KEY POINTS:
New Zealanders love the beach. Thousands of us have been there over the summer holidays, relaxing and recharging our systems for the year ahead.
The beach is a big part of who we are. We are really privileged to have such a long and abundant coastline with outstanding landscape and natural values.
A combination of coastal development and conservation management enable us to access the beach. Some areas have been developed with coastal residential living ranging from high urban densities to low impact, larger lifestyle blocks.
Other areas have been set aside for casual camping and even lower impact uses such as Department of Conservation reserves. We can see quite clearly from the plethora of promotions of subdivisions that the coast is under huge development pressure.
Many councils are struggling to deal with coastal management. The Far North Council, for example, was taken to court last year by oyster farmers concerned at the pollution levels of coastal waters.
The Government is reviewing the Coastal Policy Statement which sets national priorities and there will be a close focus on the coast this year as we attempt to redefine our objectives.
Apart from the Government's role in managing conservation land, almost all other decisions relating to the nature and scale of development permitted on the coast are made under the provisions of the Resource Management Act.
Is the act delivering good quality outcomes on the coast?
Some developers argue that it creates too high a hurdle and impedes worthwhile development, while many conservation groups argue that it is too easy for second-rate development to get through the hoops.
A good test case for the act is Landco's proposed subdivision of the Ngunguru Spit in Northland near Whangarei. This is a 350-residential lot development on a low-lying sandspit.
The Environmental Defence Society has been litigating on coastal subdivisions for many years. Where possible we prefer to work constructively with developers and encourage them to lift the bar and apply international best practice.
This approach has been taken up by many developers and has led to coastal developments in which there are positive benefits in terms of public access, low-impact design and low density.
Some developers have agreed to make the subdivision a one-off, with binding covenants in perpetuity to prevent further development. Many are large, fully protected common lots in which the natural environment dominates strongly over the built one. Weed and pest management ensure ecological values are protected.
In short, there are good developments to be found. But every now and then a project comes along that just simply should not be allowed. Ngunguru is one of them. It is a very badly conceived development.
The idea that in the 21st century we could consider putting urban, residential density development on a low-lying, erosion-prone sandspit, which has outstanding landscape and wildlife values, is bizarre. Sea level rise and increasingly violent storms from climate change ought to be enough to knock it on the head without having to go into an assessment of the broader environmental effects.
A response from the developers has been to avoid the lowest land and to offer to put dwellings on poles.
The Landco development does attempt to create some redeeming elements: public access, part of the site protected, a so-called heritage trail. But these are sops that fail to address the overarching question: Should any development be allowed there at all?
In theory the Resource Management Act process should see Landco off. The act makes the protection of areas like the Ngunguru Spit a matter of national importance.
The present version of the Coastal Policy Statement favours subdivision in areas already compromised by development and the protection of areas like the spit. So the statutory test under the RMA looks overwhelmingly stacked against Landco getting consent.
That all assumes that there will be well-organised and resourced opponents to the proposal. The Environmental Defence Society will certainly stand up at the time, with expert witnesses and lawyers. As well, the local community is well-organised and motivated. The Department of Conservation should also be involved.
The Environmental Defence Society understands that the Government has been asked to buy the spit. It would be hoped that it does not get hooked into paying a development premium if it goes down that route. The development scenario proposed is so excessive and unrealistic it could simply be an attempt to ratchet up the price.
While public ownership would make sense, it must be at an acceptable price that reflects the site's low development potential.
Public funds to buy land are limited and must be husbanded carefully. The Environmental Defence Society does support public acquisition at the right price.
In the end, however, the act should be able to be relied on to stop inappropriate developments such as this one. The act enables high-quality coastal development in appropriate locations. The spit development is neither high quality nor in an appropriate place.
In the best of worlds, Landco would act responsibly and abandon the project.
* Gary Taylor is chairman of the Environmental Defence Society.
