SUMMER 2017 51
written document that details appropriate methodology , definitions and approaches to such assessment , providing guidance to landscape architects , planners and decision makers . Potentially this document will become the basis of an NPS or NES on Landscape , although this is not currently within the scope . A broader description of the scope , and the problem brief , will be included in the RFQ outlined below .”
The response to the COP for L project needs to be considered carefully . There are a bunch of fundamental reasons for this position :
1 . We are well into the 2nd / 3rd generation Regional / District Plan evolutions – nationwide . That means that the RMA s6 ( a ) and 6 ( b ) conundrum may be able to be addressed in the context of a significant range of more specific local program scenarios going forward . I say this because ( like it or not ) NZILA Landscape Planning practitioners have been captured and constrained in commentary and participation within these limited provisions of the RMA .
2 . The significant coastal cousins , within the NZCPS - Policy 13 and 15 are constrained within the same position as the above .
3 . Unsurprisingly , NZCPS Policy 14 remains a forgotten cousin , and is yet to have any ‘ real grunty ’ formal support – nationwide . Why is that ? This is a serious missed opportunity for the profession – NZILA . NZCPS Policy 14 , unlike NZCPS Policy 13 and 15 is not hooked up to any RMA s6 mandates – that ’ s why !
4 . Many of us know , the Regional / District ONC / HNC / ONL / ONF operative realities are what they are – reference point 3 above .
5 . Also ‘ King Salmon ’ realities continue to lurk . This is a real problem , particularly for the Aquaculture industry . This transposes to negative decision making and difficult ‘ freedom ’ realities for other landscape users – Primary Industries , etc .
6 . Therefore , in my opinion , s6 ( a ) and 6 ( b ) need to be part of the fundamental RMA reform package . Both of these clauses need serious ‘ wordsmith ’ and meaning / interpretation re-drafting and reform .
7 . In this sense at s6 ( a ) ‘ nature ’ and the protection of it needs to be expanded beyond the ‘ coastal environment ’ limitation to include all ‘ environments ’.
8 . Then , as a follow up , remove the word ‘ natural ’ from s6 ( b ) and include ‘ all landscapes and features ’. Think about that ! And , as we go , include , enhancement as a critical verb , woven into the ‘ avoiding , remedying and mitigating ’ mantra of the RMA .
9 . Critically , we as a profession have lost traction in the most important and fundamental primary matters and issues of the RMA – the Part 2 s ( 5 ) – Purpose and
Principles matters . We need to regain our ‘ mojo ’ here !
10 . Landscape Planning as an activity / process does not equal and / or is not equivalent to , but must take preference to and dominate Landscape Assessment as an activity / process ; even in RMA terms .
It is essential these ‘ high level ’ issues / matters be opened for discussion and debate amongst a wide range of practitioners through the MFE COP for L project .
The RMA may be the one avenue for the NZILA to contribute to New Zealand and the world .
We also need to consider the COP for L project within the context of current ‘ dizzy ’ exponential accelerating global phenomena and realities ( global market connectivity , global and local population increase , seriously out-there technological advancements and obvious global climate change ).
These are now intersecting at a frightening pace at all temporal and spatial levels . This will significantly affect the functioning of our planet but , more critically , ALOE + US (“ all life on earth plus us ” - humans / homo sapiens ), our communities , the natural phenomena and our associated land and land-use / LAND- SCAPE realities .
We – NZILA , the Landscape Planning profession – now need to seriously think beyond the limited templates of the past 20 year RMA decision-making process . We need to finally and justifiably re-assess and champion our own incredible mark on the land / landscape and its corresponding community character .
The COP for L project is the first Government sponsored opportunity since Sir Roger Douglas dismantled the Ministry of and Works Development department and destroyed the excellent and critical National Town and Country Planning Act strategic and policy framework of integrated management . It was , in hindsight , replaced with an RMA in 1991 that has since unfortunately been systematically and gradually subverted by corporate thinking , commercialism and rampant bureaucracy .
In real terms , here is the opportunity to move beyond the classic ‘ confused ’ state of WESI and his / her ilk and reconsider and re-new a Landscape Planning , Assessment and Management future based on our core skill - DESIGN – as applied to the landscape planning continuum .
Cheers ,
Dennis Scott Registered Landscape Architect , FNZILA