The Devil is in the Detail: is the Planning Process Enabling Stream Loss?

Auckland is experiencing unprecedented growth with development increasingly extending into greenfield areas. In order to establish the pattern of land use, transport networks and the availability of or need for key infrastructure, higher level planning documents (i.e. structure plans, precinct plans) are prepared to support plan variations. These high level documents ultimately inform land value, development potential and shape the way greenfield development are undertaken.

In preparing these plans, opportunities and constraints are identified, potential effects are addressed and key outcomes and objectives are documented to guide development. Developers assume that they provide a level of certainty and rely upon them as blue-prints for development.

However, in many situations, the level of detail regarding ecological features is incomplete or inadequate. Specifically in regards to stream networks, often only permanent reaches or main stems are identified, leaving a significant portion of the network unmapped. Roading layouts, development yield and open space are subsequently designed around the identified features with only a partial understanding of the ecological features. As a result, the ability of developers to meet the Auckland-wide objectives of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part, AUP OP) is compromised and often only recognised within the resource consenting phase.

Despite most of these high level plan provisions stating that ground truthing is required, the supporting plans that identify some (but not all) of the streams within the area are relied upon. As a result, developers are caught short with ‘surprise streams’ that ‘require’ reclamation to enable the layout envisioned. These developers are then tagged with ‘double dipping’ when attempting onsite offset or mitigation works at resource consenting stage. This has obvious financial implications, both in terms of potential changes to the development yield or layout, as well as the costs associated with implementing stream enhancement required to mitigate or offset effects.

Further, regulators are left with plans that fail to identify a complete stream network and are working to planning provisions that effectively anticipate the loss of stream. While not directly prejudicing the consenting process, it is a contributing factor in final decision making and so the policy intent of the AUP OP is not necessarily met.

The AUP OP provides clear direction as to the need to retain and enhance streams, incorporate stream networks into stormwater management and implement water sensitive urban design approaches. Meeting these multiple objectives, while also enabling comprehensive development planning is challenging enough, without incomplete data.

Identification of a complete stream network extent allows for an informed approach to stormwater management and enables the retention of streams at the very earliest stages

Water New Zealand’s 2018 Stormwater Conference

of urban development design before significant resource and finance is invested into resource consent applications. A complete stream network provides certainty to developers, results in ecological and stormwater management benefits and enables a more streamlined approach to resource consenting.

This paper will illustrate the challenges being faced by developers, regulators and practitioners and will offer some insights as to ways more detail at the outset will actually make life that much easier for all involved.