technology staff, and for plan writers to have a basic understanding of how to use information technology. It does however provide opportunities for electronic plans to be innovative (for example ‘bring ups’ of applicable plan provisions when clicking on a property in a map) and to get around some of the structural and cross-referencing limitations inherent in hardcopy plan formats.

One regional plan or many?

Many of the first generation of regional plans tended to be topic- or resource-specific. Since this time an increasing number of regional councils have either merged or started to merge these single-topic or resource-specific plans into a single document. Nelson City Council (a unitary authority) has gone a step further by incorporating their district plan into their “Resource Management Plan”. Examples of combined plans can be seen in:

• Environment Canterbury: Natural Resources Regional Plan
• Marlborough District Council: Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan

The RPS as part of a combined regional plan

A number of regional councils are moving toward having one large document that incorporates both the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and all associated regional plans. Examples of this can be seen in Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan and Manawatu-Wanganui (Horizon’s ‘OnePlan’). While the RMA separates out the RPS from regional plans and accords it higher place in the hierarchy of plans, s.78A (an amendment to the RMA in 2005) allows a local authority to prepare a single document that serves the functions of both (and also district plans if desired). The advantage of having all regional council RMA documents in the one plan needs to be balanced with the possible perception that the RPS is seen as a ‘regional council document’, rather than a document for the benefit and use of all in the region. Care also needs to be taken in regard to combining the RPS with a regional plan to ensure:

1. the objectives and policies of the RPS (that have additional weighting by virtue of plans having to ‘give effect to’ to them) are clearly distinguishable from those of the regional plan provisions of the document to avoid confusion and possible conflicts in implementation
2. plan changes to the regional plan provisions of document do not confuse submitters into thinking that they can also challenge the RPS provisions by virtue of it being in the same document.

Separate chapter for tangata whenua v themes woven throughout

Debate remains as to whether plans should contain one or more chapters that deal with local tangata whenua values and issues, or whether such themes should be integrated into the plan. On the one hand, separate chapters may allow tangata whenua to see exactly how their values and concerns are being managed, including discrete explanatory material on the cultural context of values and concerns, and how those values and concerns interrelate. On the other hand, concerns may be raised that themes in those chapters are not followed through in other chapters, will be overlooked and are not part of the everyday considerations of staff implementing the plan. A good consultation process may assist in allaying tangata whenua concerns so that the integrated approach can be used. An alternative may be to have a separate policy chapter that sets the context and any ‘operational policies’ (such as how the council deals with s.8 and statutory acknowledgements), while the rules of the plan integrate management options to deal with tangata whenua values and concerns in such a way that they are considered as part of rules relating to other matters.

Consistency of style and local character

The diversity of plan style, format and content had been the source of debate since the RMA was introduced. The RMA had set no guidelines as to plan style and format, and very broad requirements as to content. The result was that practitioners and their councils were left to decide a plan style, layout and format that reflected their own experiences, character, and needs.

Practitioners and councils have thus been given wide scope to choose the plan style that suits them, but this has seen those who have to deal with multiple plans express frustration at having to learn the style, and structure of each plan and the different ways in which they are interpreted. This situation is not unique to New Zealand. The Australian State Governments of New South Wales and South Australia have introduced reforms aimed at regulating for a degree of consistency in structure, zone types, definitions, and some of the types of activities that do and don’t require development approval. The Victorian State Government (Australia) meanwhile uses a a comprehensive set of standard planning provisions and provides a standard format for all Victorian planning schemes. It provides the framework, standard provisions and State planning policy, while councils provide the local policy content. To date New Zealand has embarked on a more voluntary ‘guidance’ model to deal with consistency matters, similar to aspects of approaches taken in Scotland.

back to top

Acknowledgements and editorial comments

This guidance note was prepared by Richard Hills, Ministry for the Environment. The Ministry for the Environment acknowledges the following people for their assistance in the development of this guidance note:

Karen Bell (formerly of Auckland City Council), Martin Butler (Environment Bay of Plenty), Jan Crawford (Planning Consultants Ltd), Andrew Feierabend (Hurunui District Council), Pamela Gare (Invercargill City Council), Andrew Guerin (formerly Kapiti Coast District Council), Greg Hill (Auckland Regional Council), Patrick McHardy (formerly Manawatu District Council), Fraser McRae (Otago Regional Council), Phillip Martelli (Western Bay Of Plenty District Council), Tony Quickfall (Quickfall Associates – formerly of Nelson City Council), Andy Ralph (Tauranga City Council), Robert Schofield (Boffa Miskell), Nicola Shorten (Greater Wellington Regional Council), Hans Versteegh (Marlborough District Council), Tami Woods (Greater Wellington Regional Council).

This guidance note was reviewed by Anderson Lloyd Caldwell Lawyers in June 2007.