Organising plan provisions

PDF for printing (PDF 108KB)

There are three principal ways in which RMA plan provisions can be grouped or arranged. Examples of the three types are set out below. Note that these examples do not take into account further delineation that may be associated with splitting provisions up into 'general ' and 'zone ' or 'area-specific ' chapters.

Grouping according to issues or topics	Grouping according to type of provision	Splitting rules from rest (issue-grouped example)
Issue 1 Objective 1.1 Objective 1.2 Policy 1.1.1 Policy 1.1.2 Policy 1.2.1 Policy 1.2.2 Rules: 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.2 1.1.2.1 1.1.2.2 1.2.1.1 1.2.1.2 1.2.2.1 1.2.2.2 Issue 2 Objective 2.1 Objective 2.2 Policy 2.1.1 Policy 2.1.2 Policy 2.2.1 Policy 2.2.2 Rules: 2.1.1.1 2.1.1.2 2.1.2.1 2.1.2.2 2.2.1.1 2.2.1.2 2.2.2.1 2.2.2.2	Issue 1 Issue 2 Objective 1.1 Objective 1.2 Objective 2.1 Objective 2.2 Policy 1.1.1 Policy 1.1.2 Policy 1.2.1 Policy 1.2.2 Policy 2.1.1 Policy 2.1.2 Policy 2.2.1 Policy 2.2.2 Rules: 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.2 1.1.2.1 1.1.2.2 1.2.1.1 1.2.1.2 1.2.2.1 1.2.2.2 2.1.1.1 2.1.1.2 2.1.2.1 2.1.2.2 2.2.1.1 2.2.1.2 2.2.2.1 2.2.2.2	Issue 1 Objective 1.1 Objective 1.2 Policy 1.1.1 Policy 1.1.2 Policy 1.2.1 Policy 1.2.2 Issue 2 Objective 2.1 Objective 2.2 Policy 2.1.1 Policy 2.1.2 Policy 2.2.1 Policy 2.2.2 Rules: 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.2 1.1.2.1 1.1.2.2 1.2.1.1 1.2.1.2 1.2.2.1 1.2.2.2 2.1.1.1 2.1.1.2 2.1.2.1 2.1.2.2 2.2.1.1 2.2.1.2 2.2.2.1 2.2.2.2

Grouping according to issues or topics

Advantages

• Less cross-referencing required compared to other alternatives.
• Easy to see flow from issue through to rules.

Disadvantages

• May require an 'overview section ' or explanations to show linkages between issues.
• The ability to quickly refer to all rules that may be applicable is lessened by having to read through objectives and policies in between.
• The overall document structure is less compatible with 'general ' before 'specific ' organisation principle (though the flow of provisions under each issue is).

Grouping according to provision type

Advantages

• Compatible with 'ordering the general before the specific ' principle used in legislation.
• Provides good overview of issues and a chance to demonstrate the inter-relatedness of issues (as they are all located close together).
• Rules are located together so consent applicants and those processing consents can quickly reference them without having to read through other, higher-level, provisions located in between.

Disadvantages

• Requires a good numbering system and potentially detailed cross-referencing to show linkages between rules, policies, objectives and issues.

Splitting rules from issues, objectives, and policies

Advantages

• Compatible with 'ordering the general before the specific ' principle used in legislation.
• Less cross-referencing is required than when grouping according to provision type.
• Enables the relationship between issues, objectives, and policies to be clearly seen.
• Rules are all together so consent applicants and those processing consents can quickly reference them.

Disadvantages

• Flow of policy from issues through to rules less obvious than in the 'Grouping by Issues ' approach.
• Requires a good numbering system and a thorough cross-referencing between rules and policy.

Examples

Grouping according to issue or topic

Auckland Regional Council (2004) Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal

Grouping according to plan provision type

Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board (2005) Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Regional Plan

Western Bay of Plenty District Council (2002) Western Bay of Plenty District Plan (PDF 64KB) (follows the plan provision type grouping model for activity zone chapters)

Splitting rules from Issues, Objectives and Policies

Otago Regional Council (2003) Regional Plan: Water