4. Outcomes
4.1 Methodology
Broadly, the methodology of this evaluation follows the Plan Outcomes Evaluation process. Plan Outcome Evaluation involves:
1. An examination of the outcomes being sought – what are the objectives trying to achieve?
2. Tracking how the plan has been designed to affect the outcomes – do the intentions in the objectives get carried through to the rules and methods? Are the provisions efficient?
3. Assessing if the provisions have been implemented – what evidence is there that the provisions are being applied to relevant activities?
4. Assessing relevant environmental trends and ‘on the ground’ data to conclude if the Plan has been successful in achieving its intentions. This includes consideration of the external factor influences such as legislative changes, national policy statements, case law, significant economic changes, demographics etc.
Throughout the evaluation, there is an emphasis on attributing the activities enabled or controlled by the TRMP on observed outcomes. However, attributing outcomes to the TRMP must always be viewed in the wider context of changes. These are noted where known, but it is beyond the scope of this evaluation to capture all of the changes and influences that affect outcomes in our communities and environment.
Limitations with the Plan outcome evaluation approach also arise where environmental outcome data is poor, or where there a multiple factors driving outcomes. Time, resourcing and quality of data also affects the comprehensiveness of the evaluation.
To address some of these limitations, the evaluation process has included a ‘rapid assessment’
technique. The technique draws on the combined knowledge and expertise of local TDC staff, residents, community leaders, and topic experts to create an understanding of plan implementation, efficiency and outcomes. The rapid assessment outputs are supplemented with:
environmental data or expert reports where available
Council data (e.g. property and asset information, consenting and compliance database information, models)
mapping and imagery (e.g. GIS, aerial imagery, LiDAR)
information or reports prepared during plan change processes (e.g. s.32 Reports, Issues and Options papers, technical reports, submissions, community meetings)
The evaluation may also draw on the results of the TRMP Use-ability Survey (TDC, 2013), where relevant.
For this topic the following data sources were used:
Data source/s: Details and Notes
Tasman GIS Spatial assessments
Historical and current Certificate of Title data Rapid Assessment Pauline Webby
Dugald Ley Paul Gibson Mary Honey Carl Cheeseman Wayne Horner Bernard Simmonds Katrina Lee
An interview was held with Steve Markham who was the Policy Planning Manager at the time and who oversaw the development and implementation of Rural 3, and with Sonya Leusink-Sladen who was the Policy Planner involved in addressing the submissions and reporting. Sonya was also involved in the redrafting and
implementation of the CTADG.
Councillor input An interview was held with Mayor Richard Kempthorne and Deputy Mayor Tim King. Both were on the Council and planning committee during the investigation, hearings and decisions for Rural 3.
Council reports Sissons (2012) “An assessment of the effect of consented
development on rural character in the Coastal Tasman Area and in Rural 1 and Rural 2 zones outside the Coastal Tasman Area”
Council records
(MagicBR/NCS/databases)
Records of resource consents:
- subdivision consents - land use consents
- wastewater discharge permits MoT/NZTA resources
4.1.2 Certificates of Title
Title size data was obtained for six time steps (1997, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2017 and 2019) using the following methodology:
Use existing dissolved Title data, created in 2012, for January 1997, November 2001, December 2006 and December 2011
Create dissolved Titles data for January 2017 and July 2019
Spatially join current Zones data to the six datasets
Export joined attributes to respective spreadsheet for analysis
It is important to note that the title sizes have been linked to zones as they exist now. With
wholesale changes to the extent of zones occurring in 2003, calculating title sizes on the spatial zone extents of the day would have been misleading, as large changes would have been seen as a result of rezoning. Therefore, title sizes have been analysed on the spatial land area that is currently in Rural 3, and currently in Rural 1, and so on. This provides a more accurate representation of the changes in title area that have occurred as a result of TRMP policy.
4.1.3 Subdivision Consents
The Council has records of 177 subdivision consents in the CTA applied for since December 2003 until the present day (Table 5). These exclude boundary adjustments and changes or cancellations of conditions.
Table 5: Subdivision Consents in the CTA
Row Labels 1 into 2 Lots More than 2
Lots
Grand Total
Commercial 1 1
Granted under Delegated Authority 1 1
Residential 13 19 32
Granted by Independent Commissioner 1 1
Granted under Delegated Authority 12 19 31
Rural 1 16 6 22
Granted by Committee 4 2 6
Granted under Delegated Authority 12 3 15
Inactive - not granted 1 1
Rural 2 2 2
Declined Environment Court 1 1
Granted under Delegated Authority 1 1
Rural 3 23 42 65
Declined by Committee 1 1
Granted by Committee 1 13 14
Granted by Mixed Panel 1 1
Granted by Requiring Authority 1 1
Granted under Delegated Authority 18 25 43
In process 2 3 5
Rural Residential - Kina 4 4
Granted under Delegated Authority 4 4
Rural Residential - Māpua 21 12 33
Granted by Committee 1 1
Granted under Delegated Authority 18 11 29
In process 3 3
Rural Residential - Permin Road 2 1 3
Granted under Delegated Authority 2 1 3
Rural Residential - Waimea Inlet 10 5 15
Granted by Committee 3 3
Granted under Delegated Authority 10 2 12
Grand Total 90 87 177