What is 'inappropriate subdivision, use and development'?

Outstanding natural features and landscapes are not protected absolutely. Instead, a decision maker must assess whether an activity is “inappropriate”. 

The term “inappropriate” is “heavily affected by context” and “should be assessed with reference to what it is that is sought to be protected”. ⁴⁵⁴⁶  In the context of s 6(b), the standard of inappropriateness relates back to the attributes of the landscape or feature that is to be protected. It is not appropriate to take an “overall judgment” approach to interpreting the meaning of “inappropriate”. ⁴⁵⁴⁷

Whether an activity is “inappropriate” will depend upon the extent to which a location can absorb development without adverse effects on the natural qualities of the site and the surrounding environment. This will turn upon the characteristics of the area and the proposed activity. 

Activities adjacent to an outstanding natural feature or landscape may have inappropriate effects on an outstanding natural feature or landscape. For example, a wind farm adjacent to an outstanding natural feature or landscape may be of sufficient scale to adversely affect the values of an outstanding natural feature or landscape. ⁴⁵⁴⁸

Case law provides no clear guidance on what is “inappropriate subdivision, use and development” in a particular context. District plans should contain detailed assessment criteria to help determine what development will be inappropriate in a particular landscape.

Policy 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 does provide the meaning of the “inappropriate” in relation to natural features and landscapes in the coastal environment. ⁴⁵⁴⁹  It requires all adverse effects of activities on outstanding natural features and landscapes to be avoided in areas with outstanding natural character and significant adverse effects of activities on natural features and landscapes to be avoided in all other areas of the coastal environment. Other adverse effects are to be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

In the coastal environment, regional policy statements and plans are required to identify (ideally by mapping) natural features and landscapes which are to be protected. Objectives, policies and rules must be included to provide for the protection of those areas.

The Department of Conservation Guidance Note on Policy 15 sets out matters relevant to determining whether an adverse effect is "significant":

• Status of resources: The importance of the area—locally and regionally. (Effects on rare or limited resources are usually considered more significant than impacts on common or abundant resources.)
• Proportion of resource affected/area of influence: The size of the area affected by the activity will often influence the degree of impact (i.e. affecting a large area will generally be significant). Affecting a large proportion of a limited area or resource will tend to be significant.
• Sensitivity of resources: The effect on the area and its sensitivity to change. (Impacts to sensitive resources are usually more significant than impacts to those that are relatively resilient to impacts.
• Reversibility or irreversibility: Whether the effect is reversible or irreversible. Irreversibility will generally be more significant (depending also on nature and scale), and reversibility the converse.
• Probability of effect: The likelihood of an adverse effect resulting from the activity. Unforeseen effects can be more significant than anticipated effects. (Adopting a precautionary approach may reduce the likelihood of adverse effects occurring.)
• Cumulative effects: The accumulation of impacts over time and space resulting from the combination of effects from one activity/development or the combination of effects from a number of activities. Cumulative effects can be greater in significance than any individual effect from an activity (for example, loss of multiple important indigenous sites).
• Degree of change: The character and degree of modification, damage, loss or destruction that will result from the activity. Activities that result in a high degree of change are generally more significant.
• Magnitude of effect: The scale and extent of possible effects caused by an activity (for example on the number of sites affected, on spatial distribution etc). Activities that have a large magnitude of effect are generally more significant.

Last updated at 4:20PM on January 8, 2018