The 'Area-based plan'
Description
The area management approach could best be thought of as a series of plans rather than a single plan. Each ‘sub-plan’ covers a particular geographic area that may have been delineated from others by physical, geographic, political, ecological, or historical characteristics.
Each ‘sub-plan’ could be developed at the same time as the others, or sequentially. They may be identical in layout and organisation or could differ in approach as a reflection of the characteristics of the area being planned for, or as each new plan builds on lessons in previous plans (as demonstrated here).
Sample organisation
| Management Area 1 Coast |
Management Area 2 |
Management Area 3 |
|---|---|---|
Introduction Contents How to use this plan
Development Controls
Noise, Signs and Lighting
Financial Contributions
Transportation
Appendices Maps |
Introduction
Town Centre Zone
Rural Zone
Residential Zone
Definitions General Provisions
Appendices Maps |
Introduction
Resource Management Issue 1
Resource Management Issue 2
Resource Management Issue 3
Definitions General Provisions Appendices Maps |
Advantages
- Lessons learnt from the first sub-plans to be developed can be applied to subsequent sub-plans.
- The size of each sub-plan can be relatively small as each sub-plan does not need to contain the provisions that relate solely to the other sub-plans.
- Challenges made to a sub-plan in one area may not affect the sub-plans of other areas (so the unaffected sub-plans may be operative earlier).
- Each sub-plan could be produced quicker than a single large plan (less provisions to be included in each sub-plan, and also less material open to challenge).
- Better able to reflect local interest and attitudes (each sub-plan can adopt local variations to provisions without the need for a complex series of sub-zones, policy areas, or rule exceptions).
Disadvantages
- Each plan may adopt a different style, format, internal organisation, or way of expressing provisions (thereby increasing overall complexity of administration).
- May be difficult to integrate or promote standardised approaches that cross the boundaries administered by several sub-plans.
- The environmental management of some areas may lag behind others (due to some sub-plans being proposed or made operative ahead of others working under older, previous, plans). This may result in inconsistencies in policy frameworks, desired outcomes, or a poor level of integration in responding to district / region wide issues.
- Vulnerability to conflicting (or misalignment of) desired outcomes and provisions at the interface where the area administered by one sub-plan abuts another.
- May be more complex to administer for the consent authority if staff are based in a central office (they may need to have intimate knowledge of several sub-plans and how each works).
- Using a definition section for each sub-plan may cause inconsistencies and confusion.
Example plans
The Auckland City Council first generation district plan is split into three:
At one point it was proposed that the Napier City Plan would consist of four or more sections or sub-plans:
- The Ahuriri Subdistrict Plan:
- Proposed City of Napier District Plan:
- The Bay View Subdistrict Plan
- Western Hills Subdistrict Plan
The Napier District Plan (as shown on the Napier City Council website) now consists of the Ahuriri plan and the Napier City Plan.
