Cascade approaches

Introduction

Cascade approaches are a way of organising plan provisions so that:

• it is easy to check relations between issues, objectives, policies and rules, and to see if they are consistent with each other
• plan drafters and those implementing the plan can check rules to manage the effects of activities through assigning activity statuses without leaving gaps of overlaps that create uncertainty or unintended outcomes (see cascades in plan rules below).

Cascades for checking internal relationships and consistency

A cascade approach can be used to check the internal consistency of provisions within plans. One such approach is contained in A Guide to Plan-Making in New Zealand: the Next Generation produced under the Planning Under a Cooperative Mandates (PUCM) programme run by the International Global Change Institute at the University of Waikato.

In essence, the PUCM cascade approach suggests that:

• objectives link back to issues
• policies link back to objectives
• methods link back to policies
• environmental resultants expected (or anticipated results) link to objectives
• indicators link to environmental results expected
• rules link to policies and methods.

The PUCM cascade approach simultaneously demonstrates both the ‘top-down’ approach to plan drafting and ‘bottom-up’ approach to plan interpretation, thereby indicating the close links the levels of plan components have with each other.

The PUCM cascade approach was developed before the 2003 and 2005 amendments to the RMA. A cascade approach using the revised s.67 and s.75 as a guide could take the following form:

Diagram explanation:

The components a plan must contain under sections 67 and 75 are shown in the left of the diagram. Components a plan may contain (but it is not mandatory for a plan do so) are shown on the right. If not in a plan, these latter components may form part of considerations in background reports, s.32 reports, or monitoring reports.

The components of the plan are arranged vertically demonstrating the ‘top-down’ approach to plan drafting. Arrows represent the relationship between components when checking for consistency or interpreting plan provisions using the ‘bottom-up’ approach. Dotted arrows indicate relationships where one or more component may exist outside the plan.

Relationships demonstrated by the diagram are as follows:

• objectives should be related to an issue (the issue may or may not be stated in the plan)
• policies should link to objectives (policies are the course of action to achieve one or more objectives)
• methods should link to policies (they are the techniques for implementing the policies) noting that methods (other than rules) may or may not be stated in the plan
• rules should link to policies (rules should also take into account other methods and may link to those methods)
• environmental results expected should link back to policies and methods (as they will provide a means of testing whether the policies and methods have achieved the desired outcome or objective) noting that environmental results expected may or may not be contained in a plan (if not, they may form part of the plan effectiveness monitoring required under s.35 of the RMA)
• indictors should link to environmental results expected (note the RMA does not mention indicators explicitly but indicators provide the means to measure the environmental results expected).

Cascades in plan rules

In relation to rules, a cascade approach is often used as a means to allocate an activity class to an activity according to the severity of effects (known or possible), or indicate the consequences of non-compliance with standards, terms, or conditions associated with a particular activity class.

In allocating activity status according to severity of adverse effects, a cascade approach can act as a sieve whereby activities with the least potential for significant adverse effects are classified as permitted activities. Activities with some potential to cause a range of known, but relatively moderate, adverse effect may be classified as controlled or restricted discretionary activities. Activities with greater potential to cause more severe adverse effects are typically classified as discretionary, non-complying, or prohibited activities (according to the acceptability of the effect, the degree to which it can be remedied or mitigated, or whether the plan envisages activities with those effects). This allocation of activity status will often be demonstrated through:

1. explicitly listing activities under a particular activity status
2. incorporation of ‘qualifying’ standards, terms and conditions with which the effects of an activity must comply for the activity to be allocated that activity status
3. a combination of (i) and (ii) above.

In managing the consequences of non-compliance with a standard, term or condition, a cascade approach is also used to decide what activity class the activity will consequently be considered under. For example an activity that fails to meet the standards, terms and conditions necessary to qualify for permitted activity status is allocated another activity status (controlled, restricted discretionary, or discretionary) by virtue of its non-compliance. This approach is commonly seen in wording in plan rules such as:

“12.3.3.5    Activities that do not meet the standards set out in rule 12.3.3.4 will be considered as a discretionary activity under rule 14.5.5.5”

Or:

“14.5.5.5    Discretionary Activities:

Any activity that does not comply with the standards, terms and conditions set out in rule 12.3.3.4”.

Or:

Activity	Standards, terms, conditions	Matters over which council reserves control	Non-compliance with standards, terms and conditions
Controlled Activities Rule 13.3.4.5 Extensions to buildings in Waipopo Character Area	Extensions shall not exceed 20 square metres of floor area; Extensions shall not be located closer than 3 metres to any side or rear boundary of the site… ….	(i) Height of the proposed extension; (ii) Floor area of the proposed extension; (iii)….	Discretionary

As shown in the diagram below, the discretionary activity class often represents the bottom of the cascade as it is often used as the ‘catch all’ or ‘default’ activity class for activities causing effects not already managed through other classes (or specifically covered by the plan - see RMA s.68(5)(e) and s.76(4)(e)). A number of plans, particularly those prepared before 1997 use the non-complying activity class in a similar manner (as an alternative to the using the discretionary activity class).

Diagram explanation

The diagram arranges plan activity statuses into dimensions. The degree of restrictiveness for each status is shown horizontally, with permitted activities on the far left, and prohibited activities on the far right. The vertical axis shows a typical cascade of activity statuses when the full discretionary activity class is used as a ‘catch-all’ for any activity allocated any other class.

The primary cascade effect is demonstrated by the heavy L-shaped arrows. Plan users would first be expected to look at the permitted activity class to see if their activity was listed there, and what performance standards, terms and conditions it would be expected to comply with. If the activity is listed as permitted and is able to meet all the standards, conditions and terms, the activity is permitted and no consent is required.

If the activity is not listed as permitted, or is unable to meet one of more of the permitted activity standards, terms or conditions then the activity status cascades into another activity class. This new activity class is determined by whether the activity is explicitly listed as falling into this class, or by whether a rule says that non-compliance with a particular standard, term or condition means an activity means it is to be assessed under this activity class.

This primary cascade approach works its way down through activity classes until it reaches the discretionary activity class (or non-complying activity class in some plans). Activities that are classed as discretionary may have been allocated the class from the start (ie, listed) or have become discretionary by virtue of falling to the bottom of the cascade through non-compliance with standards, terms, or conditions or simply not being listed in any other activity class.

In the diagram a secondary cascade is shown on the right with dashed arrows. Here it is assumed that activities falling into the most restrictive activity classes were identified during the plan drafting process and listed under the non-complying or prohibited activity classes. Again the discretionary activity class serves as the catch-all for activities not listed elsewhere, thereby preventing activities falling out of the plan completely.