Maintaining rural character
Are the New Plymouth District Plan’s changed controls on subdivisions too late for maintaining rural character in many parts of our district? To use a rural metaphor – hasn’t the ‘horse already bolted’?
‘Rural character’ means maintaining New Plymouth’s rural landscape as inherently rural. For this reason controls are placed on commercial, industrial and residential development in rural areas.
Rural land owners are confronted with this issue when they buy their slice of paradise and find one or more additional lots are to be subdivided right next door. Rural character is currently a focus in Oakura where a plan change application seeks to rezone a substantial area between Upper Wairau Rd and Surf Highway 45 for ‘lifestyle’ lots.
The New Plymouth District Council’s (NPDC) Proposed District Plan puts in place additional controls – including use of the non-complying activity rule for subdivisions of more than three smaller lots (using the baseline year of 1999) even where a large balance lot is retained and a new ‘rural lifestyle’ zone to help provide for population growth. There are also specific lists of activities that are considered compatible (or not) with the rural zone. This is a move away from an approach that some have dubbed as solely ‘‘effects based’’.
The insidious threat to rural character created by more and more lifestyle lots, is not new. In 2009 Plan Change 27 was notified following concerns that ‘‘some parts of the rural area are changing in character due to development and subdivision’’ and ‘‘the cumulative effects of development are not able to be considered and are impacting on rural character’’. PC 27 was made operative in 2012. In its decisions the NPDC decided to ensure the opportunity for rural residential living was available but with stronger provisions to better manage landscape effects.
It is a moot point whether PC 27 has maintained the rural character of New Plymouth’s distinctive landscapes. PC 27 continued to allow secondary dwellings on rural land for purposes such as farm workers and flexible family living arrangements e.g. for granny. That opportunity, while desirable, formed the basis of argument that subdivisions have few physical effects that differ from erecting a farm worker’s house. If building another dwelling on the farm is permitted anyway, why not allow a subdivision? Surely subdivision is simply drawing lines on a map? One the other hand, subdivision fragments the land compromising the productive unit. Farming activities form the very basis of rural character and changed land ownership affects the viability of farming.
These arguments have been played out many times over at council hearings. In some cases subdivision consents have been refused due to inconsistency with district plan strategy. The concern being that if a subdivision is granted, other rural owners in similar circumstances will be encouraged to subdivide on the same basis. After all, justice involves that persons who are equal should have assigned to them equal things (Aristotle).
Whether the new district plan should ‘hold the line’ in a more definitive way will be the subject of submissions. The new district plan is one of the first ‘e-plans’ in the country – the NPDC has received national awards for this user-friendly document. Any person can input their address from the Home Page and immediately find the rules that apply to them. Submissions enable people to have their say and close on November 22.