This page last modified 18w September 1998
- 1994, November: Fall-out over NZ Coastal Policy
- 1994, November: Regional Coastal Plans
- 1994, November: Coastal resource rentals
- 1994, May: New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
- 1994, May: Coastal Access Fund
- 1994, May: Regional coastal plans to follow
- 1994, May: Sea access protected
- 1993, March: User-pays beaches?
- 1993, March: Boatsheds, and foreshore misuse
- 1993, March: New Zealand Coastal Policy
March 1993. 'Public Access', No. 2
Alarming noises about user-pays
beaches in New South Wales have been quashed by the State Environment
Minister. The Federal Resource Assessment Commission recommended
radical moves to control coastal damage and pollution caused by
tourism. The commission said that all popular beaches should be
fenced and visitors charged admission. In response, a spokesman
for the state government said that the idea was "un-Australian"
and they would not have a bar of it. Beaches are a national asset
and should be protected by national funding. "The report
disregards the existing NSW coastal policy which ensures that
beaches remain in public ownership and have total public access,"
he said (Otago Daily Times 2/2/93).
Parallel arguments to that of the above commission are originating
within the New Zealand tourism industry. This is in regard to
public access to the whole public estate. We will have to ensure
that such ideas are quickly labelled "un-Kiwi."
In the next few months PANZ plans to research the law related
to beaches and foreshores in New Zealand. Hopefully this will
bring to light avenues for protecting everyone's right to visit
the beach.
March 1993. 'Public Access', No. 2
Changes brought about by the
Resource Management Act may be setting the scene for a proliferation
of coastal clutter and displacement of recreational users of foreshores.
No longer is the coastal environment protected from "unnecessary"
development. The RMA now only provides protection from "inappropriate"
subdivision, use, and development.
In a recent decision by the Otago Regional Council, objections
were dismissed to an application to change the use of an existing
boatshed to a commercial pottery. An objector argued that such
a use was unnecessary and inappropriate on a foreshore as a land
location would equally serve the purposes of a pottery; that such
a use and the precedent it establishes will ultimately displace
users of the Otago Harbour who are dependent on foreshore use
for access and boat storage; and the natural and open space character
should be maintained as far as possible, consistent with marine
recreational and commercial requirements.
The applicant, in effect, sought retrospective approval for an
unauthorised extension and change of use to a boatshed. This was
in breach of an existing boatshed licence. A key element of the
objection was that the applicant did not actually hold a boatshed
licence. Change of ownership had occurred without prior consent
of the former licensor, being another breach of the terms of the
licence. He was therefore not entitled to seek amendment to its
terms. The Council quashed that objection by first issuing a 'boatshed'
licence (not applied for in the application for resource consent)
then agreed to amendment of its terms to allow use as a pottery.
So much for due process!
Others have been watching this development. Some long-standing
boatsheds in the locality have subsequently sprouted outwards
with all the accompaniments of well-appointed batches --with the
boats now parked outside!
March 1993. 'Public Access', No. 2
Submissions closed on 19 February
with the Board of Inquiry. This is charged with recommending to
the Minister of Conservation any changes to the draft New Zealand
Coastal Policy Statement. PANZ made a submission on public access
aspects.
PANZ is primarily concerned that the requirement under the Resource
Management Act for "the maintenance and enhancement of public
access to and along the coastal marine area" under s 6(d),
should become a principle of the coastal policy. This is after
all a matter of national importance in the Act. We see the absence
of due weight on access in the policy to be a serious flaw. This
is reflected by copious provisions for restricting and prohibiting
public access, for reasons not related to the purpose of the Act.
PANZ has proposed that maintenance and enhancement of public access
become a principle of the policy. We have suggested specific requirements
for regional and district councils--
May 1994. 'Public Access', No. 4
Cabinet approval has been given
to a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. This is the culmination
of a succession of drafts and public inputs since passage of the
Resource Management Act (RMA) in 1990. It is a crucial government
policy that will direct the actions of Crown agencies and local
authorities in their management of the coastal marine area--this
is deemed to extend out to the 12 mile territorial limit.
The present Government caused a redrafting of earlier versions
of the policy and appointed a Board of Inquiry to hear a second
round of public submissions. The new policy outlines principles
and policies for the preservation of the natural character of
the coast, characteristics of special value to tangata whenua,
on subdivision and development, maintenance and enhancement of
public access, maintenance of the Crown's interest, taking account
of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and matters to be
included in regional plans. PANZ made a submission and was heard
by the Board of Inquiry.
PANZ is very concerned that, despite public access being a matter
of national importance, the policy document remains skewed, at
the expense of access, towards giving priority either towards
other matters of national importance or matters having lesser
priority in the Act. We believe such bias to be contrary to the
scheme of the Act and is an attempt to re-legislate. Despite our
submissions to the Board of Inquiry, and seeking the Minister
of Conservation's assurance that such matters would be rectified
before final approval of the policy, it has now been approved.
The conduct of the Board of Inquiry in relation to the hearing
of the PANZ submission is also cause for concern. PANZ representative
Bruce Mason, after raising doubts as to the validity of a concept
'partnership' between Maori and the Crown as implied in the policy,
was lectured by two Board members on the meaning of the Treaty.
He was told not to interrupt by the chair, despite this supposing
to be an inquiry into community views rather than a platform for
Board members to advance their own. The content of their dissertations
were highly challengeable, but Bruce was not permitted to do so.
The chairman, Judge Arnold Turner, also asked Bruce three times
"who is going to pay?" in relation to enhancing public
access, despite this being beyond the brief of the inquiry, and
that enhancement of access is a duty under the Resource Management
Act. Bruce's impression was that it was an access-hostile environment.
The chairman terminated the PANZ submission by saying that "he
had heard quite enough from Mr. Mason"--a feeling that was
reciprocated, but not verbalised!
The legislative purpose of the New Zealand coastal policy statement
is "to state policies in order to achieve the purpose of
the Act". PANZ believes that, in relation to protecting and
enhancing public access to and along the coastal marine area,
being a matter of national importance (section 6(d)), the policy
fails in that duty.
Our concerns about the policy are--
May 1994. 'Public Access', No. 4
PANZ has established a Coastal
Access Fund. This is to be used for advocating public access to
the coastal marine area as well as the protection of our shores
as public open space. Coastal 'Queen's Chain', beaches, foreshores,
sea bed and the sea will be within the scope of the fund.
Such is the importance of THE BEACH and coasts to the New Zealand
psyche that a special fund is necessary to provide for on-going
efforts. People rightly believe that the coast--both land and
water--should be freely available for public use and enjoyment.
However the coasts are also eyed covetously by many who seek development
or occupation to the exclusion of others. We will advocate public
rather than private interests.
Legal and other avenues will be used to ensure that laws and public
policy are properly applied and that public rights of access are
protected.
Our first target is the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
We need funds for a campaign to make it more 'access friendly'.
In its present form the policy perverts the standing of public
access as a matter of national importance. It is important that
the policy is amended quickly before regional coastal plans are
in place.
We invite you to contribute to the Fund. Donors will be kept informed
of how it is spent.
As a registered charitable trust donations of $5 or more are tax
deductible.
Please help us ensure a future for kids on the coast
Public Access New Zealand
Coastal Access Fund
May 1994. 'Public Access', No. 4
Regional councils are now required
to prepare plans in accordance with the national policy. We believe
that many councils are already well advanced with plan preparation.
It is obvious that if the national policy is wrong there are going
to be flow-on problems with regional plans. Help us get the New
Zealand coastal policy back on-track!
It is critically important that concerned recreationists take
an active interest in regional plans, by asking councils to keep
them informed of progress and availing themselves of opportunities
for making submissions and speaking at public hearings.
Policies that may impact on the open space character of foreshores
and the Queen's Chain need close attention, for instance those
that allow private occupation and permanent structures such as
boat sheds or baches. These may result in the physical exclusion
of the public.
Foreshores are part of New Zealand's public open space endowment
and are under severe local pressure. Many areas have become unavailable
for public access or very unattractive for recreation due to encroachment
by private structures.
It is long overdue that there be reassessment of the need for
private foreshore structures for boat storage and launching. Given
increasing public recreational pressure on the coast, particularly
near population centres, and the trend towards lighter transportable
recreational craft, policies for actively phasing out boatsheds
should be promoted. We acknowledge that there is still a place
for such structures, and slipways, for community and club use
where there are proven needs and alternative off-site boat storage
is impractical. In regard to many existing structures we doubt
the legality of many of these, despite official sanction over
the years. It is about time that all district councils faced up
to their legal obligations (see Taylors Mistake story)
[link to local access issues to be added]
May 1994. 'Public Access', No. 4
In February 1994 the Marlborough
District Council declined an application to occupy space in the
coastal marine area for growing scallops. This was for 285 hectares
of Croisilles Harbour in the Marlborough Sounds. 207 objections
were received. Adverse impacts on recreational activities were
the primary concern.
The Council declined the application because consent would require
a restriction on public access, amenity values would be adversely
affected, and that, on balance, it was not satisfied that the
purposes of the Resource Management Act would be achieved. Doubts
were also raised as to the jurisdiction of the Council under the
Resource Management Act verses the role of the Fisheries Act.
In the greater Sounds region there are a further 20 applications
for marine farms greater than 48 hectares in area, 5 of which
are of a similar nature to the Croisilles Harbour proposal.
November 1994. 'Public Access', No. 5
Since publishing our criticism
of aspects of this policy in 'Public Access' No. 4, Arnold Turner
CMG, formerly Presiding Member of the Board of Inquiry wrote to
PANZ criticising our position on the policy as "unfair, unbalanced
and misleading". Judge Turner pointed out that the Board
improved access provisions by adding requirements to the draft
policy for enhancing public access to the coastal marine area.
However he confirmed one of our criticisms that the policy also
allows local authorities to restrict public access on the basis
"that this has always been the case, and that they will always
remain open to requests from private interests to do so".
Judge Turner went on to justify elevating from "taking account"
the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, as prescribed in the
Resource Management Act (RMA), to one of "recognising and
facilitating" the special relationship between the Crown
and Maori, by stating that the policy confines this to lands of
the Crown. He requested that we "publish this letter in full...and
let me know when you have done so".
We replied that our concern with the policy is over aspects of
the policy, not the policy as a whole. Therefore we did not attempt
to be 'balanced'. We acknowledged that the Board of Inquiry extended
the access provisions of the draft policy, however that is not
the point of contention. We are concerned about improper weighting
being given to some requirements of the Resource Management Act
(RMA) in relation to others which should receive greater weighting,
in particular s 6 (d). This requires recognition and provision
of the maintenance and enhancement of public access as a matter
of national importance.
In regard to the alleged ability of local authorities to restrict
public access this is the nub of our concern with the policy.
The RMA for the first time introduced into planning law the maintenance
and enhancement of public access as a matter of national importance.
That provision did not exist under the former Town and Country
Planning Act. That is why, in an RMA environment, past attitudes
and practices of local authorities to public access should not
be reinforced by national policy.
Judge Turner responded again by restating his points, rather than
acknowledging anything in our reply to him, and concluded by requesting
again that his first letter be published in full. "If that
is not done, it will be confirmation that your organisation is
misleading the public over the issues in question".
We believe that the summary above fairly reflects the nature of
his concerns and we do not intend to accede to what amounts to
a demand that we publish his letter. We believe that Judge Turner
has missed the point of our published criticisms of the policy
and has provided no legal justification for the policy deviating
in a substantial way from the wording of the RMA.
We have also received a response from DOC which restates what
is in the policy but does not address our concerns about the relative
weighting of policy matters. DOC confirmed our concern that the
policy in effect rewrites the RMA by stating that "the five
exceptions [to unrestricted access] take account of other matters
which the Act and practicality suggest should take priority when
the circumstances arise".
PANZ is seeking advice aimed towards causing review of aspects
of the policy that are detrimental to public access. Donations
to our Coastal Access Fund have made this possible.
November 1994. 'Public Access', No. 5
Following Government's adoption
of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, Regional Councils
are now obliged to prepare regional coastal plans.
PANZ has inspected two of these and finds Council/Maori 'equal
partnership' policies promoted at the expense of other matters
in the RMA, in particular public access. This appears to be based
on dated opinion from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
PANZ is drawing to the attention of Councils the matters raised
during the debate over DOC's 'Partnership Plan' and the, what
we contend, 're-legislation' of the RMA that has occurred in the
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Following is a schedule of submission dates for each regional
coastal plan to assist supporters wishing to have their say on
the adequacy of public access and other provisions. Dependent
on how individual councils have interpreted their responsibilities,
relative to the high water mark, there may not be provision for
land access/the Queen's Chain in coastal plans. If not in coastal
plans, policies for public access should be contained in 'regional
plans' which are also open for public submission.
November 1994. 'Public Access', No. 5
In June (1994) the Ministry
for the Environment released a discussion document entitled 'Resource
rentals for the occupation of coastal space'. This contained arguments
for and against rentals being charged for such things as boat
sheds, marinas, marine farms, moorings etc. The review is concerned
with the exclusive use of coastal space, which is owned by the
Crown.
The Minister for the Environment appointed former Gisborne MP
Wayne Kimber to consider all relevant matters and to receive public
submissions, which he has done, and to report with recommendations
to the Minister. Government is yet to make a decision on his recommendations.
Existing regulations that set charges for occupation of coastal
space are being rolled over to allow time to implement the findings
of the review. PANZ made a submission on aspects of the review.
We believe the vast majority of New Zealanders consider that the
coastal area is a precious and special resource quite unlike any
other environment in New Zealand. It is special not only because
of its physical character, but because, with only a few exceptions,
the Crown is owner on behalf of all New Zealanders. This provides
a unique opportunity and responsibility to maintain the resource
as public commons.
Unfortunately up until the present the coastal Queen's Chain and
foreshores in particular have been regarded as 'free last-frontier'
in the eyes of many private users. This has resulted in ad hoc
development and use which can seriously detract from the natural
character of the coast and detract from the attractiveness for
other uses and users. This has also led to the exclusive occupation
of portions of the coast, to the exclusion of the public.
We do not believe that total reliance can be placed on the resource
consent process to maintain the integrity of the coast. Rental
policy must be designed to reinforce the purposes of the Act,
not establish pressures that may conflict with its intent.
In general terms we believe that the coast, as a public commons,
must be managed for the greatest good for the greatest number
of people. Anything that encourages private occupation or change
of use to the exclusion or discouragement of the public at large
must be discouraged. There must not be any presumption or encouragement
created that private occupation and development is acceptable
per se, rather remaining an exception dependent on passing the
tests established by the RMA.
Where occupation is permitted, the Crown, on behalf of the public,
should be compensated for loss of coastal amenity and public rights
of use and enjoyment. That money should be available for the better
management of the coast in the interests of anyone. We strongly
support the concept that private occupiers should pay rentals
for use of this public resource. They are getting privileges,
actually or potentially, at the expense of non-privilege holders.
They should pay. The question of scaling rentals, dependent on
the nature of use and user is another matter, which we touch on
below.
It is useful to equate publicly-owned coastal space with other
public assets like national parks and reserves. In the latter
cases commercial occupation can be permitted, as the exception
rather than rule, on terms that do not breach the legislative
imperatives under which these lands are managed--to be preserved
as far as possible in their natural state, without impinging on
public rights of use and enjoyment. Private occupiers and commercial
users have to pay for the privilege.
In the interests of equity the Crown must be consistent in its
policies for all publicly held lands and waters. No state 'subsidies'
should be created on one category of Crown estate relative to
the true costs on private lands.
We believe that resource rentals are essential for the following
reasons--
We believe that rentals should
be scaled according to whether it is a commercial, private, or
community user and the degree to which the public is excluded
from the site. Commercial occupiers should pay the highest scale
of rentals, less by private non-commercial occupiers, and less
again by community and club recreational occupiers.
Waivers of rental could be granted within each of the above three
categories dependent on the degree of public benefit provided
by the occupier. The less the direct, on-site public benefit the
higher the rental. If no benefit then no waiver.
Government's 2003 'public domain' proposal for foreshore and seabed