before the board of inquiry at blenheim in the matter … · 3 dr michael steven_evidence_landscape...

BEFORE THE BOARD OF INQUIRYAT BLENHEIM

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND IN THE MATTER a Board of Inquiry appointed under section 149J of the Resource Management Act 1991 to consider the New Zealand King Salmon Co Limited’s private plan change requests to the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management PLan and resource consent applications for marine farming at nine sites located in the Marlborough Sounds

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DR MICHAEL LAWRENCE STEVENon

LANDSCAPE, NATURAL CHARACTER AND AMENITY

P.J. & K.S.J. HALSTEAD (Submitter 0234)

PELORUS WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES LTD, J & R BUCHANAN, H.T ELKINGTON& WHANAU (Submitter 0400)

Dated Friday, 10 August 2012

Hardy-Jones Clarke Telephone: (03) 578 5339Barristers, Solicitors, Notary Public Fax: 578 0323 PO BOX 646 Blenheim 7240 Marlborough DX: WC60007Solicitor Acting: Mr M. Hardy-Jones

Fletcher Vautier Moore Telephone: (03) 544 8666Barristers and Solicitors Facsimile: (03) 544 4036 PO Box 3029, Richmond DX: WC 7101Solicitor Acting: Mr J. Ironside

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

QUALIFICATIONS AS AN EXPERT AND AMBIT OF EVIDENCE 5

........................................................................................Qualifications and experience 5

.....................................................................................................Ambit of my evidence 6

.........................Data, information, facts and assumptions relied upon to form opinions 7

PART 1: GENERAL MATTERS RELATING TO LANDSCAPE SIGNIFICANCE AND NATURAL CHARACTER 9

THE AESTHETIC CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF SALMON FARMS 10

DEFINING THE LANDSCAPE CONTEXT 13

........................................................The Concepts of Inner Sounds and Outer Sounds 20

...............................................................................................The Coastal Environment 22

NATURAL CHARACTER, OR NATURALNESS 22

...................................................................The naturalness of the marine environment 27

THE ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE SIGNIFICANCE 31

Aesthetic value as the basis for the landscape significance of the Marlborough ...........................................................................................................................Sounds 36

............................................................................................................Individual factors 37

....................................................................................................Environmental factors 38

...................................................................Sense of place and community held values 43

.............................................................................................Visual amenity landscapes 43

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS: ‘WHOLE OF SOUNDS’ 44

............................................................................Cumulative effects v localised effects 45

....................................................................................................Effects on naturalness 48

.................................................................................................Wildlife and naturalness 50

..............................................................................................Effects on aesthetic value 52

..........................................................................................................................Amenity 54

................................................................MSRMP Objectives and Policies: Landscape 57

......................MSRMP Objectives and Policies: Public access and recreation amenity 60

1

Dr Michael Steven_Evidence_Landscape & Natural Character_Final

CONCLUSIONS: PART 1 62

......Effects with respect to relevant statutory documents (NZCPS, RMA and MSRMP) 64

PART 2: EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PJ AND KSJ HALSTEAD 69

.................................................................................Scope and introductory comments 69

........................................................................Naturalness, and effects on naturalness 72

..................................................................................Effects on landscape significance 73

.........................................................................................................Effects on amenity 75

PART 3: EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PELORUS WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES LTD, BUCHANAN, ELKINGTON AND WHANAU 77

.................................................................................Scope and introductory comments 77

..........................................Effects on the naturalness of the Waitata Reach landscape 78

..................................................................................Effects on landscape significance 80

.........................................................................................................Effects on amenity 81

WHITE HORSE ROCK APPLICATION 81

......................................................................................The site and landscape context 83

.........................................................New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) 85

......................................................................................MRMP Objectives and Policies 87

........................................................................................MSRMP Assessment Matters 87

....................................................................................................................Conclusions 91

APPENDIX A: A DIAGRAMMATIC SUMMARY OF THE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR RMA PURPOSES 92

APPENDIX B: A TYPOLOGY OF COMMUNITY HELD VALUES 93

APPENDIX C: EXCERPT FROM MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN: CHAPTER 5, LANDSCAPE 94

APPENDIX D: 1: LANDSCAPE MAP 74, MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN SHOWING AREAS OF OUTSTANDING LANDSCAPE VALUE (PURPLE) 95

APPENDIX E: SCREEN SHOT OF INTERISLANDER FERRY HOME PAGE, SHOWING KAITAPEHA/RUAOMOKO SITE IN BACKGROUND 97

APPENDIX F: SECTION OF NAVIGATION IMPACT MAP 8, RUAOMOKO, KAITAPEHA, FROM THE APPENDICES TO THE EVIDENCE OF MR DAVID WALKER 98

2


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. I have visited Queen Charlotte Sound and the Waitata Reach of Pelorus

Sound and the location of all proposed salmon farms within these areas for

the purpose of assessing the effects of the New Zealand King Salmon (NZKS)

proposal on the natural character, landscape characteristics and qualities and

amenity of those parts of the Marlborough Sounds of concern to the

submitters on whose behalf I have prepared evidence.

B. I have inspected the existing NZKS farms at Ruakaka Bay (Queen Charlotte

Sound) and Waihinau Bay (Waitata Reach, outer Pelorus Sound). I consider

salmon farming structures of the type proposed to be incongruent, industrial-

style elements within the highly natural landscapes within which they are

located, lacking in any positive aesthetic qualities, and generating adverse

effects on natural character, aesthetic quality and amenity within the areas

where they are located.

C. I have assessed the landscapes of the Marlborough Sounds (Sounds) at

different levels of analysis, and I consider that at each of the levels I have

considered, the landscapes of the Sounds may be regarded as outstanding

natural landscapes (ONL).

D. I do not regard the term ‘landscape’, when applied in the context of the NZKS

proposal, as referring solely to the terrestrial environment. I have defined the

ONLs of the Sounds as including the marine and terrestrial environments,

such that land and sea constitute an holistic conceptualisation of landscape.

The marine environment contributes in large measure to the naturalness and

landscape significance of all Sounds landscapes.

E. With reference to a scale of naturalness, I have assessed the naturalness of

the Sounds landscapes that are the primary concern of my evidence (the

Waitata Reach and the Inner and Outer Queen Charlotte Sound) as Moderate

—High within the terrestrial component, and at least High within the marine

component of the coastal environment. All the landscapes I have considered

pass the threshold of naturalness I have proposed to be regarded as natural

enough for s6(b) significance (i.e., as outstanding natural landscapes).

3


F. I consider the aesthetic characteristics and qualities of the Sounds to be the

principal factor in determining the significance of the Sounds landscapes at all

levels of analysis. Aesthetic qualities are supported by the natural science

significance of the Sounds, and community-held values associated with the

Sounds, particularly sense of place.

G. I consider that in addressing the effects of the NZKS proposal largely with

respect to individual salmon farms, the assessment of environmental effects

and the evidence of Mr Boffa has failed to acknowledge cumulative adverse

effects that will stem from the proximity of several farms together. Cumulative

adverse effects must also be considered in the context of extensive existing

aquaculture activities, particularly mussel farming in Pelorus Sound, but also

existing salmon farms.

H. In my opinion, adverse effects on naturalness should take into account the

effects of the proposal on the natural behaviour of seabirds and marine

mammals, particularly fur seals and dolphins. Through acculturation to marine

farming structures and activities, behavioural changes in wildlife will constitute

a significant adverse effect on the wildlife component of the natural character

of the Sounds. These changes will have flow-on effects on the appreciation of

the aesthetics of the environment, and the enjoyment of the amenity of the

Sounds environment.

I. I consider the NZKS proposal will have significant adverse effects on the

landscapes, natural character and amenity of Waitata Reach and Queen

Charlotte Sound. In particular, I have examined these effects with respect to

the particular concerns expressed by the submitters on whose behalf I have

prepared evidence. I conclude that individually and cumulatively, the Waitata

Reach farms (White Horse Rock, Waitata, Kaitira, Tapipi and Richmond) and

the Queen Charlotte farms (Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko) will adversely affect the

natural character and aesthetic values of these landscapes, and the amenity

currently enjoyed by the submitters.

4


J. Having considered the landscape and natural character effects of the

proposal, I conclude that the effects will be adverse, and the proposal

inconsistent with Policies 13, 14 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy

Statement (NZCPS) and sections 6(a) and 6(b) of the Resource Management

Act (RMA).

K. I have considered separately the potential landscape, natural character and

amenity effects associated with the resource consent application for the White

Horse Rock salmon farm in the Waitata Reach of Pelorus Sound. I have

concluded that the effects will be adverse, and the proposal will be

inconsistent with Policies 13, 14 and 15 of the NZCPS, and the relevant

provisions of the MSRMP as they relate to marine farming in the CMZ2 zone.

QUALIFICATIONS AS AN EXPERT AND AMBIT OF EVIDENCE

1. My name is Michael Lawrence Steven. I am a practicing landscape planner

and landscape architect based in Queenstown.

2. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses (section 5 of the

Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2011). I agree to comply with

this Code of Conduct. This evidence is within my area of expertise. I have not

omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from

the opinions that I express.

Qualifications and experience

3. I hold a Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture (Environment-Behaviour Studies)

from the Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney (Australia), a Master of

Landscape Architecture by research from the Faculty of the Built

Environment, UNSW (Sydney, Australia), a postgraduate Diploma in

Landscape Architecture from Lincoln College (University of Canterbury), and

a Diploma in Horticulture (Distinction) from Lincoln College.

4. I am a member of the International Association for Society and Resource

Management (IASRM), the Environmental Design Research Association

(EDRA), and the Resource Management Law Association (RMLA). My area of

expertise is environment-behaviour studies, particularly environmental

5


perception, and human factors in landscape design, planning and

management.

5. My PhD research investigated the dimensions of environmental experience, in

particular ‘environmental knowing’, or the way in which we make sense of the

physical environment through our responses to the stimuli we perceive in the

environment.

6. I have over 25 years of experience in the landscape architecture profession,

both in New Zealand and Australia. A large part of my professional career has

focused upon landscape assessment theory and practice. I have taught at

tertiary institutions in Australia and New Zealand for 13 years. For the past 6

years I have been in private practice as a landscape architect and landscape

planner in New Zealand. My recent professional work has involved landscape

assessments and the presentation of expert evidence to local authority

hearings and the Environment Court on landscape issues for a wide range of

sites around New Zealand.

7. My evidence draws upon my experiences and qualifications in landscape

architecture and landscape planning, but extends into areas of environment-

behaviour studies that might normally be regarded as outside the expertise of

landscape architects/landscape planners. In doing so I draw upon my PhD

qualification and research into environmental experience in an holistic sense.

My evidence on wildlife behaviour and its effects on environmental experience

comes into this area of my expertise.

Ambit of my evidence

8. My evidence is presented on behalf of two submitters, one of whom (PJ and

KSJ Halstead) owns property in Kaitapeha Bay, Queen Charlotte Sound,

while the other (Pelorus Wildlife Sanctuaries Ltd, Buchanan, Elkington and

whanau) own property in the Waitata Reach of Pelorus Sound, and have a

traditional kaitiakitanga association with Pelorus Sound. Many of the issues to

be addressed in my evidence are common to both parties. Accordingly, in the

interests of brevity and efficiency my evidence is presented in three parts:

6


8.1. PART 1: evidence addressing ‘whole of Marlborough Sounds’ issues

affecting each submitter generally. This section of my evidence will

address higher level issues of landscape significance, natural

character and amenity as they apply to the Marlborough Sounds

overall. I shall address issues arising with respect to sections 6 and 7

of the Resource Management Act (RMA), and the New Zealand

Coastal Policy Statement, 2010 (NZCPS), in particular Policies 13, 14

and 15.

8.2. PART 2: evidence on behalf of PJ and KSJ Halstead that applies in

particular to the effects of the proposed Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko

salmon farms in Queen Charlotte Sound.

8.3. PART 3: evidence on behalf of Pelorus Wildlife Sanctuaries Ltd,

Buchanan, Elkington and whanau, that applies in particular to the

effects of salmon farms proposals within the Waitata Reach of

Pelorus Sound, including the proposed White Horse Rock salmon

farm.

9. In the interests of brevity I do not repeat descriptions of the project as

contained in the evidence of Mr Frank Boffa and other experts for the

applicant. To the extent possible I also rely upon maps, figures and

photographs prepared by the applicant, and which are included in the

applicant’s documentation.

Data, information, facts and assumptions relied upon to form opinions

10. In preparing this evidence I have undertaken fieldwork by land and sea in

both Queen Charlotte Sound and the Waitata Reach of Pelorus Sound. I have

visited the location of each of the proposed salmon farms within these areas. I

have also inspected existing salmon farms in Ruakaka Bay (Queen Charlotte

Sound) and Waihinau Bay (Waitata Reach, Pelorus Sound) and the Forsyth

Bay site that alternates with the Waihinau Bay farm.

11. I have a familiarity with Queen Charlotte Sound that has been built up as a

result of many visits over a period of some 55 years.

7


12. I have read those application documents that are relevant to the areas of my

evidence.

13. I have reviewed the following statements of evidence of other experts for the

applicant:

Mr Frank Boffa (landscape and natural character)

Mr Paul Sagar (seabirds)

Mr Martin Cawthorn (marine mammals)

Mr Mark Preece (salmon farming)

Mr David Bamford (tourism and recreation)

Mr Scott Hooson (terrestrial ecology)

14. Other literature or material which I have used or relied upon in support of my

opinions is referenced in footnotes.

8


PART 1: GENERAL MATTERS RELATING TO LANDSCAPE SIGNIFICANCE AND NATURAL CHARACTER

15. This section of my evidence covers general issues that relate to the

submissions of each of the submitters on behalf of whom I have prepared

evidence. In particular I address:

15.1. the visual character and quality of salmon farms;

15.2. the definition of the landscape context for the assessment of the

landscape and the effects of the proposal;

15.3. the natural character of the landscape context with respect to section

6(a) of the RMA, and policy 13 of the NZCPS, and the effects of the

proposal with respect to those statutory documents;

15.4. the significance of the landscape context with respect to section 6(b)

of the RMA and Policy 15 of the NZCPS.

15.5. the effects of the proposal on the natural character and landscape

significance of the Marlborough Sounds.

16. This section of my evidence reflects the three key steps of the general

landscape assessment process for RMA purposes referred to by Mr Boffa at

paragraph 5.12 of his evidence-in-chief. Mr Boffa refers to a recent marine

farming decision of the Environment Court, in which this approach is

endorsed1. I agree with this approach, which I repeat here for ease of

reference:

16.1. identify the landscape in which the project is set

16.2. ascertain whether the landscape is natural, and if so, how natural,

16.3. assess whether any natural landscape is outstanding.

17. This is a simplified, three step version of a rather more complex process that

I expand upon in diagrammatic form in Appendix A to this evidence.

9


1 Decision No. (2012) NZEnvC 72. 26 April 2012 (Paragraph 78)

18. I do not consider that each of these factors requires exhaustive analysis in

this matter, as some of the factors are given by the circumstances of the

hearing; being a Board of Inquiry into a matter of national significance

concerning the Marlborough Sounds (or Sounds)2 as a whole, which are

acknowledged nationally as an outstanding natural landscape. This is

accepted by Mr Boffa in his evidence at paragraph 7.7.

19. While acknowledging the Sounds overall as an ONL, the following sections

analyse the landscape context in greater detail to determine the

appropriateness of other scales of analysis, and other analytical concepts for

the assessment of effects.

THE AESTHETIC CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF SALMON FARMS

20. I commence my evidence with some general observations on the aesthetic

characteristics of salmon farms. They are, in my opinion, a form of industrial-

style, ‘factory farming’ development, lacking in any redeeming characteristics

or qualities of an aesthetic nature, and quite ill-suited for locating within

landscapes exhibiting more than a moderate degree of naturalness or

aesthetic quality.

21. I have given evidence on landscape matters in connection with a wide range

of developments within rural and natural landscapes, including wind farms

and center-pivot irrigation. I have carefully considered the aesthetic

arguments for and against wind turbines and centre pivot irrigators in the

landscape, and while I acknowledge that many people find such ‘industrial’

devices aesthetically offensive, yet I remain of the opinion that each type of

development can be regarded as having aesthetic merit, and even an

elegance and poetic quality derived from its form and functionality. As a

consequence, wind farms appear to be supported and opposed on aesthetic

grounds in equal measure, and irrigators and other farm-related structures

(feed silos, milking sheds) are similarly regarded by different sections of the

community.

10


2 For convenience and brevity I use the term ‘Sounds’ to mean the Marlborough Sounds throughout this evidence.

22. No defensible aesthetic argument for salmon farming structures of the type

proposed, when situated in natural environments comes to mind. Indeed, I

regard them as an affront to the maintenance of the aesthetic quality of

natural environments. I concede, as is noted in the recreation and tourism

evidence of Mr Bamford, that some may find salmon farms interesting.

However, I note that Mr Bamford places visits to salmon farms in the context

of ‘industrial tourism’. I also note that ‘interesting’ does not necessarily equate

with endorsement in an aesthetic sense. There are many industrial

developments that I might find interesting, while preferring that they did not

exist within certain contexts, for reasons of landscape and environmental

quality - particularly aesthetic quality.

23. Many forms of infrastructure development occur within the marine

environment of the Marlborough Sounds, including wharves, jetties, boat

sheds, slipways and navigation beacons. Vessels of many sizes and designs

ply the waters of the Sounds. Generally, I find such marine developments and

all vessels appropriate to context and often highly pleasing, aesthetically.

Mussel farms are found in a great many localities with the Sounds, and while

approaching visual saturation point in many locations, their visible

infrastructure consists of the simplest of maritime structures - the buoy.

24. The key to the aesthetic success of built infrastructure within the coastal

marine environment I consider to be the concept of congruity. Most maritime

developments and infrastructure display congruity, or a sense of fitness or

appropriateness to their context, or a sense of belonging in the place where

they are found.

25. I cannot conceive of any location within the Marlborough Sounds where a

salmon farm of the type proposed would appear anything but an incongruous

element in the landscape. (I exclude the proposed Port Gore farm from this

comment, as I am unfamiliar with its design.)

26. I do not regard the notion that the Marlborough Sounds is a ‘working

landscape’ (see the evidence of Mr Boffa, paragraphs 3.7, 7.3, 6.43, 6.66,

6.74, and 8.9) as justification for the addition of salmon farms to the

11


landscapes of the Marlborough Sounds. All areas of rural New Zealand in

primary production may be regarded as a working rural landscape, yet

community desires for the maintenance of aesthetic quality of the

environment deem many rural production activities (e.g., factory farming,

forestry) inappropriate for large tracts of the rural landscape. Not all primary

production activities are equally suited to all working landscapes.

27. Similar concerns are reflected in the zoning of the Marlborough Sounds to

control the location of marine farming activities. Within the Marlborough

Sounds, these tracts of landscape have been identified in the MSRMP as

Coastal Marine Zone 1:

In Coastal Marine Zone 1 the Plan identifies those areas where marine farms are prohibited in accordance with Policies 9.2.1.1.1 and 9.2.1.1.6. These areas are identified as being where marine farming will have a significant adverse effect on navigational safety, recreational opportunities, natural character, ecological systems, or cultural, residential or amenity values.

28. It is my understanding that all the proposed salmon farms, with the exception

of the White Horse Rock farm, are within the Coastal Marine Zone 1. While

areas of landscape within the Coastal Marine Zone 1 may exhibit many of the

characteristics of working landscapes, they are nevertheless landscapes

within which certain primary production activities - marine farming - have been

deemed inappropriate for reasons outlined in the excerpt cited in the previous

paragraph.

29. In my opinion, there are no mitigating characteristics or qualities of the

affected landscapes, nor are there any mitigating aesthetic qualities of the

proposed activities that would justify changes to the current zoning, at least

insofar as matters of naturalness, landscape quality and amenity are

concerned.

30. I consider the points made above are clearly illustrated with reference to the

graphic images presented by Boffa Miskell Ltd, e.g., ‘Site Photographs CP1-

CP4: Salmon Farm at Clay Point’, included in the Natural Character,

Landscape and Visual Amenity Graphic Supplement, November 2011.

12


DEFINING THE LANDSCAPE CONTEXT

31. I commence this section with explanatory comments on some of the principles

I have applied in defining landscapes for the purposes of assessing the

effects of the NZKS proposal.

32. Landscape assessments undertaken for the purposes of determining the

effects of a project must be premised upon a defined landscape, as the

magnitude or significance of effects are often expressed relative to the context

of the reference landscape.

33. While acknowledging that landscapes in fact form a perceptual continuum, for

assessment purposes landscapes require definition according to boundaries

such that they have “a sense of inner coherence and unity” (Lyle, 19993).

34. As a general principle, the appropriate scale of reference will be at the lowest

level that provides sufficient explanation of a situation, “to account for as

much as possible by explanations that are as simple as possible.” (Lyle, 1999,

p.40)

35. On the issue of whether an area should be regarded as a landscape or a

landscape feature, except where aspects of the land are clearly differentiated

and distinguished by reasons of say, topography or geology from the ambient

landscape, I apply the term ‘landscape’ rather than ‘landscape feature’ to the

Marlborough Sounds generally, and its component landscape character

areas. Mr Boffa appears ambivalent over the question of whether the

Marlborough Sounds are a landscape or a landscape feature. However I

consider the appropriate analysis is to regard the Sounds as a complex of

nested landscapes, within which certain features are identifiable by reasons of

their differentiation from the ambient landscapes that surround them. The

smaller islands (e.g., Chetwode, Maud, Blumine, Motuara, Pickersgill and

Long Islands) are a clear example of landscape features within the Sounds,

but I do not regard Arapawa Island as a landscape feature owing to its size.

13


3 Lyle, JT (1999). Design for Human Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC

36. The definition of landscapes for assessment purposes is generally undertaken

on the basis of what are commonly referred to as landscape character areas.

These are areas of landscape defined according to “distinct, recognisable and

consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that makes one landscape

different from another, rather than better or worse.” 4

37. Landscape character areas can be defined at any scale, but generally

landscape character areas fit together, “...as a nested series or a hierarchy of

landscape character types and/or areas so that assessment at each level

adds more detail to the one above.”5 Accordingly, the Sounds overall can be

regarded as a landscape character area (or landscape), within which are

nested the landscape character areas (or landscapes) of Queen Charlotte

Sound, Pelorus Sound, Keneperu Sound and Tory Channel.

38. There comes a level of analysis, however, where a landscape character area

can no longer be regarded as a landscape - at least not in terms of the way it

is understood for s6(b) purposes. At this point, the analysis becomes

concerned with topographic aspects or elements; constituent parts of a

landscape, as distinct from landscapes as a whole.

39. At smaller scales, the analysis of landscape character areas within the

Marlborough Sounds is confounded by the highly complex nature of the

Marlborough Sounds topography. There is no correct analysis of landscape

character areas in my opinion, as the Sounds overall are open to a multitude

of different interpretations, according to the scale of analysis chosen. Some

areas define themselves more readily than others, at least in topographical

terms. The individual sounds (Queen Charlotte, Pelorus and Keneperu) are

reasonably coherent, although the complexity of Pelorus Sound suggests the

need for further subdivision, such that the Waitata Reach of Pelorus Sound

can be regarded as a coherent landscape character area nested within the

larger Pelorus Sound, with which it shares many common characteristics.

Similarly, many individual bays in the outer sounds (eg, Beatrix Bay, Forsyth

14


4 Swanwick C. (2002). Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland. Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage

5 ibid

Bay and Gore Bay) may be regarded as individual landscape character areas

for landscape assessment purposes.

40. As well as the problems imposed on the identification of landscape character

areas by topographical complexity, the definition of landscape character areas

(or landscapes) is also confounded by the role of the sea. The sea, or at least

the surface of the marine environment, is unambiguously an integral part of all

Marlborough Sounds landscapes, at any scale of analysis. However, unlike

the terrestrial environment, which compartmentalises on the basis of

topography (e.g., hydrological catchments), there is a continuity to the sea, an

absence of bounding features, that links areas together and helps create the

perceptual continuum I referred to above. In my opinion, it is the unifying

character of the marine environment that enables areas like the Waitata

Reach to be perceived as a single, coherent landscape character area, or

landscape.

41. The Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan (MSRMP) landscape

maps illustrate an approach to the delineation of ONLs that I consider has no

methodological or theoretical support. I illustrate this with reference to the

map included a ‘Figure B2: Land Cover Plan: Waitata Reach’. within the

Natural Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity Graphic Supplement (Vol.

1) dated November 2011. This figure shows the extent of ONL within the

Waitata Reach, and I understand these areas to be based upon the extent of

ONL defined in the landscape maps that form part of the MSRMP. I have

included a copy of Map 74 (of the MSRMP landscape maps) as Appendix D to

this evidence, but the larger scale and greater topographical detail of Figure

B2 is easier to comprehend. The legend to Figure B2 states that the areas of

ONL are according to ‘MDC Areas of Outstanding Landscape 23rd May 2011’.

I understand these to be the same as the ONL areas shown on the planning

maps, rather than those as defined in the 2009 Boffa Miskell study undertaken

for Marlborough District Council - unless the ONL areas are the same.

41.1. The aspect of these maps (B2 and MSRMP Map 74) that I am critical

of is the assumption that ONLs are not continuous across stretches of

15


water. Planning Map 77 in the MSRMP does this in Tennyson Inlet,

such that the Tennyson Inlet ONL includes the waters of the inlet

entirely. Yet this convention is not followed through in other areas

where two areas of ONL are separated by a stretch of water.

41.2. Referring to Figure B2, there is no basis, in terms of either

naturalness nor outstandingness for the ONLs of Kaitira Point,

Duffers Reef, Forsyth Island, the Chetwode Islands, and Cannon Hill

(Cannon Pt to Danger Pt) not to be continuous. There is no empirical,

theoretical or methodological reason to draw a limit to an ONL a short

(but variable) distance off shore.

41.3. Similarly, I question why the ONL of Maud Island is not continuous

across the Apuau Channel with the ONL of Yellow Cliffs to Hallam

Cove (hidden by the Legend in Figure B2, but visible on Landscape

Map 74). Both the Maud Island ONL and the adjacent ONL on the

mainland extend into the sea, but for inexplicable reasons, stop short

of joining to form a continuous ONL.

41.4. It is my opinion that in principle, where an area of ONL extends into

the marine environment, there is no justification for drawing an

arbitrary line limiting the extent of that ONL within the marine

environment. On this basis the entire water surface of the Waitata

Reach can justifiably be regarded as part of an ONL, in my opinion.

41.5. Applying the same principle, it is justifiable to regard all the waters of

Queen Charlotte Sound and Tory Channel as ONL (see Figure D6:

Site Location Plan: Kaitapeha; Figure D7: Site Location Plan:

Ruaomoko; and Figure E2: Land Cover Plan: Tory Channel, in the

Natural Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity Graphic

Supplement folios). Each of these graphics show areas of ONL

extending into the marine environment for varying distances, yet

limited by arbitrary lines that have no empirical basis in either

naturalness or significance.

16


41.6. Such an approach is not inconsistent with the manner in which other

waterbodies have been identified as an ONL. Lake Taupo is regarded

as an ONL in its entirety, as are lakes Wakatipu and Pukaki. The

marine environment of Golden Bay is also regarded as an ONL in its

entirety.

42. Inevitably the issue arises, as it has done in the evidence of Mr Boffa, of

whether the ‘outstanding’ accolade that applies to the Sounds as a whole,

also applies to landscapes when defined at lesser scale of analysis - and

ultimately, whether the term outstanding can be applied (or not, as the case

may be) to parts of landscapes at the scale at which the effects of individual

proposed salmon farms are considered. This raises two key questions:

42.1. What is the lowest level of analysis appropriate to the assessment of

outstanding natural landscapes, and effects on outstanding natural

landscapes within the Marlborough Sounds?

42.2. Having established the lowest appropriate level of analysis, to which

landscapes do the proposed salmon farms ‘belong’ for assessment

purposes.

43. In answer to the first of the questions posed above, I have identified the

following areas as landscapes for the purposes of assessing the current

proposal:

43.1. In my opinion the same qualities and characteristics that make the

Sounds outstanding as a whole (what I shall refer to as the 1st level

of analysis) also apply at a 2nd level of analysis, such that Pelorus

Sound, Queen Charlotte Sound and Tory Channel may be regarded

individually as landscapes, and outstanding natural landscapes. In

my opinion there is no basis for regarding these 2nd level landscapes

as not having the same outstanding characteristics and qualities that

define the Sounds as a whole as outstanding.

43.2. The landscape of Pelorus Sound is capable of resolution into several

3rd level landscapes, largely on the basis of reaches, larger bays and

17


inlets. Accordingly, Tennyson Inlet, Tawhitinui Reach and Waitata

Reach (among other areas) may each be considered as landscapes

for s6(b) purposes. My knowledge of Pelorus Sound is restricted to

the outer Sounds area and within this context I consider the

landscape of the Waitata Reach to be an ONL.

43.3. Tory Channel can be further subdivided into two 3rd level landscapes,

being the outer Tory Channel east of a line drawn between Te Uira-

Karapa Point and Motukina Point, and an inner Tory Channel

landscape extending west of the same line to Dieffenbach Point/

Ruaomoko Point. I regard both the inner and outer Tory Chanel

landscapes as being an ONL.

43.4. Also at a third level of analysis, Queen Charlotte Sound, as with Tory

Channel, may be understood as having an ‘outer sounds’ character

area and an ‘inner sounds’ character area, in the sense used by Mr

Boffa, but modified to recognise what I consider to be a more

defensible boundary between the two areas (see next section). Each

of these areas may be regarded as landscapes, and outstanding

natural landscapes.

43.5. Within the Inner and Outer Queen Charlotte Sound, a 4th level of

analysis is possible at the level of the larger individual bays, such that

the Bay of Many Coves, Ruakaka Bay and Blackwood Bay (among

many others) may be regarded as landscapes.

44. Using selected landscapes as examples, this analysis may be summarised as

follows (Table 1):

18


First LevelLandscapes

Second LevelLandscapes

Third LevelLandscapes

Fourth LevelLandscapes

Marlborough Sounds

Pelorus Sound Waitata Reach Waitata Bay

Waihinau Bay

Forsyth Bay

Tawhitinui Reach

Queen Charlotte Sound

Outer Queen Charlotte

Endeavour Inlet

Bay of Many Coves

Inner Queen Charlotte

Ruakaka Bay

Blackwood Bay

Tory Channel Outer Tory Channel

Inner Tory Channel

Table 1: An analysis of a hierarchy of landscapes within the Marlborough Sounds, using selected examples of landscapes. At each level of analysis, the named landscapes can be regarded as separate landscapes for s6(b) purposes.

45. Within all the 3rd level landscapes identified above there are a multitude of

smaller bays - and I include Kaitapeha Bay (outer Queen Charlotte Sound

landscape) and Ngamahau Bay (outer Tory Channel landscape) that are too

small to be regarded as landscapes in their own right, and are properly

assessed in the context of the larger 3rd level landscapes to which they

belong. I have allocated the salmon farms to their relevant landscape contexts

in Table 2:

19


Proposed Salmon Farm Landscape Context

Kaitira

Waitata Reach landscape character area

Waitata/Whitehorse RockWaitata Reach landscape character

areaTapipi


Richmond


Papatua Port Gore landscape character area

KaitapehaOuter Queen Charlotte landscape

character areaRuaomoko

Outer Queen Charlotte landscape character area

Ngamahau Outer Tory Channel landscape character area

Table 2: The landscape context of the proposed salmon farms, according to landscapes defined in Table 1.

46. In my opinion, the accolade of outstanding natural landscape applies to all the

landscapes identified in Table 2. I address the justification for this opinion in a

later section of my evidence (commencing paragraph 104).

47. Within each of these landscapes, the land/sea interface - in particular the

intricate, irregular and sometimes confusing complexity associated with the

patterns of bays and headlands of the Sounds - is a particularly significant

aspect in terms of defining the character and aesthetic quality of the Sounds.

Indeed, it could be regarded as one of the defining characteristics of the

Sounds. I do not regard any landscape within the Sounds as being wholly

terrestrial - all areas that are capable of being defined as a landscape

character area include a terrestrial and marine component. The land/sea

interface is the most sensitive area of each landscape, and the area most

likely to be compromised in terms of naturalness and aesthetic quality through

salmon farms.

The Concepts of Inner Sounds and Outer Sounds

48. Mr Boffa draws upon the concepts of ‘outer sounds’ and ‘inner sounds’, as

originally defined in a 1992 study of the Marlborough Sounds undertaken by

20


Boffa Miskell and referred to at paragraph 3.2 - 3.3 of Mr Boffa’s evidence.

According to Mr Boffa:

48.1. Outer sounds are more exposed to the wilder waters of Cook Strait

and the open sea, making this area “more open and rugged in

appearance and character”.

48.2. The inner sounds in contrast, are: ”...more defined and sheltered

environments.”

49. I regard these as useful concepts, particularly insofar as an understanding of

the character, naturalness, amenity and aesthetic experience of the Sounds is

concerned. However, I disagree with the definition of the inner/outer sounds

boundary within Queen Charlotte Sound. There is no justification, in my

opinion, for the inner sounds of Queen Charlotte Sound extending

considerably further into the more open and exposed waters to the north west

in Queen Charlotte Sound than is the case in Tory Channel.

50. Mr Boffa shows the entire Tory Channel as being within the outer sounds,

extending from a line drawn between Dieffenbach Point and Ruaomoko Point

at the western extreme of Arapawa Island, to Cook Strait. Within Queen

Charlotte Sound however, Mr Boffa shows the inner sounds as extending as

far as Blumine Island.

51. Based upon my own experience of Queen Charlotte Sound, I regard the outer

sounds in Queen Charlotte Sound as commencing at line drawn between

Dieffenbach Point and West Head, on the headland between Ruakaka Bay

and Bay of Many Coves. Whether considering Tory Channel or Queen

Charlotte Sound, I regard the outer sounds as commencing at Dieffenbach

Point. Both experiential characteristics and geographical factors justify this

change. There is no basis for the inner sounds extending further towards the

open sea in Queen Charlotte Sound than in Tory Channel. There should be a

common point at which this transition occurs, and Dieffenbach Point provides

this, in my opinion.

21


52. This redefinition of inner and outer sounds locates the proposed Kaitapeha

and Ruaomoko farms within the outer sounds, rather than the inner sounds as

Mr Boffa proposes. I shall explain the implications of this when I address

amenity issues associated with these two farms in Part 3 of my evidence.

The Coastal Environment

53. A further analytical construct relevant to the definition of environments in this

matter is the coastal environment. While much debate in coastal resource

management issues centres upon how the coastal environment should be

defined in the context of the NZCPS (and the Department of Conservation is

yet to issue guidelines on the matter), I understand there is a general

consensus among landscape practitioners that the coastal environment

includes:

53.1. the coastal marine environment;

53.2. a coastal dominance zone extending inland for some 100m - 500m;

53.3. a coastal context zone that may extend inland a further 1km - 2km,

depending upon coastal influences.

54. I note with respect to the coastal marine environment component that

assessments of naturalness must factor in the state of the entire water

column from water surface to sea bed, and the ecological components of the

marine environment within this column.

55. I understand from Mr Boffa’s evidence that the NZKS proposal is entirely

within the coastal environment, and I agree. It is apparent from the contexts

referred to in the previous paragraph that the entire marine environment and a

significant proportion of the terrestrial environment of the Marlborough

Sounds is within the marine environment. As such, the NZCPS applies to the

Marlborough Sounds almost in its entirety.

NATURAL CHARACTER, OR NATURALNESS

56. Throughout this section and in my evidence generally, I use the terms

naturalness and natural character interchangeably. I regard them as one and

22


the same concept, and I am unaware of any attempt to differentiate the

meaning of the two terms in landscape planning practice.

57. Natural character is an aspect of the wider concept of landscape character.

Both phenomena are the product of objective, descriptive analyses of a

landscape. They are not ‘values’ per se, although landscape character and

natural character may be valued. It is in valuing a particular type of landscape

character that a landscape assumes significance, such as may be indicated

by the accolade ‘outstanding’, when used in s6(b) terms. The question of

whether a particular expression of natural character is valued must be

determined by a separate evaluative exercise. However, I qualify this

statement by acknowledging that s6(a) of the RMA does establish a value for

natural character, particularly insofar as the natural character of the coastline

is concerned, being referred to in two ‘matters of national importance’ in Part

2, section 6 of the RMA:

(a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

58. Naturalness, or natural character is also critical to the evaluation of

outstanding natural landscapes and features (ONLF), and effects upon

ONLFs,

(b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

59. John Stuart Mill, cited in Parsons (Parsons, G. 2008, Aesthetics and Nature,

Continuum, London), defines nature in the following terms:

Nature is what takes place without the agency, or without the voluntary and intentional agency, of man. (p.2)

60. An implication of this definition is that modifications or interventions in natural

environments through human agency diminish naturalness. This is reflected in

a definition6 of natural character that has found acceptance in landscape

assessment practice and with the Environment Court:

23


6 Ministry for the Environment, Environmental Performance Indicators, Landscape Aspect of Natural Character, Stage 1 – Initial Findings – A report prepared by Boffa Miskell Ltd for the MfE, February 2002.

Natural Character is the term used to describe the naturalness of all coastal environments. The degree or level of natural character within an area depends on:

1. The extent to which the natural elements, patterns and processes occur;2. The nature and extent of modification to the ecosystems and landscape/

seascape.

The highest degree of natural character (greatest naturalness) occurs where there is least modification.

The effect of different types of modification upon the natural character of an area varies with the context, and may be perceived differently by different parts of the community.

61. This definition is essentially the same as the definition7 adopted by Mr Boffa at

paragraph 5.3, with which I agree also.

62. I regard it as a matter of importance that assessments undertaken for the

purpose of section 6(a) of the RMA, and for the purposes of Policies 13, 14

and 15 of the NZCPS be based upon a rigorous, objective approach to the

assessment of biophysical naturalness. Adopting this approach, and as

generally accepted by landscape practitioners and the Environment Court,

there is a continuum of naturalness, extending from pristine (very high

naturalness) to a wholly developed cityscape (very low-nil naturalness). The

position on the continuum, or scale at which the naturalness of a feature or

landscape is assessed will be dependent on the extent to which human

agency has modified natural patterns, natural elements and natural processes

through interventions and ongoing management.

63. For the assessment of landscapes generally, I apply a 7-point scale (Table 3).

In my opinion, in the wider landscape, 7 degrees of naturalness are easily

differentiated. Each sector within the scale reflects a minor range of

naturalness within the overall scale or continuum, such that Very High

naturalness includes both pristine and also levels of naturalness approaching

pristine. Pristine is the highest degree of naturalness, while naturalness

characteristic of an inner city urban environment is at the opposite end of the

scale.

24


7 Mr Boffa gives the origins of this definition as being ‘Natural Character and the NZCPS 2010 – National Workshop convened by the Department of Conservation, 2 August 2011.’

VERY HIGH HIGHMODERATE-

HIGH MODERATEMODERATE-

LOW LOW VERY LOW

TABLE 3: 7-point scale of naturalness for the assessment of the degree of natural character exhibited by a landscape. The shaded part of the scale is the range within which natural processes become dominant over cultural processes, and represent the range within which a landscape may be regarded as natural enough for s6(b) purposes.

64. This scale of naturalness was endorsed by the Environment Court in

paragraph [93] of its decision in High Country Rosehip Orchards Ltd v

Mackenzie District Council 8.

65. I consider the threshold of naturalness required for s6(b) assessments lies

between Moderate and Moderate-High on this scale. This is the point at which

natural processes become dominant over cultural processes within the

landscape. Expressions of naturalness within the shaded range of the scale at

Table 3 may be regarded as natural enough for consideration as outstanding

natural features and landscapes (ONFL).

66. For this scale to be used in the field, it is necessary to identify and observe

objective indicators that are indicative of different levels of naturalness along

the scale. These indicators generally relate to the levels of human intervention

or management evident in a landscape, and the extent to which interventions

have modified natural elements, natural patterns and natural processes within

both the terrestrial and marine environments.

67. Mr Boffa appears to refer to a similar (but not identical) scale in undertaking

his assessments of naturalness, but I understand him to rely strongly upon Mr

Hooson’s approach in assessing the naturalness of the terrestrial

environment. Mr Hooson’s approach is limited to the assessment of the

ecological state of terrestrial environments, and as such his scale covers a

more limited range of environments (see Attachment 1 at p.24 of Mr Hooson’s

evidence: ‘Five step scale used to assess ecological naturalness’), and does

so with reference to a more limited range of indicators. I understand Mr Boffa

to acknowledge the limitations of Mr Hooson’s approach when applied to

landscapes in an holistic sense, as distinct from ecosystems. Mr Hooson’s

25


8 Decision No [2011] NZEnvC 387, at paragraph [93]

approach is limited particularly when applied to landscapes that are a

composite of marine and terrestrial environments.

68. In the case of landscapes that include both a terrestrial and marine

component, the assessment of naturalness is made particularly complex by

the necessity to take account of the naturalness of the marine environment,

which extends throughout the depth of the water column. As Mr Boffa’s

assessments of naturalness have relied strongly upon the assessments of

terrestrial environments undertaken by Mr Scott Hooson, and as Mr Boffa and

I both share reservations regarding this approach, I consider Mr Boffa’s

assessment to be only partially relevant - Mr Boffa’s assessments of

naturalness tell only half the story.

69. This partial assessment of naturalness is relevant to the reliability of Mr

Boffa’s assessment of the effects of farms on naturalness, but also to the

reliability of Mr Boffa’s analysis of ONFLs, and the evaluation of adverse

effects on ONFLs. Overall, Mr Boffa’s evidence appears strongly biased

towards considerations of the terrestrial environment, as distinct from:

69.1. composite marine/terrestrial landscape character areas assessed for

the purposes of s6(b), such as I have identified in Table 2; and,

69.2. the coastal environment as understood in terms of section 6(a) of the

RMA, and the NZCPS.

70. It appears this criticism may also be valid when applied to the map of Coastal

Natural Character apparently prepared by Boffa Miskell Ltd, and included in

the Marlborough District Council (MDC) section 149G(3) report as Appendix T.

As this study has not been made available to submitters, I have little

understanding of how it was undertaken and what factors were taken into

account in assessing the naturalness of the Sounds coastal environment.

However, the map included as Appendix T appears to apply only to the

terrestrial environment component of the coastal environment.

26


The naturalness of the marine environment

71. As the coastal environment includes a limited (but variable) extent of the

terrestrial environment, together with the marine environment, including the

entire depth of the water column to the sea floor, it presents some complex

and as yet unresolved problems for assessments of naturalness that require a

single, composite index of naturalness, or natural character.

72. While acknowledging the difficulties associated with developing such an index

of naturalness, I consider it reasonable when making such assessments for

landscape experts to make certain assumptions regarding the naturalness of

the marine environment based upon available knowledge and informed

observations. The inter-tidal zone at least is available for observation and

assessment, as is the surface of the marine environment.

73. An important and observable aspect of naturalness within these areas is

marine fauna, particularly sea birds and marine mammals such as fur seals

and dolphins. The MSRMP acknowledges this in Chapter 2, Natural Character

(p.2-1):

The natural character of the coastal environment and freshwater bodies is comprised of a number of key elements which include: ...• Indigenous flora and fauna, and their habitats;...

74. Mr Boffa makes the following references to marine mammals and birds in his

evidence, in contexts in which they clearly relate to natural character :

74.1. with regard to the Waitata and White Horse Rocks sites (at paragraph

6.22);

74.2. with regard to the Kaitira site (at paragraph 6.26);

74.3. in connection with the Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko sites (at paragraph

6.59);

74.4. with regard to the Ngamahau site (at paragraph 6.79).

27


75. In my opinion birdlife and marine mammals are important natural elements

within the marine environment that visitors and locals alike take considerable

pleasure and interest in. It is a matter of some surprise then, that the only

reference to wildlife viewing in the Marlborough Sounds that appears in Mr

Bamford’s evidence on tourism and recreation is in connection with existing

salmon farms. At paragraph 50 Mr Bamford comments:

In the Queen Charlotte Sound many of the charter and boat operators servicing the Queen Charlotte Track and providing sightseeing tours pass the Ruakaka salmon farm to see seals

...and similar comments appear at paragraph 58:

However, as mentioned in “Industrial tourism” section, marine farms also have the potential to play a significant role in the development of tourism products and experiences. Products that focus on cuisine, general sightseeing, and ecotourism (wildlife viewing) are currently utilising mussel farms in the Pelorus Sound and Ruakaka salmon farm in Queen Charlotte Sound as a key component of their experience.

76. There are some significant implications for natural character in the comment

that wildlife viewing generally, and seal viewing in particular should be

associated with “industrial tourism”, and I address these later in my evidence

when I discuss the effects of the proposed marine farms on wildlife as a

component of naturalness.

77. In summary, I regard it as fundamental for assessments of the natural

character of the coastal environment to take account of the marine

environment to the extent possible. At the very least, in making such

assessments landscape experts should have regard for modifications to the

intertidal zone, and draw upon such knowledge as is available in the marine

environment beyond this. Naturalness assessments should also factor in the

presence of wildlife, including marine mammals and sea birds. The corollary

of this statement is that effects of marine farming on marine wildlife should be

taken into account in assessing effects on natural character.

78. On the basis of the foregoing comments, and with reference to the scale

presented in Table 3, I have set out in Table 4 my assessment of naturalness

of the landscape character areas that are the focus of my evidence.

28


Landscape Context Assessment of naturalness (Steven)

Assessment of naturalness (MDC s149G

(3) report1


Moderate - High (terrestrial)High (marine) High natural character

Outer Queen Charlotte landscape character area

Moderate - High (terrestrial)High (marine) High natural character

1 As referred to at paragraph 6.11 of Mr Boffa’s evidence. I note that Mr Boffa’s table at 6.11 refers to NZ King Salmon sites, as distinct from landscapes.

Table 4: Comparison of assessments of naturalness for selected landscapes. No comparison can be drawn between the two assessments as no information is available regarding the overall scale applied in the MDC assessment. In the case of the MDC assessment, it is not known, in terms of the overall range of the scale, what ‘High’ is relative to.

79. My own assessment acknowledges that each of the landscapes contains

areas of the terrestrial environment that have been modified by land use

practices such as forestry and pastoral farming. However even within areas

that are subject to grazing, evidence of indigenous plant colonisation and

regeneration is apparent. Large areas of former pastoral farmland (e.g., the Te

Kopi peninsula in Waitata Reach) are also undergoing regeneration and

restoration to their original indigenous vegetative cover, and active programs

for the removal of wilding conifers are underway in all areas.

80. Within the marine environment, there are no grounds for understanding

naturalness to be any less than that assessed for adjacent areas of the

terrestrial environment. Indeed it is reasonable to conclude that the

naturalness of the marine environment component of the landscapes in Table

4 is at least one range higher in each case, i.e., High.

81. I consider localised areas of the coastal environment within Waitata Reach,

particularly off headlands where marine farming is absent, rate within the Very

High range of the naturalness scale for the marine component, and the High

range of the scale for the terrestrial component. For comparative purposes, I

note that Appendix T (the ‘Coastal Natural Character 2011’ graphic) to the

29


MDC Key Issues Report shows the natural character of the Waitata Reach

coastline from Yellow Cliffs to Bucklands Bay to be Very High, while the entire

coastline of Maud Island is identified as having Very High natural character,

but also ‘Outstanding’ natural character. In this context I understand

outstanding to mean outstanding in terms of Policy 13 of the NZCPS.

82. While the basis for the Appendix T natural character assessment (that I

understand to have been undertaken by Boffa Miskell) remains unknown, I do

not consider the differences in coastal natural character between Maud Island

(rated as Outstanding) and the headlands adjacent to the proposed Waitata

Reach salmon farms (particularly Waitata, Tapipi and Richmond) to be

significantly different.

83. The Kaitira headland may display lower levels of naturalness within the

terrestrial component of the coastal environment than the other Waitata

Reach headlands (largely owing to the grazing evident on the Kaitira

headland) but this headland is, nevertheless, identified by MDC as an

Outstanding Natural Landscape (see Figure B7: Site Location Plan: Kaitira,

graphics folio ‘Natural Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity Graphic

Supplement Part 1’ (November 2011)).

84. While I consider parts of the Waitata Reach to rate within the Very High range

of the naturalness scale, at least within the marine environment, I consider the

very highest levels of naturalness - approaching the pristine end of the

naturalness scale - apply to landscapes, features and the coastal environment

in areas of the outer Marlborough Sounds and Cook Strait, such as the

Chetwode and Rangitoto Islands. This is consistent with areas of Outstanding

Natural Character shown on Appendix T to the MDC Key Issues report.

85. There is no reason to understand the natural character of the marine

component of the coastal environment off the Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko Headland

to be any less than Very High. The naturalness of the terrestrial component

may be Moderate - High, but will increase as wilding pine control measures ,

currently being implemented by the Halsteads and the Department of

Conservation, take effect.

30


86. Moderate - High is the range on the scale at which natural processes start to

dominate over cultural processes. As such, I consider the threshold of

naturalness for s6(b) purposes lies between Moderate - High and Moderate.

All the landscapes within Table 4 therefore pass the threshold of naturalness

required for assessments as ONL. This appears to be consistent with the

MDC naturalness assessment adopted by Mr Boffa.

87. I note however that Mr Boffa’s naturalness assessments generally refer to the

sites of the proposed salmon farms, rather than the landscapes within which

they are proposed to be located. What Mr Boffa intends by ‘site’, and the area

of land/sea covered by the term is not explained. I refer to Mr Boffa’s adoption

of the individual salmon farm site and adjacent areas of land9, as distinct from

landscapes in an holistic sense, as his ‘unit of analysis’ later in my evidence.

However, it is my opinion that the sites of all of the proposed Waitata Reach

farms and the two Queen Charlotte farms (Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko) clearly

pass the threshold of naturalness for consideration at outstanding natural

landscapes.

88. In summary, whether considered at the scale of individual sites, or in their

landscape/coastal environment contexts, the naturalness of all proposed

farms within the Waitata Reach and Queen Charlotte Sound exceeds the

threshold of naturalness for s6(b) purposes, and for the purposes of

identifying outstanding natural landscapes (including seascapes) of the

coastal environment in the context of Policy 15(a) of the NZCPS.

THE ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE SIGNIFICANCE

89. I consider the Marlborough Sounds in their entirety to be an outstanding

natural landscape. The landscape status of the Sounds is stated in Chapter 5

of the MSRMP, and I understand this evaluation to be widely shared within the

community, regionally, and probably nationally. The landscape significance of

31


9 e.g., “In my opinion, the appropriate landscape classification for the north facing slopes adjacent to the proposed Kaitapeha and the Ruaomoko sites would more appropriately be classified a VAL rather than an ONFL.”, Frank Boffa Evidence-in-chief, paragraph 7.24.

the Sounds - being a matter of national significance - is one of the factors

that has seen the NZKS application referred to a Board of Inquiry.10

90. Mr Boffa agrees with this assessment at paragraph 7.5 and 7.6 of his

evidence, where he states:

Chapter 5 of the MSRMP notes that “in its entirety the landscape of the Marlborough Sounds Plan area has outstanding visual values”. Based on this and other assessments I am familiar with, the Marlborough Sounds as a whole would qualify as an Outstanding Feature (and/or Landscape) at a nationwide scale. (paragraph 7.5)

and; The outstanding attributes associated with the Marlborough Sounds are highly valued nationally and internationally for their biophysical, sensory and associated attributes for a variety of reasons. (paragraph 7.6)

91. I take “outstanding visual values” (referred to in section 5.1.1 of the MSRMP)

to mean outstanding aesthetic value, as there is no other plausible

interpretation of the term ‘visual values’. While natural science attributes of

the Sounds are certainly a factor in the significance of the Sounds landscape,

I do not consider them to be as evident to community perceptions, whereas I

regard the aesthetic characteristics and qualities to be ubiquitous and widely

recognised.

92. I have included the section from Chapter 5 of the MSRMP to which Mr Boffa

refers (section 5.1.1 ‘Identification of Outstanding Natural Features and

Landscapes’) as Appendix C to this evidence. A pertinent aspect of the

excerpt I have included is the distinction made between the Sounds as a

whole as a nationally significant ONL, and the identification of individual

areas, or features as being outstanding. It is these areas that are identified on

the Landscape Maps in Volume 3 of the MSRMP.

93. While acknowledging the outstandingness of the Sounds in their entirety, Mr

Boffa defers to the more limited areas identified on the MSRMP Volume 3

Landscape Maps as ‘Areas of Outstanding Landscape Value’ when

considering the implications of the proposal on outstanding natural

landscapes and features. Mr Boffa takes the areas identified on the

32


10 See Minister’s reasons for directing the matter to a Board of Inquiry: (b) affects or is likely to affect a structure, feature, place, or area of national significance (s 142(3)(a)(iii))

Landscape Maps as more authoritative of what is, or is not outstanding. I

understand it is the planning map areas of ONL that are shown on the

Graphic Supplement maps, such as ‘Figure B2: Land Cover Plan: Waitata

Reach’, and ‘Figure B6: Site Location Plan: Waitata.’ I take Mr Boffa’s reliance

on these maps for the identification of ONLs as an indication that he has not

undertaken his own independent assessment.

94. Earlier in my evidence (paragraph 41 and sub-paragraphs) I have been

critical of the manner in which these isolated areas have been defined and

circumscribed on the planning maps, in particular the undue focus on the

terrestrial environment of the Sounds and failure to extend ONLs across the

marine environment to link adjacent areas. However, a possible interpretation

of the maps is that they highlight particular areas, or features, regarded as

outstanding within a landscape that is, as a whole, also outstanding.

95. Alternatively, the manner in which ONFLs are defined and circumscribed in

the MSRMP may reflect the fact that the Department of Conservation study

was undertaken in the context of a narrow, and now superseded, theoretical

and methodological frame of reference.

96. While endorsing the MSRMP statements on landscape significance, Mr Boffa

also casts doubt on the reliability of the study that lead to the identification of

ONFLs within the Sounds. At paragraph 5.9 he states:

Although the MSRMP has mapped outstanding landscape areas within the Sounds at a district/regional level, the methodology used to establish these areas predates recent developments in landscape assessment. Although these existing identified areas are useful, they do not address all of the attributes now considered relevant to the assessment and classification of landscapes and features.

97. The study (in fact 3 studies11) that Mr Boffa refers to is summarised in

Appendix 1 to the MSRMP.

33


11 Department of Conservation ‘Marlborough Sounds Draft Landscape Assessment: Selected Sites’ Earl H. Bennett, Landscape Architect, July 1989.

Department of Conservation (Nelson) ‘Marlborough Sounds Visual Impacts of Coastal Development - Selected Locations’ Earl H. Bennett, FNZILA, Landscape Architect, June 1990 (principal report and appendices).

Department of Conservation (Nelson/Marlborough Conservancy)‘Draft Regional Landscape Assessment’ Sissons and Conway Ltd, June 1993 (a draft unpublished report).

98. The NZKS Landscape Report too, acknowledges the shortcomings of this

study, stating in paragraph 2.4.3 (p.21):

ONFLs have been identified in the MSRMP and are shown on all site location plans for the proposed Salmon Farm sites. Due to the age of the information that has contributed to the identification of ONFLs in the MSRMP and the development of approaches to landscape assessments since that time (prepared and notified in 1995), a brief review is undertaken of each relevant ONFL and a determination made as to its relevance today.

99. I do not regard the reviews of the MSRMP reported in the Landscape Report

as being either reliable or valid, given that the reviews are undertaken on an

ad hoc, site by site basis, considering only the landforms in the immediate

vicinity of each of the proposed salmon farms. Several of the MSRMP ONFLs

are downgraded to Visual Amenity Landscapes (a category of landscape

significance not recognised in the MSRMP), and largely on the basis of local

circumstances. There is no evidence that the review undertaken in the

Landscape Study addresses the shortcomings of the original Department of

Conservation studies, nor does the Landscape Report make explicit the

method used to review the ONFL status of landscapes in the vicinity of the

proposed farms. Most significantly in my opinion, the Landscape Report

review conducts the study on a site-by-site basis, with no apparent

recognition of landscapes in an holistic sense.

100. It does not appear that Mr Boffa has undertaken his own assessment, but he

does allude to a recent update to the 1989-1990 Department of Conservation

study:

...an extensive reassessment of Marlborough’s landscape was recently undertaken and is currently going through the landowner consultation process. MDC also confirmed that in terms of this updated review, the entire Marlborough Sounds are classified as either an Outstanding Natural Feature or Landscape (ONFL) or a Visual Amenity Landscape (VAL).

101. I understand this study to have been undertaken by Boffa Miskell Ltd. It is

referred to on pages 67-68 of the MDC s149G(3) Key Issues report. The key

issues report also records that Boffa Miskell Ltd undertook an assessment of

the natural character of the coastal environment of the Marlborough Sounds.

34


102. Neither of these studies have been released by MDC, so their validity and

reliability cannot be checked. However, the Key Issues report includes a table

of data drawn from the Boffa Miskell 2009 study (reproduced in Table 5).

NZKS Sites Current MSRMP Updated information

Waitata None Visual amenity landscape

Kaitira Outstanding natural landscape

Visual amenity landscape

Taipipi None Visual amenity landscape

Richmond None Visual amenity landscape

Papatua Outstanding natural landscape for part of Pig Bay

Visual amenity landscape Outstanding natural landscape

Kaitapeha None Outstanding natural landscape

Ruaomoko None Outstanding natural landscape

Ngamahau None Visual amenity landscape

TABLE 5: The relationship between NZKS sites, areas of outstanding natural landscape recognised in the MSRMP, and updated information on landscape significance emerging from the 2009 Boffa Miskell Marlborough Sounds landscape assessment (Source: MDC s149G(3) Key Issues report, p.68)

103. Given the importance of the landscape significance of the Marlborough

Sounds to the matter before the Board, I regard it as an issue of some

concern that:

103.1. The NZKS Landscape Report has undertaken what I consider to be a

cursory, ad hoc review of ONFLs as defined in the MSRMP. No

methodology is stated, particularly with respect to the need to

address the acknowledged shortcomings of the 1989 study upon

which MSRMP definitions are based.

103.2. Mr Boffa relies upon 20 year old studies as being authoritative for

determinations of landscape significance, yet also casts doubt on the

validity and reliability of those studies;

35


103.3. A 2009 landscape assessment undertaken by Boffa Miskell Ltd,

alluded to by Mr Boffa and referred to in the Key Issues report is not

yet a public document and its findings have no statutory standing;

103.4. In light of the previous points, I consider the current proposal is being

considered in the absence of any valid, reliable and credible

assessment of the landscape significance of the Marlborough

Sounds, other than the acknowledged standing of the Sounds as a

landscape of national significance.

Aesthetic value as the basis for the landscape significance of the Marlborough Sounds

104. Landscape significance is generally understood to derive from values

associated with:

104.1. Natural science attributes

104.2. Aesthetic character

104.3. Socio-cultural associations and meanings, including in particular the

‘sense(s) of place’ associated with a landscape.

105. These same factors (although expressed somewhat differently) are referred to

by Mr Boffa (at paragraph 5.11), the Landscape Report (at paragraph 2.4.3)

and are referred to in the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects best

practice guidelines for landscape assessment12. However, nowhere in the

Landscape Report, nor in the evidence of Mr Boffa, is there any discussion of

how these factors are translated into a method for the assessment of

landscape significance. Rather, the Landscape Report resorts to simplistic

comments such as:

There are a number of high biophysical, sensory and associative values that can be attributed to the wider landscape around the Kaitepeha site.13

36


12 NZILA Education Foundation (2011). Best Practice Guide: Landscape Assessment and Sustainable Management. No 10.1. NZILA. Wellington

13 Boffa Miskell Ltd, (2011). Proposed salmon farms, Marlborough Sounds: Natural character, landscape and visual amenity effects. Final Report prepared for New Zealand King Salmon, August 2011. section 5.3.1, Kaitapeha, p.66

106. One might be excused for wondering just what this statement is referring to,

as neither sensory nor associative values are explained, nor are examples

given.

107. Given the level of agreement concerning the landscape significance of the

Marlborough Sounds, my evidence does not extend to a comprehensive

analysis and justification for the outstanding significance of the Sounds.

Rather, I briefly address the one factor that I consider represents a synthesis

of all the factors by which the significance of the Sounds is recognised:

aesthetic value.

108. Aesthetic value emerges from the complex relationship between the individual

and the environment, the individual’s appreciation of the aesthetic

characteristics of the environment, and the evaluation of the total experience

in terms of the cognitive (interest—disinterest), emotional (pleasure—

displeasure) and evaluative (like—dislike) responses evoked by the

experience. The experience is mediated by a number of factors relating to

both the individual and the environment being experienced. Some examples

of influential factors that relate to the aesthetic value of the Marlborough

Sounds follow.

Individual factors

108.1. Values: the particular value systems and beliefs (concerning for

instance, wildlife conservation, resource use and sustainable

development) that individuals bring to an aesthetic experience will

influence the nature of that experience.

108.2. Knowledge: the individual may bring a range of knowledge areas to

the experience, such as: historical knowledge relating to Maori

settlements, European exploration (Cook, Banks, early whaling

families) and settlement; common sense knowledge regarding the

state of the environment, communities and land-uses (the role of

farming, fishing, whaling, forestry and conservation in shaping the

environment); natural science knowledge regarding formative factors

(the origins of the Sounds as drowned river valleys, or rias), wildlife

37


(marine mammals) and endangered bird life; myths and legends,

such as creation myths concerning the origins of the Sounds.

108.3. Sense(s) of place arising from long term associations with the

Sounds, and the meanings associated with such associations; sense

of place arising from recreational use of the Sounds (solitude,

remoteness),

108.4. Activity: the nature of the activity engaged in influences aesthetic

appreciation, such that the aesthetic appreciation of the Sounds from

the surface of the water through power boating, sailing, kayaking and

other marine activities will be very different from that experienced

from the land, whether walking or by car. Activity influences the level

of direct engagement with the elements of the environment, such as

the marine environment, or the bushland, and the characteristic

smells and sounds associated with these activities.

108.5. Imagination: many experiences of the Sounds environment may

evoke the imagination in considering such aspects as: the very

origins of the Sounds as drowned valleys; the experience of Joseph

Banks on hearing the dawn chorus of tui and bellbird in Ships Cove14;

the lives of Maori, including conflicts between tribal groups, the lives

of early whalers, the hardships of European settlers, landscape

futures as tracts of land are retired for restoration and conservation.

Environmental factors

108.6. I consider the VAMPLAN study undertaken by the Department of

Conservation and Mr Earl Bennet (see footnotes, p.33), and which

forms the basis for the MSRMP identification of ONLs, provides a still

relevant and comprehensive analysis of the formal characteristics and

qualities of the Marlborough Sounds environment (summarised in

38


14 “The birds seemed to strain their throats with emulation, perhaps their voices were certainly the most melodious wild musick I have ever heard, almost imitating small Bells, but with the most tunable Silver sound imaginable to which maybe the distance was no small addition...” Joseph Banks, quoted in Ponder (1986), p.13

Appendix 1 to the MSRMP). The aesthetic characteristics that this

study took into account are:

form = the overall shape of the landscape; the sense of scale; the degree of enclosure or openness apparent to the eye; the cross-section created by significant landforms; the volume or shape of any significant formations or features.

line = trace of a point moving through space; commonly an edge which is perceived where two elements or planes meet; a line can occur along skylines (between sky and landform); along ridgelines (between landforms and backdrop); along shorelines.

texture = the nature of the surface of the landscape; the density of the land cover; the effect of light and shade on land cover and landform; the way individual land surfaces are broken up by vegetation, erosion scarring, rock outcrops or run-off channels; the way the surface of water is affected by tide, rocks, seaweed or wind; the sea bed beneath the water described in terms of smoothness or roughness.

pattern = the way in which features, land cover, form or line are arranged; the series of repetitions of arrangement which establish a pattern over the landscape; the landscape or waterscape could be entirely without pattern - random; or could have a highly regular pattern and appear highly arranged.

colour = the combined colours of land, vegetation, water, and sky which change with the seasons; and the variations of colour within and between the landscape units.

109. To the extent that the VAMPLAN study is no longer an example of best

practice in landscape assessment, as Mr Boffa opines, it is largely because it

omits reference to the individual factors listed above. As an example of an

assessment based upon the formal aesthetic qualities of the environment, it is

still relevant, in my opinion.

110. These factors, all of which relate to the aesthetic appreciation of landscape,

resonate strongly with some of the first responses of European visitors to the

Sounds. In his book, A labyrinth of waterways, Frank Ponder quotes Edward

Jerningham Wakefield’s impressions on first entering the Pelorus Sound

(which Wakefield refers to as the Pelorus River)15 in 1839;

We now perceived the entrance of the Pelorus River [a reference to Pelorus Sound]...the estuary is about a mile wide at the entrance but immediately expands. For forty miles we continued to advance along this magnificent arm of the sea which only differs from Queen Charlotte Sound in the grander scale on which are the mountains, the woods, and spacious bays and harbours

39


15 Edward Jerningham Wakefield, Adventure in New Zealand, abridged edition by Joan Stevens. Auckland, Golden Press, 1975, cited in Ponder, Frank 1986. A labyrinth of waterways: the forgotten story of New Zealand’s Marlborough Sounds. Wenlock House.

branching out in every direction. So numerous and varied in their forms are these ramifications that it would be easy to mistake the track to the fresh water river

The whole scene forms a labyrinth on an immense scale in which you may lose your way among tortuous paths of water two and three miles broad and between hedges composed of mountains from 2000 to 3000 feet in height, clothed to the summits with the most luxuriant and majestic timber.

111. These same aspects are referred to today in the MSRMP (section 5.1.1, p.

5-1), which identifies the following factors that contribute to its outstanding

visual character:

• The curving coastline with a range of tidal estuaries and sandy and rocky beaches;

• Island landforms set with a skyline backdrop;• Highly weathered coastal cliffs;• Rolling ridgelines along the skyline;• A complex mosaic of vegetation patterns which gives rise to a range of

textures and colours in the landscape; and• Uninterrupted sequence from hilltop to seafloor.

112. As a personal response to the aesthetic characteristics and qualities of the

Marlborough Sounds I offer the following overview:

112.1. My own experiences of the Sounds date back to a time when

telephones operated through a manually operated exchange, and

there was no electricity. Power (12v) was generated locally and food

was kept cool in a kerosene powered fridge or a local creek. Coupled

with reliance upon boat access, the absence of taken-for-granted

utilities instilled a sense of independence, resilience, adaptability and

self-sufficiency. Despite the advent of modern utilities, I still regard the

Sounds as a place to escape civilisation, and my aesthetic

appreciation of the Sounds is strongly influenced by the remoteness

and isolation that can still be found there.

112.2. I also bring to my appreciation of the Sounds an understanding of the

manner of their formation, as drowned river valleys, or ‘rias‘ and I

wonder at the tectonic circumstances that brought about the drowning

of this landscape.

40


112.3. I have some knowledge of the history of Maori and European

settlement of the Sounds, and I can comprehend the rigors (and

pleasures) of those who chose to make their homes in this

environment. Knowing the history of settlement in the Sounds helps

define the sense of place that many associate with the Sounds.

112.4. The grand scale, and labyrinthine waterways and “tortuous paths”

recorded by Jerningham Wakefield still exist, and to my mind are the

defining characteristics of the Sounds landscapes - the complex

interplay of land and water, and the sense that around every

headland there is more to be revealed and discovered makes the

Sounds New Zealand’s most accessible, yet intriguing landscape.

The fact of the landscape being dominated by water creates a

situation of unrestricted access to explore and experience the

complexity of the Sounds and the almost infinite range of vistas and

views available.

112.5. The landforms, vegetative cover and water surface of the Sounds can

be appreciated in the more abstract sense of forms, lines, textures,

patterns and colours. This is the approach adopted in the Department

of Conservation’s VAMPLAN study (1989). It is a more analytical and

less intuitive approach to aesthetic appreciation but one that may still

reward with considerable aesthetic pleasure. Landforms and

topography are the principle basis of formal appreciation, but the

textures and patterns of bush and pasture are also pleasing and

highly valued.

112.6. Aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic value also derives from the

perception of the naturalness of the biophysical aspects of the

landscape. The intrusion of structural elements, particularly those of

an incongruous nature, into a landscape otherwise perceived as

highly natural, diminishes the aesthetic appreciation of natural

environments.

41


112.7. The land sea interface is particularly intriguing, as an opportunity to

experience the effects of coastal erosion of landforms, the weathering

of exposed rock, and the various plants and life-forms that colonise

shallow waters, the intertidal zones, and coastal cliffs.

112.8. The natural history of the Sounds is a source of considerable

aesthetic pleasure. While the “melodious wild musick” experienced by

Banks and the crew of the Endeavour may be less apparent, the

experience of tui and bellbird still exists. Seabirds - particularly those

that flock together to scavenge or dive for fish, provide an endless

source of wonder and pleasure.

112.9. The prospect of seeing marine mammals, such as dolphins and fur

seals is always present. Seals loafing in haul out areas around the

shoreline are particularly accessible for viewing from the sea, and add

to the pleasure associated with cruising the coastal margins of the

Sounds. Seals and dolphins are also encountered in deeper waters,

where sometimes seals can be observed feeding upon a catch of

octopus or other fish.

112.10. Other sensory experiences contribute also: the smells associated with

the bush, shoreline and water; the sounds of water lapping the

shoreline or waves breaking; the varying atmospheric conditions, and

patterns on the water caused by sun, shadow and the sudden,

swirling, erratic winds (williwaws) that characterise the Sounds.

113. Collectively these aspects, and no doubt many others, according to the

characteristics of individual aesthetic experiences, combine to provide a rich

range of experiences for aesthetic appreciation that I regard as highly valued

and widely shared among all who have experienced the Sounds.

114. In my opinion aesthetic value constitutes the main basis for the recognition of

the Sounds as an outstanding natural landscape. The aspects of aesthetic

appreciation and aesthetic value that I have drawn upon apply to the

Marlborough Sounds as a whole, and apply no less to each of the landscape

42


character areas that I have defined, including the Waitata Reach, and the

Inner and Outer Queen Charlotte Sound.

Sense of place and community held values

115. To complete an understanding of aesthetic appreciation I make brief reference

to the concept of sense of place, which also informs the aesthetic

appreciation of the Sounds. This broad concept incorporates what have been

loosely termed ‘associative values’ in the Landscape Report and in the

evidence of Mr Boffa (and the NZILA best practice guidelines).

116. The basis for the emergence of sense of place can be understood with

reference to the range of community-held values listed in the typology

included as Appendix B to this evidence. While each of these factors may

explain personal or community attachments to places, or reveal reasons for

valuing places, it is often the case that multiple factors from the typology

combine to create particularly strong attachments and meanings, often arising

in the course of long associations with a particular landscape or place.

117. It is beyond the scope of this evidence to document the full range of

community-held values that apply to the Sounds, or to provide detailed

analyses of the many senses of place that may apply to the Sounds,

according to the community of interest surveyed. Many of them will be self-

evident. However, the typology provides a framework for understanding the

personal and community submissions that have been received in relation to

the NZKS proposal. The typology also provides a framework for clarifying

what is meant by the somewhat obscure term, ‘associative values’.

Visual amenity landscapes

118. In his evidence, Mr Boffa makes frequent reference to areas of the Sounds,

including locations of several of the proposed farms, including the Kaitapeha

and Ruaomoko sites, and sites within the Waitata Reach as being in a Visual

Amenity Landscape, or VAL.

119. The operative MSRMP does not recognise the term Visual Amenity

Landscape and no such areas are identified in the plan. Justification for the

43


use of the term in Mr Boffa’s evidence appears to come from the updated

Marlborough Sounds landscape assessment undertaken for the MDC by

Boffa Miskell Ltd, and referred to in the Key Issues report. As I have noted

elsewhere, this study has not yet been adopted by the MDC and is not even a

public document.

120. I find Mr Boffa’s equivocal approach to the issue of landscape categorisation

somewhat puzzling. He defers to the MSRMP for the identification of ONLs,

yet appears to adopt the findings of the Boffa Miskell (2009) study as

authoritative for the purposes of identifying Visual Amenity Landscapes, which

have no statutory standing in the Marlborough District. Further, there is no

evidence that MDC intend to recognise VALs in its revised plan.

121. If Mr Boffa is prepared to adopt the findings of the Boffa Miskell 2009 study for

the purposes of identifying localities as VALs, then in the interests of

consistency he should also accept findings of the study as to ONLs, and

reveal the basis for the assessment of these areas. What limited information

on this aspect of the study as is publicly available is the table on p.68 of the

Key Issues report (reproduced in my evidence as Table 5), which shows the

Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko sites as being within an ONL. I agree with this

finding, but no explanation is provided as to why Mr Boffa does not.

122. As the Boffa Miskell (2009) study is confidential and the methodology for the

investigation unknown and untested, I do not regard references to landscapes

and localities as being VAL, rather than ONL, as either valid or reliable until

demonstrated to be otherwise.

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS: ‘WHOLE OF SOUNDS’

123. This section of my evidence addresses issues concerning the assessment of

effects on landscape, natural character, and amenity throughout the Sounds.

The issues I address apply equally to both the Waitata Reach group of farms

and the Queen Charlotte group of farms. Evidence that is specific to each of

these areas is addressed further in Parts 2 and 3 of my evidence.

44


124. I commence this section of my evidence with a general assessment of effects

with respect to factors that I regard as relevant to the assessment of

landscape and visual effects. I respond to the evidence of Mr Boffa where

necessary for the purposes of identifying issues with regard to which our

opinions differ in significant respects.

125. I conclude with an assessment of effects with respect to the relevant

landscape provisions identified in Chapter 5 of the MSRMP, specifically

Objective 1 and Policy 1, as they apply to the management of the visual

quality of the Marlborough Sounds as an outstanding natural landscape.

Cumulative effects v localised effects

126. In my opinion the evidence of Mr Boffa is biased towards the assessment of

localised effects, with insufficient regard to the cumulative effects of the

proposed salmon farms generally, and the cumulative effects of the salmon

farms when considered in association with other marine farming activities

within the Sounds (predominantly mussel farms), and other terrestrial land

uses such as forestry and agriculture. With respect to assessments of

naturalness, landscape significance and adverse effects, Mr Boffa’s evidence

focuses on individual farms, their sites and the immediate locality of the sites,

as distinct from the landscape context of the proposed farms. In my opinion

this is not consistent with standard landscape assessment practice, and

overlooks the capacity of developments to influence landscape characteristics

and qualities, including natural character, well beyond the immediate environs

of a site. The scale and impact of such effects can be multiplied when the

effects of multiple farms is considered cumulatively.

127. It is also necessary to acknowledge that all farms are proposed in an existing

landscape context that may already be adversely affected in terms of

naturalness and landscape significance. In the Landscape Report the

impression is given that existing landscape modification is justification for

further change:

The landscape is modified through vegetation clearance and ongoing grazing and the presence of built modifications indicating that there is some capacity to absorb change change regardless of its designation [whether visual amenity

45


landscape or ONL] (Landscape Report, paragraph 5.1.2, referring to the Kaitira site.)

128. While one might rationalise further development on the grounds that the

landscape is already modified, I consider that the contrary view must also

apply: that further modifications to naturalness and aesthetic value constitute

cumulative adverse effects. Cumulative effects must be understood in terms

of the total changes evident in the landscape, and not simply the cumulative

effects arising from additional salmon farms. In this regard, the cumulative

effects of marine farming generally must be considered, together with other

modifications to the landscape.

129. It is my opinion that within many parts of the outer Pelorus Sounds, existing

marine farming has reached a density that can be regarded as being at the

threshold for acceptable cumulative adverse effects associated with marine

farming development. In some areas the extent of mussel farming may

already exceed community perceptions of acceptable levels of cumulative

adverse effects. The extent of marine farming can be gauged from the Boffa

Miskell graphic, ‘Figure A1: Marlborough Sounds Site Location Plan: All Sites’,

included in the graphics folio, ‘Natural Character, Landscape and Visual

Amenity Graphic Supplement’ (also identified on the EPA web site as ‘Graphic

supplement Part 1: Waitata Reach Group (Waitata, Kaitira, Tapipi and

Richmond)’.

130. When marine farming is combined with terrestrial activities such as forestry,

agriculture, holiday home and tourism developments, the cumulative effects

become greater and pose significant threats to the naturalness and overall

significance of the Sounds landscapes.

131. The assessment contained within the application document ‘Natural

Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects’ Boffa Miskell Ltd, August

2011 (Appendices to the Assessment of Environmental Effects report, referred

to in the evidence of Mr Boffa as the Landscape Report) also focusses to a

large extent upon the localised effects of individual salmon farms. There is

some written acknowledgement of the prospect of experiencing multiple farms

within the same field of view (e.g., Landscape Report p.98, in discussing the

46


Waitata Reach) but this is not conveyed in the graphic attachments, as I

discuss below.

132. The failure to acknowledge cumulative effects is evident in some of the

graphic devices adopted by Boffa Miskell in showing marine farm locations.

For example:

132.1. Appendix 1, Maps and Plans A to the Assessment of Environmental

Effects report creates misleading impressions by showing the location

of single salmon farms on maps covering areas where two, and

probably even three farms will be located. A particular example is

Ruaomoko Point where the Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko farms are

shown separately on individual maps. The reality is that these two

farms will generally be perceived together, and probably as a single

facility. In my opinion the decision not to show them together on the

same map distorts common understandings of the cumulative effects

of these farms.

132.2. A similar graphic device (showing single salmon farms within contexts

where 2 or more will be visible) is also evident in the photographic

exhibits, such as included in the three volumes of ‘Natural Character,

Landscape and Visual Amenity Graphic Supplement’. A particular

example are the graphics for the Queen Charlotte Sound Group,

including the map ‘Figure D6: Site Location Plan: Kaitapeha’, and

photographs KA1, KA2, KA3 and KA4. I am unable to understand

why a simulation of reality should not include the Ruaomoko farm

within the same images. Both farms will clearly be visible within the

photographic images shown. The same criticism applies to a number

of other images.

133. My approach in the assessment of effects is to consider the proposed farms

collectively within the landscape contexts in which it is proposed that they be

located, and more specifically within their localised contexts. The following

sections address effects of the proposal arising with respect to the two groups

47


of salmon farms that are the primary concern of the submitters I am giving

evidence on behalf of:

133.1. The Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko farms (Outer Queen Charlotte Sound

landscape);

133.2. The White Horse Rock, Waitata, Kaitira, Tapipi and Richmond farms

(The Waitata Reach landscape).

Effects on naturalness

134. As noted earlier in my evidence, the assessment of naturalness and of effects

on naturalness is a complex problem due to the combination of terrestrial and

marine environments that combine to constitute the coastal environment.

Other than with regard to references I shall make to adverse effects on the

behaviour of marine birdlife and wildlife, such as fur seals, I leave the issue of

effects on the natural processes and natural elements of the marine

environment to other experts.

135. I accept the evidence of Mr Boffa that the direct effects of the proposed farms

on the terrestrial environment will be minimal - the structures are, after all,

entirely within the marine environment. However, given proximity to the

shoreline there are still ramifications for the naturalness of the terrestrial

environment if considered in the context of a land-sea continuum of natural

environments, such as exists where land managed for conservation purposes

forms a continuum with a highly natural marine environment such as occurs

adjacent to Department of Conservation reserves (e.g., Ruaomoko Reserve).

136. While the proposed salmon farms are totally within the marine environment,

they will generally be seen against the backdrop of the terrestrial component,

particularly when viewed from the surface of the water. From such positions it

will be common to view the farms against the land-sea interface, which I

regard as a highly sensitive area of the landscape. The land/sea interface is

the area that attracts the greatest focal attention, owing to the sharp contrasts

between land and water that are perceived in this area. The perception of the

land/sea interface contributes greatly to the aesthetic appreciation of the

48


Sounds. While the farms may not impact directly upon the naturalness of the

terrestrial environment in a physical sense, they will certainly intrude upon,

and diminish the aesthetic experience of the land/sea interface and the

naturalness associated with this area.

137. The proposed farms will add incongruous, industrial-looking structural

components to the surface of the marine environment within relatively close

proximity to the shoreline, disrupting natural patterns, particularly where these

are apparent as an uncluttered planar surface of water abutting the land. In

my introductory comments I noted that salmon farms of the type proposed

display no sense of congruity or fitness with their marine environment, and in

this sense do not appear to have a ‘natural’ affinity with their environment in

the way that other marine structures have.

138. The prospect of adverse effects on natural character is particularly

pronounced in areas that have so far remained free of marine farm

developments. These areas include the prominent headlands of the Waitata

Reach, and (with the exception of the Ruakaka salmon farm), Queen

Charlotte Sound in its entirety.

139. The extent to which existing marine farm development within Waitata Reach

is largely restricted to bays is evident from the Boffa Miskell graphic; Figure

A1: ‘Marlborough Sounds Site Location Plan: All Sites’, contained within the

graphics folio ‘Natural Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity Graphic

Supplement Part 1’ (November 2011). This graphic shows the headlands of

the southern side of Waitata Reach (Kaitira, Post Office Point, and Tapipi) to

be free of marine farm development. I understand the only marine farming

developments off headlands on the northern side of the Reach to be the

consented but as yet unbuilt mussel farm at White Horse Rock, and a

consented but unbuilt mussel farm off the Reef Point - Treble Tree Point

headland. I understand the consent granted to the Reef Pt - Treble Tree Pt

farm is subject to appeal. While these two farms may constitute part of the

existing environment, their tangible effects on naturalness are slight.

49


140. A similar situation exists with respect to the Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko farms, as is

evident from the Boffa Miskell graphic Figure D1: ‘Site Location Plan: Queen

Charlotte Sound’, contained within the graphics folio ‘Natural Character,

Landscape and Visual Amenity Graphic Supplement Part 3’ (November 2011).

141. In my opinion, the proposal to locate salmon farms off prominent headlands

displaying Very High natural character within the marine component of the

coastal environment, and Moderate - High natural character (Kaitira and

Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko) and High (Waitata/White Horse Rock, Tapipi and

Richmond) natural character within the terrestrial environment with result in

significant adverse effects at the site scale and collectively at the landscape

scale.

Wildlife and naturalness

142. An aspect of the effects of the farms on naturalness that has not been

considered in the Landscape Report, the evidence of Mr Boffa, nor in the

expert evidence of Mr Sagar (seabirds) and Mr Cawthorn (marine mammals)

is the influence of the proposed farms on wildlife behaviour, and the manner

in which these modifications impinge upon perceptions of the naturalness of

the environment.

143. As I have noted elsewhere in my evidence, wildlife are a component of natural

character. The contribution of wildlife to the experience of landscapes, and

more importantly to the experience of the naturalness of landscapes is often

referred to in landscape assessments with reference to the Pigeon Bay factor,

‘Transient Values’.

144. From my own experience I consider the prospect of encountering marine

mammals, including fur seals and dolphins, and seabirds as a vital aspect of

the natural experience of the Marlborough Sounds. Marine fauna is an aspect

of eco-tourism that attracts considerable interest on the part of visitors and

sightings of seals and dolphins is generally met with great excitement and

delight on the part of visitors to the Sounds. In light of this I find it

extraordinary that Mr Bamford’s only reference to seal viewing is in the

context of “industrial tourism”.

50


145. Yet it is a fact (regrettable, in my opinion) that wildlife experiences of seals is

highly likely to occur in proximity to salmon farms, and the same applies to

the experience of seabirds. Herein lies what I regard as a significant adverse

effect: modifications to the natural behavior of birds and marine mammals

brought about through the acculturation (or habituation, as Mr Cawthorn terms

it, at paragraph 26) of wildlife, particularly sea bird and seals, to human

presence, through artificially created opportunities for feeding provided by

salmon farming. Thus, while such experiences can be regarded as wildlife

experiences, they are not natural wildlife experiences, in that they are

mediated by the artificial, behaviour-modifying contexts in which they occur.

146. Mr Cawthorn’s reference to adverse effects on marine mammals appears

limited to issues of mortality, and Mr Boffa (for example, at paragraph 6.28)

refers to “risks to dolphins and whales.” While risk in the sense that it relates

to mortality is clearly significant (and the evidence of Mr Cawthorn

acknowledges several salmon farm-related deaths of marine mammals,

including dolphins16), I regard changes to wildlife behaviour through

acculturation to salmon farms and salmon farming activities as an

unacknowledged yet significant adverse effect on naturalness and the

environmental experience of naturalness.

147. Within the evidence of Mr Cawthorn, Mr Sagar, and Mr Preece, a further issue

arises with implications for naturalness: the notion of wildlife, such as seals

and sea birds as predators. As Mr Cawthorn claims: “It is without question that

fur seals will be a constant problem requiring continual vigilance on the part of

farm workers...”, and goes on to remark on the need for “...new farms to be

defended” with “predator protection nets”. The placement of salmon farms

within the seal’s natural habitat has lead to the notion that a popular and

widely appreciated specie of indigenous wildlife is a problem pest, rather than

an animal to be appreciated and valued for the contribution it makes to the

naturalness of the environment. The use of language such as “continual

vigilance”, “farms to be defended”, and “predator protection” serves to cast

51


16 Since the lodging of Mr Cawthorn’s evidence the Marlborough Express of 11 July 2012 reports another death of a dusky dolphin that drowned at the Waihinau farm in Pelorus Sound, probably after becoming entangled in a net and drowning.

indigenous wildlife in a highly negative frame that must influence public

perceptions of wildlife in the vicinity of salmon farms, and more widely. In the

worst case these attitudes can lead to a demonising of some species of

wildlife, and there is evidence that this has already occurred in some sectors

of the community with respect to the seal.

148. It is with some abhorrence that I note in the evidence of Mr Preece that until

2010, NZ King Salmon had a policy that permitted the shooting of seabirds.

There are similarities here to the situation that existed until 1978, whereby it

was legal to shoot the kea on the basis of alleged predation on farm animals.

149. I consider the issue of conflict between salmon farming and wildlife to be a

consequence of the intrusion of human commercial activities into previously

untouched natural landscapes and environments. In my opinion the prospect

that the experience of many species of Sounds wildlife will be in the context of

wildlife as pests and predators around salmon farms is a significant adverse

affect on naturalness.

Effects on aesthetic value

150. At paragraph 7.7 of his evidence Mr Boffa opines that, in terms of section 6(b)

of the RMA and Policies 15 (a) & (b) of the NZCPS, the effects (of the

proposal on the outstanding natural landscapes of the Sounds will be low. Mr

Boffa appears to justify his assessment with reference to the perceptual and

ephemeral or temporary nature of effects:

In my opinion the effect of the NZ King Salmon proposals on the existing ONFLs and VALs within the Marlborough Sounds as a whole, in terms of Section 6(b) of the RMA, will be low. In terms of Policy 15 (a) and (b) of the 2010 NZCPS, which deals with the avoidance of adverse activities on outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes in the coastal environment, and the avoidance of significant adverse effects on other natural features and natural landscapes in the coastal environment, I also consider the effects at a Sounds wide scale to be low, particularly as there are no physical modifications or direct adverse effects on these landscapes or features. Any effects in this regard will be perceptual and of an ephemeral or temporary nature. [emphasis added]

151. In my opinion, Mr Boffa has erred in relying upon the perceptual and

ephemeral nature of effects:

52


151.1. Mr Boffa appears to use the term ‘perceptual’ in a somewhat

dismissive manner, as if to suggest that as the effects are perceptual

in nature, they are of lesser significance than other (non-perceptual?)

types of effects. In making this statement, Mr Boffa is diminishing the

significance - and fundamental role - of perception in landscape

assessment and appreciation. Aesthetic appreciation, and the

aesthetic values that derive from that appreciation, are entirely

perceptual in nature. To dismiss, or even diminish adverse effects on

the basis of their perceptual nature is to dismiss the relevance of

aesthetic value altogether. The Sounds landscapes are highly valued

precisely because of peoples’ perceptions of the Sounds as an area

of high aesthetic significance.

151.2. The “ephemeral or temporary nature” of adverse effects associated

with the farms, referred to by Mr Boffa, is not credible in my opinion.

The proposed plan change itself is not an ephemeral or temporary

planning device, and the resource consents applied for cannot be

regarded as ephemeral or temporary by any planning standard. As

Ms Dawson states at paragraph 9.39 of her evidence:

A term of 35 years is sought for each of the farms in the proposed CMZ3. The operative Rules in the Sounds Plan for marine farms in the Coastal Marine Zones specify a maximum term of 20 years for controlled, restricted discretionary and discretionary activity marine farms. However, I understand that the recent legislative reform for aquaculture has now specified a minimum consent duration for aquaculture consents of 20 years, with the maximum consent duration being 35 years (as for all other consents).

151.3. Apart from the fact that adverse effects arising from the proposal are

neither ephemeral nor temporary, I understand the term ‘effects’ as

used in the RMA to apply to both temporary and permanent effects.

152. The aesthetic value of landscapes is one of the key determinants of

landscape significance for the purposes of identifying outstanding natural

features and landscapes. It could even be argued that aesthetic value is the

principal factor influencing the identification of ONLs, and I have stated that I

consider this to be the case in the Marlborough Sounds.

53


153. The effects of the proposed farms on aesthetic value derive largely from the

issues of fitness and congruity that I have referred to elsewhere in my

evidence. The incongruous character of the farms in their contexts, the

absence of any redeeming aesthetic value in the farms as structures, and the

effects these issues have on perceptions of naturalness will result in a

significant reduction in aesthetic value in the localities within which they will

be seen or otherwise experienced.

154. Adverse effects on aesthetic value will be accentuated by the proposed

location of the Waitata Reach and Queen Charlotte farms off prominent

headlands. As noted in my comments on naturalness, all proposed sites other

than Waitata/White Horse Rock headland are unaffected by marine farm

development, and even the effects at the Waitata/White Horse Rock site are

somewhat notional, given that the consented mussel farm is yet to be built.

The naturalness of the headlands, and the absence of obvious marine farm

development within each area is a key factor in the aesthetic quality of each

location. In the same manner in which the proposed salmon farms will

constitute a significant adverse effect on the natural character of prominent

headlands, so too will the proposal result in significant adverse effects on

aesthetic quality, individually at the site scale and collectively at the landscape

scale.

Amenity

155. Amenity value is complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon.17 To

understand amenity as being associated only with visual factors is to diminish

the meaning of the concept. Mr Boffa’s evidence on amenity (commencing

section 8, p.54) focusses largely on visual amenity.

156. In the context of the Marlborough Sounds, the visual characteristics and

qualities of the environment are certainly significant, but other aspects of

amenity play a very significant role. Included among these other aspects are:

54


17 Amenity values: means those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people's appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes.

156.1. A sense of wildness characterises experiences of the outer Queen

Charlotte Sound and the Waitata Reach. From within both areas,

views extend to the open and unprotected waters of Cook Strait, from

where maritime effects extend into the outer Sounds. Within the outer

Queen Charlotte Sound and Waitata Reach, there is a sense that one

is entering a marine environment characterised by greater risk, where

greater skills and knowledge are required.

156.2. A sense of isolation and solitude that comes from visiting, or residing

in sparsely populated areas. This sense is compounded in parts of

the Sounds where sea access is the only means of access, as is the

case for most of Queen Charlotte Sound, and all of Arapawa Island.

Even where vehicular access is possible, as is the case to the

Waitata Reach of Pelorus Sound, the journey by road is long and

somewhat tortuous, and the destination still characterised by isolation

and solitude. Whether on land or on a boat, the sparse settlement

patterns of the Sounds offers an opportunity for isolation and

seclusion, whereby one can find a place to be alone.

156.3. The Sounds offers a sense of quietude, particularly in the outer

reaches where tranquility, stillness and calm can often be

experienced. Natural sounds, such as the lapping of water on the

shoreline, or the sounds of birdsong can generally predominate over

the sounds of human activities.

156.4. The settlement pattern of the Sounds is sparse enough such that

many locations provide the opportunity to experience the night sky

with little or no other artificial source of light evident. The darkness of

the night sky, and the blackness of the hills and water at night may be

deliberately sought by residents and recreationists seeking a

heightened sense of isolation and solitude, unpolluted from the lights

of other dwellings.

156.5. A strong sense of independence and self-sufficiency is associated

with the relative isolation that characterises the outer Sounds. Visitors

55


may be infrequent, and provision for supplies of fuel, food and other

requisites must be carefully planned. Food is often sourced locally

from the sea.

157. These factors, and other less tangible characteristics may combine to create

a strong sense of place, a phenomenon that can be understood as the entire

suite of thoughts (cognitions) and emotional (affective) sentiments held

regarding the qualities of a particular place and the meanings one attributes to

a place. Sense of place emerges through the association with a place over an

extended period of time. Many of the factors that characterise the senses of

place associated with the Sounds are vividly recorded in Frank Ponder’s

(1986) account of life in the Sounds, ‘A labyrinth of waterways’.

158. Amenities associated with the Sounds will be adversely affects by the salmon

farms in several respects:

158.1. The farms will introduce an industrial factory farming-type activity into

places highly valued for naturalness, solitude, quietude and isolation.

The farms will bring to these places noises associated with electricity

generation, servicing, cleaning, harvesting and other activities.

158.2. The presence of these activities will compromise the sense of

wildness that many residents and recreationists may seek within the

outer Sounds.

158.3. The farms will generate additional marine traffic associated with

servicing the facilities, so multiplying the adverse amenity effects of

the farms.

158.4. The live-aboard nature of the farms introduces neighbours and the

attendant noises associated with living (radios, chatter) into localities

where residents may have sought isolation, privacy and quietude.

158.5. The farms will present a physical impediment to recreational boating

activities (sailing, fishing, kayaking, water-skiing) in locations where

no such impediment currently exists (e.g, Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko).

56


158.6. The farms may become a source of waste or refuse, polluting

adjacent waters and beaches.

158.7. The farms may attract wildlife in concentrations that become

problematic for local residents, or cause behavioural changes in

wildlife that become problematic.

MSRMP Objectives and Policies: Landscape

159. The areas subject to the proposed plan change will introduce a new zoning -

Coastal Marine Zone 3 (CMZ3) - with its own objectives and policies.

However, the spatial relationship between areas subject to CMZ3 zoning,

inserted as they are into into Coastal Marine Zone 1 (CMZ1) areas, will have

cross-boundary landscape and visual effects on adjacent, differently-zoned

landscapes. Waters within the CMZ1 zone are part of these wider landscapes,

as I have defined them.

160. Chapter 5 of the MSRMP (Section 5.1.1) states:

In its entirety, the landscape of the Marlborough Sounds Plan area has outstanding visual values.

161. My own assessment concurs with this statement, and I have found the

landscapes of Waitata Reach and Queen Charlotte Sound to be outstanding

natural landscapes, primarily on aesthetic grounds.

162. As such, these landscapes are subject to Objective 5.3.1 and Policy 5.3.1.1 of

the MSRMP:

5.3 Objectives and Policies

Objective 1 Management of the visual quality of the Sounds and protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

Policy 1.1 Avoid, remedy and mitigate adverse effects of subdivision, use and development, including activities and structures, on the visual quality of outstanding natural features and landscapes, identified according to criteria in Appendix One.

163. Appendix 1 to the MSRMP sets out criteria for the identification of visual

quality. These are addressed with respect to landscape character and

landscape quality, and as they are broadly consistent with the factors I have

57


applied in assessing the landscape significance of the Sounds, in the interests

of brevity I shall not repeat them. I note though, the changes that have

occurred in landscape assessment frameworks since the VAMPLAN study - a

matter that Mr Boffa also agrees upon. The landscape assessment framework

that I apply incorporates many of the character and quality factors identified in

Appendix 1.

164. With respect to the application of these criteria to the management of

outstanding natural landscapes, Appendix 1 states:

...landscapes which are likely to warrant extreme control and preservation management regimes are those which have high indicators of quality in one or more of the quality indicators...

Interpretation of the landscape studies’ findings is that outstanding landscapes are those which equate with those needing extreme control and preservation management and are at one high end of the scale.

165. Appendix 1 also presents a set of evaluation criteria for the assessment of

effects on landscape character and quality. I apply the relevant criteria in the

table below (Table 6) for the purpose of identifying adverse effects with

respect to Policy 5.3.1.1.

58


Appendix 1 Evaluation Criteria: Effects of Proposed Changes

Assessment of Effects

Will it add a significant level of structures or roading to the landscape?

I consider that with respect to the landscape of Waitata Reach, and the locality where the Inner and Outer Queen Charlotte Sound and the Inner Tory Channel landscapes meet, the proposed salmon farm structures will constitute a significant level of structures. The effects are accentuated by the relative absence of of marine farming structures within these localities, and the absence of other structures.

Will it compromise the natural character of the coastal edge through modification by artificial structures or land disturbance?

The natural character of the coastal edge will be compromised, as discussed in a previous section of my evidence (commencing paragraph 127 xx)

Will it alter the landscape in such a way that the landscapes unique status is compromised?

I consider part of the uniqueness of the affected landscapes to be the fact that they are generally free of marine farm developments, or other land-based developments. While marine farming occurs extensively throughout Pelorus Sound, the proposed Waitata Reach sites are currently free of such developments (with the exception of a consented but unbuilt marine farm at White Horse Rock). The Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko locality has no marine farming.

Will it introduce into the landscape a feature, activity, form, line, or texture which is incongruous with the dominant character and coherence of the landscape?

I have noted the incongruous nature of salmon farming structures earlier in my evidence. I consider the characteristics of the structures to be antithetical to the character and coherence of the landscape in each locality

Will it introduce into the landscape a feature, activity, form, line, or texture which enhances or improves the overall coherence of the landscape?

There is no sense in which the structure, its associated activities and its formal characteristics improves the coherence of the landscape.

TABLE 6: Assessment of effects with respect to criteria identified in the Landscape chapter of the MSRMP (Volume 1, Appendix 1).

166. In my opinion the effects of the proposed salmon farms on the visual quality of

the Sounds are entirely adverse, and as such Policy 1.1 Applies. Policy 1.1

requires either the avoidance, remediation of mitigation of adverse effects. As

there is no manner in which the adverse effects introduced by the salmon

59


farms can be remediated or mitigated, I consider the only option is to avoid

the adverse effects altogether.

MSRMP Objectives and Policies: Public access and recreation amenity

167. In my opinion the experience of amenity, and particularly amenity associated

with the recreational use of the Sounds, is inextricably associated with the

freedom of access currently enjoyed throughout the waters of the Sounds.

168. Section 8.1, Public Access of the MSRMP identifies the possible effects of

marine farming on public access and recreational amenity:

Other activities such as marine farming, while having the potential to bring economic benefits to the district, not only physically impede access over water, but may also have a psychological effect in limiting people’s interest in accessing an area for recreational purposes.

169. The psychological effect referred to above derives from the exclusive

occupation of marine space by salmon farms and the constant presence of

staff, which combine to create a strong sense of exclusive use and de facto

privatisation of what is otherwise public open space. This perception can

extend beyond the physical margins of the salmon farm structure itself.

170. I consider the presence of salmon farms to also be contradictory to

expectations of naturalness, wildness, remoteness and isolation - all aspects

of the environment which may characterise desired recreational experiences

associate with kayaking and boating in the Sounds.

171. Objective 1 and two associated policies (8.3.1.2 and 8.3.1.3) of Chapter 8

have a bearing on the protection of recreational amenity through managing

pubic access:

Objective 1 That public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes and rivers be maintained and enhanced.

...

Policy 1.2 Adverse effects on public access caused by the erection of structures, marine farms, works or activities in or along the coastal marine area should as far as practicable be avoided. Where complete avoidance is not practicable, the adverse effects should

60


be mitigated and provision made for remedying those effects, to the extent practicable.

Policy 1.3 To prevent the erection of structures and marine farms that restrict public access in the coastal marine area where it is subjected to high public usage.

172. The proposed salmon farms within Waitata Reach and Queen Charlotte

Sound (being within the Coastal Marine Zone 1) are all within parts of the

coastal marine area to which Policy 8.3.1.2 applies, whereby adverse effects

on public access should be avoided where effects on public access are

unable to be remedied or mitigated. I consider this to be the case with salmon

farms. Elsewhere in my evidence I note that mussel farms do not present the

same perceived barriers to recreational activities that salmon farms do.

Mussel farms are, in a sense, ‘permeable’ to some recreational activities,

such as fishing and kayaking, in ways that mussel farms are not. Other than

when being worked, mussel farms are not attended by staff. I have direct

experience of this through regular summer recreational access (for fishing) to

mussel farms within Golden Bay.

173. With regard to Policy 8.3.1.3, while I have no data on the level of recreational

usage within the Waitata Reach, I note the presence of holiday homes and

accommodation businesses within Waitata Bay and Waihinau Bay, and the

fact that the Waitata Reach is the sole marine access to Pelorus and

Keneperu Sound from Cook Strait. I have also noted elsewhere the position of

the proposed Queen Charlotte salmon farms (Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko) at

what I have terms the ‘marine cross roads’ of Queen Charlotte Sound and

Tory Channel. Anecdotally, I understand this to be a busy part of Queen

Charlotte Sound for recreational fishing, and I have observed fishing boats in

this locality. Recreational vessels voyage between Tory Channel and the

Outer Queen Charlotte Sound. These activities are referred to in the

navigation evidence of Mr Walker, who refers to the following recreational

activities in the vicinity of Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko at paragraph 81:

c. Recreational vessels traveling to and from the outer Queen Charlotte

Sound and Tory Channel;

d. Recreational Vessels fishing off Dieffenbach Point;

61


e. Vessels dredging for shellfish north west of Dieffenbach Point.

174. The related issues of landscape, natural character, recreation, recreational

amenity and public access are also covered in Chapter 9 of the MSRMP.

Policies 9.2.1.1.1 and 9.2.1.1.6 state:

Policy 1.1 Avoid, remedy and mitigate the adverse effects of use and development of resources in the coastal marine area on any of the following:

... c) Heritage and amenity values; d) Landscape, seascape and aesthetic values; ... f) Natural character of the coastal environment; ... i) Public access to and along the coast; ... k) Recreation values; ...

Policy 1.6 Ensure recreational interests retain a dominant status over commercial activities that require occupation of coastal space and which preclude recreational use in Queen Charlotte Sound, including Tory Channel, but excluding Port and Marina Zones.

175. These policies are identified in the Methods of Implementation section of the

MSRMP as being the basis for the creation of the Coastal Marine Zone 118. In

applying to re-zone areas of CMZ1 as CMZ3, the proposal will create ‘island’

zones of CMZ3 within a sea of CMZ1, and in so doing will compromise the

express intent of the MSRMP with regard to landscape, amenity and public

access, as recognised through the creation of the CMZ1 zone.

CONCLUSIONS: PART 1

176. I have assessed the landscapes of the Marlborough Sounds at three levels of

analysis, a summary of which (limited to those landscapes of primary concern

to the submitters on behalf of whom I have prepared evidence) is presented in

Table 6 (adapted from Table 1):

62


18 the MSRMP Section 9.2.2, Methods of Implementation, states:

In Coastal Marine Zone 1 the Plan identifies those areas where marine farms are prohibited in accordance with Policies 9.2.1.1.1 and 9.2.1.1.6. These areas are identified as being where marine farming will have a significant adverse effect on navigational safety, recreational opportunities, natural character, ecological systems, or cultural, residential or amenity values.

First LevelLandscapes

Second LevelLandscapes

Third LevelLandscapes

Marlborough Sounds Pelorus Sound Waitata Reach

Queen Charlotte Sound Outer Queen Charlotte

Inner Queen Charlotte

Table 6: Summary definition of landscapes at three levels of analysis. At each level of analysis I regard the landscapes as outstanding natural landscapes (ONL) for the purposes of section 6 of the Resource Management Act and Policies 13 and 15 of the NZ Coastal Policy Statement.

177. I regard these landscapes as being comprised of a marine and a terrestrial

component. While these components may be differentiated for the purposes

of assessment of naturalness, or natural character, they must be regarded as

holistic entities for the purposes of assessing landscape significance in s6(b)

terms, and in terms of relevant policies of the NZCPS. That is to say, that the

Waitata Reach landscape, for example, incorporates the land and the sea in

an integrated conceptualisation of landscape. This differs from the approach

that has been adopted in the MSRMP landscape maps whereby the

landscapes identified on the maps include only a narrow (and randomly

defined) margin of the sea around terrestrial areas of ONL.

178. I have identified these landscapes as exhibiting the same level of naturalness

at all levels of analysis, being (at least) Moderate-High for the terrestrial

component of the coastal environment, and High for the marine component of

the coastal environment. Locally, areas of the terrestrial and marine

environments rate higher than this, with the naturalness of some sites being

High in the terrestrial component and Very High in the marine component. I

have acknowledged the difficulty of arriving at a composite index of

naturalness for the coastal environment, but I consider that assessments that

have regard only for the terrestrial environment are of limited utility in this

matter.

63


179. With reference to the scale of naturalness I have presented, I consider the

naturalness of each of these landscapes exceeds the threshold whereby the

landscapes may be regarded as ‘natural enough’ for the purposes of section 6

(b) of the RMA.

180. I have considered a range of values associated with these landscapes,

including those associated with natural science, aesthetic and community-

held (associative) values. In my opinion, on the basis of the aesthetic

characteristics and qualities of these landscapes, at all levels of analysis,

each landscape can be regarded as outstanding, and therefore be regarded

as an outstanding natural landscape.

181. In considering the adverse effects of the proposed salmon farms on the

natural character and landscape significance of the landscapes I have

identified, I regard it as necessary to have regard for:

181.1. the cumulative effects of all the proposed salmon farms, as well as

the effects of each farm individually;

181.2. the cumulative effects of the proposed salmon farms when

considered in the context of existing marine farming activities

(predominantly mussel farming, but including existing salmon farms at

Ruakaka Bay and Waihinau/Forsyth Bay);

181.3. the cumulative effects of the proposed salmon farms considered in

the context of other modifications to the naturalness of the coastal

environment, such as forestry and farming.

182. I do not regard existing modifications to naturalness as justifying further

development, but rather as indicative of a threshold beyond which further

modifications to the naturalness and landscape significance of the Sounds

should not be permitted.

Effects with respect to relevant statutory documents (NZCPS, RMA and MSRMP)

183. The natural character and landscape significance of the Waitata Reach and

Queen Charlotte Sound landscapes, being in my opinion outstanding natural

64


landscapes, are are such that the application is subject to Policies 13, 14 and

15 of the NZCPS.

Policy 13: Preservation of natural character

1 To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and to protect it from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

(a) avoid adverse effects of activities on natural character in areas of the coastal environment with outstanding natural character; and

(b) avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on natural character in all other areas of the coastal environment;

184. In my opinion, neither the Waitata Reach nor the Queen Charlotte landscapes

exhibit Outstanding natural character (in the sense used in Policy 13 of the

NZCPS), but I do note strong similarities in the naturalness of Maud Island

(rated as displaying Outstanding natural character on Appendix T to the MDC

Key Issues report) and parts of the Waitata Reach affected by the proposal

(e.g., the White Horse Rock and Tapipi headlands). However, each landscape

is subject to Policy 13.1(b), which requires the avoidance of significant

adverse effects, or avoiding, remedying or mitigating other adverse effects:

185. With regard to the effects of the proposed farms on natural character, I

consider the effects will be adverse, and as such should be avoided. If the

effects were to be considered less than adverse, I am of the opinion that the

effects can neither be remedied nor mitigated, and as such should also be

avoided.

186. Policy 14 addresses the restoration of natural character within the coastal

environment. I consider Policy 14(a) to be particularly relevant:

Policy 14: Restoration of natural character

Promote restoration or rehabilitation of the natural character of the coastal environment, including by :

(a) identifying areas and opportunities for restoration or rehabilitation;

65


187. In my opinion both the outer Pelorus Sounds landscape of Waitata Reach and

the outer Queen Charlotte Sound in the vicinity of Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko farms

represent areas and opportunities for restoration.

187.1. The Waitata Reach from Maud Island to West Entry Point/Duffers

Reef, and beyond to the Chetwode Islands, represents a significant

opportunity to build upon existing conservation efforts through the

creation of a conservation archipelago of private and public reserves.

This opportunity is recognised by Pelorus Wildlife Sanctuaries Ltd

through the conservation of existing bushland (the White Horse Rock

headland) and the retirement of significant areas of former pastoral

farmland and the promotion of restoration to indigenous bushland,

such as is being undertaken on Te Kopi Peninsula.

187.2. The absence of marine farm development off the headlands of

Waitata Reach, and the existing High to Very High levels of

naturalness that prevail within the terrestrial and marine environments

of the headlands facing Waitata Reach constitute a strong base upon

which to extend further conservation and restoration efforts. In my

opinion, the proposed Waitata Reach salmon farms are contrary to

Policy 14(a), in that they will negate positive efforts towards the

restoration of natural character within Waitata Reach.

187.3. A similar situation exists in the locality of the proposed Kaitapeha/

Ruaomoko farms, where ongoing conservation efforts on the part of

the Halstead family and the Department of Conservation (within the

Ruaomoko Pt Scenic Reserve) are assisting to restore the integrity of

indigenous plant communities, particularly through the eradication of

wilding pines. The proximity of the Ruaomoko Pt Scenic Reserve to

the nearby Dieffenbach Pt Scenic Reserve at the western entrance to

Tory Channel creates an opportunity to restore a more natural

gateway marking the gateway between Tory Channel and the Inner

Queen Charlotte Sound.

66


187.4. The presence of a resident population of the rare and endangered

Hector’s dolphin in the waters off the proposed Kaitapeha/Ruamoko

farms provides further justification for the restoration of naturalness

within this locality.

187.5. As will be the case in the Waitata Reach, the development of the

Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko farms will negate public and private efforts

aimed at restoring the natural character of a prominent headland and

its associated nearshore marine ecosystems, and will be inconsistent

with Policy 14(a) of the NZCPS.

188. Policy 15(a) requires the avoidance of adverse effects on ONFL within the

coastal environment. As I regard both the Waitata Reach landscape and the

Queen Charlotte Sounds landscapes as ONL on the basis of the outstanding

aesthetic qualities of the landscape, I consider Policy 15(a) applies

Policy 15: Natural features and natural landscapes

To protect the natural features and natural landscapes (including seascapes) of the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

(a) avoid adverse effects of activities on outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes in the coastal environment; and

(b) avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy, or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on other natural features and natural landscapes in the coastal environment;

189. I regard the effects of the proposal on the aesthetic characteristics and

qualities of the Waitata Reach and Queen Charlotte landscapes as

significantly adverse, and as such the effects should be avoided. As with

effects on natural character, I do not regard the adverse effects of the

proposal on the aesthetic characteristics and qualities of the Sounds

landscapes as being able to be remedied or mitigated.

190. I do not consider it appropriate to acknowledge the outstanding natural

landscape significance of the Marlborough Sounds as a whole, but find that,

at the site level certain areas are not outstanding, and therefore suited for

salmon farm development, as Mr Boffa has done. In adopting this approach I

67


consider it inevitable that the landscape significance of the Sounds overall will

be compromised through cumulative development - ‘death by a thousand

cuts’.

191. In the same manner in which the proposal is contrary to policies 13, 14 and

15 of the NZCPS, I consider the proposal to be inconsistent with section 6(a)

of the RMA (‘the preservation of the natural character of the coastal

environment...’) and section 6(b) of the RMA (‘The protection of outstanding

natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and

development’). In terms of landscape significance and the preservation of

natural character, I regard the proposal as representing inappropriate

development.

192. I consider the proposal does not have due regard for section 7(c) of the RMA;

‘The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values’. I consider the

proposal will have a significant impact upon the amenities currently enjoyed

in the Sounds through the introduction of elements and activities that are

antagonistic to senses of place that regard the Sounds as an area

characterised by a sense of remoteness, isolation, solitude, quietude, and

tranquility.

193. Finally, with regard to the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan it

is my opinion that the proposal will compromise and be contrary to objectives

and policies of Chapters 5, 8 and 9 with respect to effects on the visual quality

of the landscape, amenity, (particularly recreational amenity), and public

access.

68


PART 2: EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PJ AND KSJ HALSTEAD

Scope and introductory comments

194. This section of my evidence addresses landscape, natural character and

amenity effects of the proposed Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko salmon farm in

Queen Charlotte Sound.

195. The Halstead family own the only residential property in Kaitapeha Bay,

identified in the evidence of Mr Boffa as Q25, and acknowledged by him to be

the nearest residential property to the Kaitapeha farm. Mr Boffa (at paragraph

8.28) relies upon the evidence of Mr Baines in acknowledging that the effects

on the users of the property are likely to be significantly adverse “...from a

social perspective”.

196. At paragraph 36 of his evidence Mr Baines states:

However, for two of the proposed sites - Kaitapeha and Ngamahau - each result in separation distances to dwellings where off-site effects are likely to be experienced as significantly adverse and, from a social perspective, the balance of local social effects is assessed as negative, without additional mitigation. In the case of the Kaitapeha site, this balance of local social effects would be assessed as acceptable if NZ King Salmon adjusts the proposed siting of the cages so as to avoid any visual exposure of surface features of the salmon farm to the residential property in Kaitapeha Bay, particularly in the vicinity of the dwelling and the jetty.

197. While Mr Boffa is correct to recognise that Mr Baines’ comments are made

from a social perspective, these same effects can also be understood from an

aesthetic and amenity perspective, and in my opinion this should be

acknowledged by Mr Boffa also.

198. The visibility of the Kaitapeha farm from the Kaitapeha Bay jetty is accepted

by Mr Boffa, but at paragraph 8.28 of his evidence Mr Boffa claims the

Kaitapeha farm will not be visible from the residence itself.

199. An independent survey undertaken by Gilbert Haymes and Associates,

Registered Surveyors, demonstrates that the Kaitapeha farm will in fact be

visible from the deck of the Halstead residence, as well as the beach between

the dwelling and the jetty. On this basis I consider the evidence of Mr Boffa

69


and the the Natural Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects report

(section 6.3.1, pp.75-76) prepared by Boffa Miskell Ltd significantly under-

estimates the visibility of the Kaitapeha site from the Halstead house (Q25)

and the consequent effects of the proposal on the visual amenity and general

amenity of the residents of Kaitapeha Bay.

200. I accept the potential for visibility of the Kaitapeha farm to be diminished from

within Kaitapeha Bay and the Halstead residence through movement of the

farm to the south-west. However, given the proximity of the Kaitapeha farm to

the adjacent Ruaomoko farm, and the extent to which anchor warps already

overlap (see, Assessment of Environmental Effects Appendix 1, Maps and

Plans, ‘Site 6 & 7 Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko Proposed Farm Layout, Drawing

No. DR-051103-075’ (p.17)), the feasibility of relocating the Kaitapeha farm is

a matter that would require expert technical and planning evidence. It may

also be the case that relocating the Kaitapeha farm (or possibly both farms,

Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko) has the potential to create adverse effects with

respect to other matters (e.g., ecology, navigation). Accordingly, I do not

consider relocation to be a realistic option for mitigation until it is

demonstrated to be so, and other flow-on effects are assessed.

201. Even assuming a relocation of the farms is technically feasible, and no other

adverse effects are generated, the relocation of the farms will only address

visibility and amenity issues from the Halstead dwelling and the immediate

locality of the dwelling. I expect the farms would still be visible from within the

bay, and will adversely impact upon the amenities enjoyed within the bay and

its environs. The two farms will still figure prominently in maritime approaches

to Kaitapeha Bay, and will still be highly visible from vessels navigating Tory

Channel, including Interislander ferries and cruise liners. The adverse effects

on the natural character and aesthetic quality of Queen Charlotte Sound will

remain.

202. A general issue concerning the validity of the Boffa Miskell assessment of

effects upon natural character, landscape and amenity in the locality of the

proposed Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko farms is the approach taken whereby the

70


effects of the two farms are assessed individually, rather than in combination.

The Natural Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity Effects Assessment

Report prepared by Boffa Miskell Ltd (the Landscape Report) states (p.6); “It

is considered that there is sufficient distance between the two proposals that

they will not be read as one large complex...”. The report fails to offer any

justification for this assertion, and in my opinion the contrary is more likely to

be the case. The plan change areas for each site actually overlap, and the

diagrams showing mooring lines for each farm show them overlapping.

203. I consider the two adjacent farms will more likely be perceived by viewers as

a single, or at least two closely related entities and their effects should be

assessed as such. As there is no basis for regarding these two farms to be

separate developments for landscape assessment purposes, my evidence

assumes that the two farms are a single development.

204. The ‘single farm’ assessment approach adopted in the Landscape Report and

in the evidence of Mr Boffa serves to diminish the prospect of adverse effects

to unrealistic levels. As a consequence of this I consider the findings on

adverse effects on natural character, landscape and amenity in the locality of

the Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko sites must be considered flawed and

unreliable.

205. I have identified the relevant landscape for Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko as the Outer

Queen Charlotte Sound. However, the proposed sites are at the extreme

western end of this landscape at the location where in Inner Queen Charlotte

Sounds transitions to the Outer Queen Charlotte Sound, and to the inner Tory

Channel landscape character areas. Located off the western end of Arapawa

Island, these sites are at what might be regarded as the ‘marine crossroads’

of Queen Charlotte Sound and Tory Channel, and as such are within a locality

subject to relatively high levels of commercial and recreational marine traffic,

including the Cook Strait ferry services. Visiting cruise liners also pass

through the areas on their way to Picton. The locality marked by Ruaomoko Pt

and Dieffenbach Pt is in a very real sense the gateway to Queen Charlotte

Sound for marine traffic passing through Tory Channel to and from Cook

71


Strait. I regard it as a highly sensitive location for this reason, particularly

given the sharp change in direction required by inter-island ferries when

entering or leaving Tory Channel through this gateway.

206. The location of the Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko site also places the proposed

development in relatively close proximity to the existing Ruakaka Bay salmon

farm. It is inevitable that Ruakaka and Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko farms will be

perceived as occupying the same landscape context, as both farms are within

the transition area from inner to outer Sounds. Both farms are located where

they will be viewed from routes commonly travelled by recreational and

commercial craft, as acknowledged by Mr Boffa at paragraph 8.32.

Naturalness, and effects on naturalness

207. In Table 4 I record my assessment of the naturalness of the Outer Queen

Charlotte Sound landscape as Moderate-High with respect to the terrestrial

environment and High with respect to the marine environment. While this is a

general assessment of a large landscape, the specific levels of naturalness

prevailing at the site of the Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko farms are at least up to

this level. The locality is so far unmodified by marine farm development, and

there are no obvious modifications to the marine environment of the locality

other than a small scale jetty in Kaitapeha Bay. There is a resident population

of Hector’s dolphin in the area. I consider the naturalness of the marine

component of the coastal environment in the locality of these proposed farms

could justifiably rate Very High.

208. The farm site is adjoined by a Department of Conservation scenic reserve on

Arapawa Island (Ruaomoko Pt Scenic Reserve) and the Dieffenbach Pt

Scenic Reserve is located nearby, at the western entry point to Tory Channel.

While some wilding pines are apparent on hillsides adjacent to the proposed

farm site, there is a commitment to wilding pine removal on the Halstead land,

and I understand the Department of Conservation to be committed to the

removal of wilding pines on scenic reserve land.

209. In my opinion the proposed Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko farm will result in a

significant local reduction of naturalness in an area that until now has been

72


largely free (the Ruakaka farm notwithstanding) of the degrading influences of

marine farming. The effects of the proposed Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko farm on

perceptions of naturalness will be accentuated by its highly sensitive location

at the ‘marine crossroads’, and the proximity to an existing salmon farm. I

accept that the Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko development, considered in isolation in

the context of the outer Queen Charlotte Sound landscape, or indeed the

Marlborough Sounds as a whole, will have minimal overall impact on

naturalness. However, when considered in the context of cumulative

modifications to these landscapes from all sources (including all existing and

proposed marine farms), I regard the adverse effects on naturalness as

reaching an unacceptable level.

Effects on landscape significance

210. I reiterate my opinion stated elsewhere in this evidence that Queen Charlotte

Sound considered in its entirety is an ONL, and each of the inner and outer

Queen Charlotte Sound landscape character areas can also be regarded as

ONLs. The primary basis for this is the aesthetic quality of the Queen

Charlotte Sounds landscape, which I regard as being as high in the

Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko locality as anywhere within Queen Charlotte Sound.

211. My comments on the proposed salmon farms as being totally devoid of any

aesthetic merit are as applicable in the Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko context as any

other site, but I consider the effects of the farms in this locality to be

particularly adverse given the very high sensitivity of the Kaitapeha/

Ruaomoko location, being at the Queen Charlotte entrance to Tory Channel -

an area I have termed the marine crossroads of Queen Charlotte Sound.

212. Tory Channel, and the stretch of Queen Charlotte Sound from Tory Channel to

Picton is promoted by the operators of the Interislander ferry service as “...one

of the most beautiful ferry rides in the world.” The internet home page of the

Interislander service (http://www.interislander.co.nz/) features a photograph of

an outbound Interislander ferry at the Queen Charlotte end of Tory Channel,

against the background of the Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko locality (see Appendix

E).

73


http://www.interislander.co.nz/

http://www.interislander.co.nz/

213. In my opinion, the proposed Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko farm will be clearly visible

to passengers on the ferry service, a prospect acknowledged by the visual

simulation graphics (see Viewpoint 21: From Inter-Islander - Simulated View,

Visual Simulations folio, March 2012). This is likely to be more the case on

inbound services to Picton, as maritime ‘rules of the road’ require vessels to

pass port-to-port, which will require inbound ferries to take course closer to

Ruaomoko Pt than Dieffenbach Pt. This is illustrated in the navigation maps

that accompany the evidence of Mr Walker. A section of the relevant map to

this locality is included as Appendix F to my evidence. The maps show that

Picton bound ferries will travel a course that takes vessels to 474m off the

Ruaomoko farm, while an alternative course could take ferries as close as

315m to the Ruaomoko farm. The graphic simulation Viewpoint 21, is based

upon a viewing distance of 875m, which is twice the potential viewing

distance from a ferry. The viewing distance from inbound ferries could be half

that shown in the graphic simulation, with consequentially greater adverse

effects.

214. In my opinion, the degree of exposure of the Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko farms to

the occupants of vessels within the locality of these farms will have a

significant adverse effect on the aesthetic quality of a highly sensitive area,

being the gateway between Queen Charlotte Sound and Tory Channel. This is

a significant transition point in the experience of travelers on the journey

between Picton and Cook Strait, marking a change in the experience of

scale , focus, and depth of field of view, from the relatively expansive scale

and distant vistas of Queen Charlotte Sound, to the constricted, foreground

views of Tory Chanel. Visually, this is a highly sensitive location, warranting

the highest level of visual management to maintain and enhance the aesthetic

qualities of the coastal environment. In my opinion the presence of salmon

farms at this location is the antithesis of the aesthetic standards that should

apply. The extent of the area likely to be affected is illustrated in Figure D4:

Cumulative Zone of Theoretical Visibility Map: Queen Charlotte Sound

(Graphic Attachment 3, Queen Charlotte Sound Group, Natural Character,

Landscape and Visual Amenity Graphic Supplement).

74


215. The aesthetic quality of the landscape currently enjoyed by residents of, and

visitors to the Halstead property in Kaitapeha Bay will also be significantly

adversely affected. These adverse aesthetic effects will be apparent from all

localities that form the landscape context that is the basis of the Halstead’s

use of Kaitapeha Bay, including:

215.1. Views towards the property on maritime approaches to Kaitapeha

Bay from Waikawa Bay or Picton,

215.2. Views from the waters of Kaitapeha Bay and its environs, as currently

enjoyed for aquatic recreational activities,

215.3. Views from the beachfront and jetty of Kaitapeha Bay, and

215.4. Views from the deck (including outdoor dining areas) of the Halstead

residence.

Effects on amenity

216. Amenity effects have been narrowly conceived by Mr Boffa as pertaining

solely to visual amenity, and only insofar as these are experienced from the

house (Q25). Amenity effects should be considered in the holistic sense

implied by the definition of amenity included in the RMA. Regarded in holistic

terms, amenity effects associated with the proposal will extend to:

216.1. Effects on the natural character of the coastal environment,

216.2. Effects on the perception of remoteness, solitude and isolation

through the introduction of an industrial activity into the Kaitapeha

environs;

216.3. Effects on amenity associated with quietness and a predominance of

natural sounds through the introduction of mechanical and machine-

related noises associated with the operation of the salmon farms;

216.4. Effects on amenity associated with natural light and darkness through

the introduction of artificial light sources into the Kaitapeha environs. I

note the tendency for light (such as the light emanating from barges

75


used for residential purposes) to reflect off the surface of water and

create significantly greater effects than an equivalent light source in a

terrestrial environment.

217. The behaviour patterns of residents and visitors to the Halstead property

extend well beyond the limits of the house itself, and as such the effects of the

proposal on amenity should consider:

217.1. Amenity effects of the Kaitapeha site from elsewhere on the Halstead

property, including the beach and the jetty;

217.2. The amenity experience of the sea passage from Waikawa Bay to

Kaitapeha Bay, including anticipated experiences associated with the

leisure use of the Halstead property and environs, and the

environmental expectations and ambience normally associated with a

remote location within the Marlborough Sounds (the sense of “being

away”);

217.3. The amenity experiences associated with aquatic activities in and

around Kaitapeha Bay, including those experienced through

recreational activities such as swimming, kayaking, fishing and other

water sports or marine-based recreational activities.

218. With respect to each of these aspects of the amenity experience of the

Kaitapeha locality, I consider the proposed Kaitapeha/Ruaomoko farm will

significantly diminish the amenities currently associated with the Halstead

property and environs.

76


PART 3: EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PELORUS WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES LTD, BUCHANAN, ELKINGTON AND WHANAU

Scope and introductory comments

219. This section of my evidence addresses landscape, natural character and

amenity effects of the proposed Waitata Reach group of salmon farms in

Pelorus Sound.

220. Pelorus Wildlife Sanctuaries Ltd (PWS) has extensive landholdings in the

Waitata Reach and Admiralty Bay area, the larger part of which are being

managed for conservation purposes as wildlife sanctuaries. These

landholdings include the Burnt Point - Boat Rock headland, off which the

White Horse Rock and Waitata farms are proposed.

220.1. This headland is illustrated in ‘Photograph WH1: Site of proposed

White Horse Rock Salmon Farm at approximately 680m distance

from the proposed cage boundary’ (Proposed White Horse Rock

Salmon Farm: Natural Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity

Graphic Supplement, Boffa Miskell, September 2011).

220.2. A similar image of the location (although taken from a lesser distance)

is illustrated in ‘Photograph WA1: Site of proposed Waitata Salmon

Farm at approximately 570m distance from the proposed cage

boundary’ (Natural Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity

Supplement, Updated Version, Boffa Miskell Ltd, November 2011).

221. The most prominent PWS land holding is the Te Kopi peninsula, which

includes Te Akaroa, the West Head Entry Point to Pelorus Sound from the

waters of Cook Strait. Together with Maud Island, the Chetwode Islands and

other public and private reserve land within the Waitata Reach landscape, the

PWS land will form part of a chain, or archipelago of wildlife conservation

reserves that extend from Maud Island to the islands of Cook Strait. In this

context, the maintenance of the highest possible levels of naturalness and

77


aesthetic quality is considered fundamental to the success of the PWS

project.

222. Associated with the PWS project are the whanau of submitters J & R

Buchanan, and H.T Elkington, who as local iwi have a long history of

association and kaitiakitanga19 over the waters and terrestrial environment of

Waitata Reach.

Effects on the naturalness of the Waitata Reach landscape

223. The Waitata Reach is the landscape first encountered upon entering the

Pelorus Sound from the wilder and more open (and outstandingly natural)

waters of Cook Strait. It is an area of transition from the open waters of Cook

Strait and the bays of the outer Sounds to the more sheltered waters of the

inner Pelorus Sound.

224. I consider the naturalness of the Waitata Reach landscape overall to be

Moderate-High in its terrestrial component, although some headlands and

valleys would certainly rate within the High range. Even areas subject to

grazing (e.g., the Kaitira headland, from East Entry Pt - Post Office Pt - see

Site Photograph KT1: Kaitira. Natural Character, Landscape and Visual

Amenity Graphic Supplement, Part 1 (Boffa Miskell, November 2011)) exhibit

significant degree of colonisation by indigenous coastal vegetation.

225. The naturalness of Maud Island has increased significantly over some three

decades since the cessation of grazing, and other areas of land managed for

conservation purposes such as Te Kopi peninsula are in a state of flux, on an

ecological trajectory towards a significantly higher level of naturalness than is

currently apparent. As the experience of Maud Island illustrates, the

landscape is capable of dramatic changes in naturalness within the space of a

relatively short time frame. The transition that has occurred from pastoral

farmland to scientific reserve on Maud island over the course of 2-3 decades

provides a model for what will likely occur on the Te Kopi peninsula.

78


19 The exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga maori in relation to natural and physical resources; and includes the ethic of stewardship.

226. The combined efforts of the Department of Conservation (e.g., on Maud

Island), private individuals and local iwi are contributing to the stewardship

and enhanced naturalness of an area of Sounds landscape that is nationally

significant in terms of many of the natural elements that occur here. Many of

the most valued species of wildlife are rare and endangered, whether

occurring naturally in the environment (the king shag, Hamilton’s frog) or

relocated for conservation programs to Maud Island (kakapo and takahe).

227. Within the Waitata Reach landscape, five salmon farm structures are to be

added to a landscape already visually encumbered by an existing salmon

farm in Waihinau Bay, and a large number of mussel farms (see; Figure A1:

Marlborough Sounds Site Location Plan: All Sites, in Graphic Attachment 1,

Waitata Reach Group, Natural Character, Landscape and Visual Amenity

Supplement (Boffa Miskell, November 2011)).

228. Three of the proposal sites (Kaitira, Tapipi and Richmond) are located in a

part of the landscape that displays a higher level of naturalness compared to

those parts of the Waitata Reach that are subject to mussel farm

development. As noted in the Landscape Report (paragraph 7.2.1, p.96):

Three out of four of the proposal sites are located in the coastal environment that currently has low or no levels of aquaculture activity on the southeast side of Waitata Reach.

229. The development of these farms will represent a degradation of naturalness in

a part of the Waitata Reach landscape that exhibits higher levels of

naturalness than other parts of the Waitata Reach landscape, as the

Landscape Report goes on to acknowledge:

The three proposed salmon farm sites on the south-east side of the Waitata Reach are located in a remoter, more open and generally less modified coastal environment and where landscape and visual sensitivity is greater, thereby amplifying the magnitude of effect, resulting in an increase in potential significance of proposals in this coastal environment.

230. I concur with this analysis, and on the basis of my own assessment I consider

the 5 proposed farms whether considered individually or cumulatively,

together with the existing farm in Waihinau Bay, will represent a significant

adverse effect on the naturalness of the Waitata Reach landscape. I consider

79


the adverse nature of the effects will be amplified by occurring in a coastal

environment context where private and public conservation efforts are

focussed on the restoration and enhancement of natural character, and

wildlife conservation.

Effects on landscape significance

231. Given their location off prominent headlands within the Waitata Reach, I

consider the four farms that are the subject of the plan change application

(Kaitira, Waitata, Tapipi and Richmond) will have a significant adverse effect

on the aesthetic quality of the Waitata Reach landscape - a landscape that I

consider to be an outstanding natural landscape and subject to s6(b) of the

RMA and Policy 15 of the NZCPS. The adverse effects on aesthetic quality

will derive from the four farms considered individually and collectively, but will

be compounded as cumulative adverse effects when considered together with

(i) the existing Waihinau Bay farm, (ii) existing mussel farms within Waitata

Reach and adjacent bays.

232. The aesthetic characteristics and qualities of the Waitata Reach will be

adversely affected in the following ways:

232.1. The diminution of the naturalness associated with the Waitata Reach

through the introduction of prominent and incongruous structural

elements into the marine environment, disrupting natural patterns,

232.2. Disrupting the natural behavioural patterns of sea birds and marine

mammal wildlife that figure in the aesthetic appreciation of the

Waitata Reach landscape,

232.3. Disruption to the formal aesthetic aspects (form line, texture pattern

and colour) that formed the basis for the identification of ONLs in the

MSRMP by way of the Department of Conservation VAMPLAN study,

232.4. Through the introduction of elements and activities that are

antagonistic to senses of place that regard the outer Pelorus Sound

as an area characterised by a sense of remoteness, isolation,

solitude, quietude, and tranquility.

80


Effects on amenity

233. Many of the same factors that relate to the aesthetic appreciation of the

Waitata Reach also contribute to the amenities associated with the locality,

including aesthetic quality, naturalness and sense of place.

234. Much of the amenity appreciation of the Waitata Reach derives from

expansive and at times extensive views and vistas that are obtainable from

the waters of the reach, but also from land based settlements around the

periphery, from public and private reserve and conservation land, and from

public roads such as the Te Towaka—Port Ligar Road and the Bulwer Road.

The Te Towaka—Port Ligar Road affords views to the east across Waitata

Reach, within which the proposed Tapipi and Richmond farms will figure

clearly. The presence of the proposed farms off prominent headlands

(particularly White Horse Rock and Tapipi) will emphasise the visibility of the

proposed farms within views and vistas, whether experienced from on the

waters of the Waitata Reach, or terrestrial viewpoints.

235. Amenity associated with views from planned walking tracks on private

conservation land (e.g., Te Kopi headland, and the Burnt Pt—Boat Rock Pt

headland above the proposed White Horse Rock and Waitata sites) will be

diminished, as will amenity associated with the recreational experiences of

kayaking and other recreational boat use around the coastline from Waitata

Bay to Waihinau Bay.

WHITE HORSE ROCK APPLICATION

236. The proposed White Horse Rock site, immediately adjacent to the proposed

Waitata site within the Waitata Reach landscape is identified in the MSRMP

as being within the CMZ2 zone and accordingly is the subject of a resource

consent application rather than a plan change application (see footnote page

80, to the document, ‘Assessment of environmental effects to accompany

applications for plan change and resource consents’20).

81


20 “The White Horse Rock salmon farm in Waitata Reach is also the subject of a separate resource consent application to the EPA to be considered concurrently with the Plan Change and resource consent applications addressed in this AEE. The White Horse Rock site is zoned CMZ2 and consent is required as a Discretionary Activity. Accordingly, unlike the other eight sites, a plan change is not required in respect of this site before an application can made for a resource consent.”

237. The White Horse Rock proposal (WHR) is for a site where a permit

(U010272) has been granted to operate a mussel farm. The mussel farm has

not been developed and the site appears in its natural state, but the permitted

mussel farm must be regarded as part of the existing environment of the site

for resource consenting purposes.

238. Mussel farms are widespread within the outer Pelorus Sound, but within the

WHR locality are restricted to Waihinau and Waitata Bays. Only a single farm

has been permitted for the Waitata Reach margins of the Burnt Rock to Boat

Rock Point headland. While I have stated that cumulatively I regard mussel

farms within the outer Pelorus Sound as approaching the threshold for

acceptable cumulative effect, the effects associated with individual mussel

farms are clearly less than those associated with salmon farms:

238.1. Mussel farm structures are restricted to buoys and ropes, together

with a radar reflector and navigation lights at the corners of farms.

Mussel farms sit low in the water, and visibility from the surface of the

water is very much dependent on sea and light conditions - in choppy

or rough sea conditions, visibility is markedly reduced. Viewed from

above, from land, the linear patterns of buoys are clearly visible as a

simple coherent pattern on the water, and in my opinion the visual

impact of individual farms on the seascape is relatively benign. From

the surface of the water the zone of visual influence of a mussel farm

is limited to a few hundred metres, according to sea and light

conditions.

238.2. I understand the visibility of mussel farms can be reduced further by

technology that enables mussel farms to be largely submerged.

238.3. Salmon farms are a structural working environment with structural

components that rise to over 2 m above sea level (greater where

buildings for servicing and accommodation are required), constructed

of steel and metals and synthetic materials which may often appear

as highly reflective surfaces. The zone of visual influence of a salmon

82


farm extents to 3km or more when viewed from the sea, and to at

least 6km when viewed from elevated positions on land.

238.4. Human activity associated with mussel farms is significantly less than

that required of salmon farms, for which a daily staff presence is

necessary for feeding and maintenance.

238.5. Mussel farms do not lead to the behavioural changes in wildlife that

are evident in sea birds and marine mammals around salmon farms.

238.6. Mussel farms do not present an impediment to small craft (e.g.,

kayaks) in the way that salmon farms do. Small craft can navigate

between rows of mussel farms, and other than when being serviced,

there is no sense in which mussel farms are ‘off-limits’ to other users

of the marine space they occupy.

238.7. The exclusive occupation of marine space by salmon farms, together

with the constant presence of staff, creates a strong sense of

exclusive use and de facto privatisation that extends beyond the

physical margins of the salmon farm structure. This, in my opinion,

will exert a strong sense of influence over the use of public space

adjacent to salmon farms, such that the space they are perceived to

occupy will be rather larger than the space occupied by the physical

structures of the farms.

239. These among other factors create a situation in which salmon farms have a

significantly greater adverse effect on natural character, landscape and

amenity than is the case with mussel farms.

The site and landscape context

240. The proposed site is adjacent to a prominent headland that forms part of the

land owned and managed for conservation purposes by PWS. The headland

is steeply sloping, well covered with indigenous bush, and displays no

obvious signs of modifications to naturalness other than a small number of

pine trees that will be removed as part of the management strategy for the

property.

83


241. The marine area around Boat Rock Point at the southern end of the headland

is identified in Appendix B, Volume 2 of the MSRMP as a “Buffer zone for king

shag breeding and roosting site.” (Site 1/15)

242. A walking trail for nature experiences and wildlife viewing is proposed around

the coastal margins of the headland, extending to a relatively flat location on

the promontory above Boat Rock Point, from where the king shag breeding

and roosting site will be visible. The marine margins of the headland are

promoted as a kayaking route by PWS. The named topographical feature

White Horse Rock is a short distance off shore (some 30m from MLWS),

immediately adjacent to the proposed WHR farm (see ‘Plan of Proposed

Farm Layout’, prepared by OCEL Consultants and included in Appendix 1:

Maps and Plans, White Horse Rock Resource Consent Application).

243. The site and adjacent headland is part of the wider Waitata Reach landscape

I have defined elsewhere in my evidence. I consider the landscape context to

have Moderate-High naturalness in the terrestrial component of the coastal

environment, extending to High in areas such as Tapipi headland and the

White Horse Rock headland. The marine component of the coastal

environment is characterised by High naturalness overall, extending to Very

High naturalness within much of Waitata Reach, particularly off the prominent

headlands and within the main channel of the reach.

244. Parts of the terrestrial environment are on a trajectory to significantly higher

levels of naturalness. The capacity of Maud Island to reach a state of

naturalness that has been assessed as Outstanding natural character in the

course of some 3 decades of ecological restoration is an indication of what is

possible through conservation efforts.

245. Appendix T to the s149G(3) Key Issues report shows that the Boffa Miskell

coastal natural character study has rated this section of the coastline as

having High natural character. Having had the opportunity to consider the

naturalness of Maud Island and the White Horse Rock headland, I question

why the Boffa Miskell study rates the headland at High, when the similar

coastal environment of Maud Island is rated as having Outstanding natural

84


character. In my opinion, the headland and its adjacent marine context can

be regarded as displaying a similar level of naturalness to much of Maud

Island, notwithstanding the permitted mussel farm within the marine margins

of the headland.

246. The landscape significance of the site and adjacent headland is shown not to

be outstanding in the MSRMP landscape maps (Map 74), although the very

similar nearby headland from Cannon Point to Danger Point is shown to be

outstanding (see Map 74 and an enlarged section of Map 74 in Appendix D to

this evidence). Given the acknowledged shortcomings of the landscape study

that informed the landscape maps, I do not regard the landscape maps as

authoritative in a technical sense. Elsewhere in my evidence I have

questioned why the ONLs of Waitata Reach are not continuous across the

marine environment of the reach, such that the ONLs link together to reflect

the perceptual continuum of environmental experience. I am unable to

comprehend any reason why the White Horse Rock headland and adjacent

marine environment should not be regarded as ONL. The naturalness of the

headland and adjacent marine area clearly exceed the naturalness threshold

required for s6(b) purposes, and from the evidence of the Boffa Miskell

graphic ‘Site Photograph WH1’, the aesthetic quality is self-evident.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS)

247. The natural character and landscape significance of the WHR site and its

landscape context are such that the application is subject to Policies 13, 14

and 15 of the NZCPS:

Policy 13: Preservation of natural character

1 To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and to protect it from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

(a) avoid adverse effects of activities on natural character in areas of the coastal environment with outstanding natural character; and

(b) avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on natural character in all other areas of the coastal environment;

85


248. As I have not assessed the site as having Outstanding natural character

(although I have noted the similarities with Maud Island, which has been

assessed as displaying Outstanding natural character), Policy 13.1(a) does

not apply. However Policy 13.1(b) requires that significant adverse effects be

avoided, and all other adverse effects be avoided, remedied or mitigated. In

my opinion adverse effects associated with salmon farms generally can

neither be remedied not mitigated, and I am unable to comprehend any way

in which the proposed WHR farm could be remedied or mitigated. This leaves

the only option as avoidance, which I consider appropriate given that I regard

the proposed farm as a significant adverse effect on the naturalness of the

locality.

249. Policy 14 addresses the restoration of natural character within the coastal

environment. I consider Policy 14(a) to be particularly relevant:

Policy 14: Restoration of natural character

Promote restoration or rehabilitation of the natural character of the coastal environment, including by :

(a) identifying areas and opportunities for restoration or rehabilitation;

250. The headland above the proposed farm is part of the private conservation

estate being managed by PWS. Wilding trees are being removed and pests

controlled to promote the restoration of natural character. The presence of the

king shag breeding and roosting area off Boat Rock Point provides a catalyst

for ecological restoration and the enhancement of naturalness that would be

negated through the establishment of the proposed salmon farm.

251. Policy 15(a) of the NZCPS requires the avoidance of adverse effects on

ONFL within the coastal environment:

Policy 15: Natural features and natural landscapes

To protect the natural features and natural landscapes (including seascapes) of the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:

(a) avoid adverse effects of activities on outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes in the coastal environment; and

86


(b) avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy, or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on other natural features and natural landscapes in the coastal environment;

252. As I regard both the Waitata Reach landscape and the immediate context of

the WHR site as ONL on the basis of the outstanding aesthetic qualities of the

landscape, I consider Policy 15(a) applies, and the adverse effects associated

with the proposed farm should be avoided.

MRMP Objectives and Policies

253. Section 5.3, Objective and Policies of the MSRMP requires the assessment of

effects of the White Horse Rock proposal on natural character and landscape

characteristics and qualities:

5.3 Objectives and Policies

Objective 1 Management of the visual quality of the Sounds and protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

Policy 1.1 Avoid, remedy and mitigate adverse effects of subdivision, use and development, including activities and structures, on the visual quality of outstanding natural features and landscapes, identified according to criteria in Appendix One

254. I consider this objective and policy has been adequately dealt with in the

context of the NZCPS, above. I consider the WHR proposal is contrary to

Objective 1 and Policy 1.1, as the proposal can be regarded as inappropriate

use and development in the context of the outstanding visual qualities of the

Waitata Reach.

MSRMP Assessment Matters

255. The White Horse Rock farm is a Discretionary resource consent application,

falling as the site does within the CMZ2 zone. The various criteria that must

be taken into account are set out in Sections 35.4.1 General Assessment

Criteria and 35.4.2.9 Marine Farms in Coastal Marine Zone Two of the

MSRMP.

35.4.1.1.2 Any relevant objectives, policies and rules of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.

87


256. These have been addressed above, where I state that I consider the proposal

is contrary to policies 13, 14 and 15 of the NZCPS, and adverse effects

should be avoided.

35.4.1.1.5.1 The locality and wider community and in particular:

a) Whether the proposal will enhance or maintain the amenity values of the surrounding area;

257. The WHR site is within the Waitata Reach and thus part of the marine

passage from Cook Strait to the inner Pelorus Sound. There are a number of

private residences and lodges within the adjacent Waihinau and Waitata Bays

that generate marine traffic within the Reach. The coastline of the headland is

promoted by PWS for sea kayaking, and a walking track is under

development on the headland that will take visitors down to the base of Boat

Rock Pt. As a consequence of these factors the site of part of a wider

landscape that provides a high level of amenity to visitors and residents alike.

The proposal will neither enhance, nor will it maintain existing amenity values.

35.4.1.1.5.2 The amenities of the area and in particular that any proposal does not: ...

c) Detract from any view or vista which contribute to the aesthetic coherence of a locality.

258. Extensive views across the outstanding natural landscape of the Waitata

Reach, and out to the Chetwode Islands and the waters of Cook Strait will be

possible from the proposed walkway above the White Horse Rock farm.

Views will also be possible to the south west towards the Yellow Cliffs

headland, and Maud Island (both identified in the MSRMP as “Areas of

outstanding landscape value”). Views towards the proposed farm from

walking tracks above the Yellow Cliffs headland will also be possible. I

consider the position of the proposed WHR farm in the foreground and middle

ground of these views and vistas will detract from the aesthetic quality of

landscapes that figure in these views.

35.4.1.1.5.3 Any significant environmental features and in particular that the proposal does not:

...

88


c) Diminish the natural character of the locality, having regard to the natural character areas identified in Appendix Two, Volume One.

259. The introduction of a salmon farm into a location exhibiting High to Very High

levels of naturalness will diminish the natural character of the site and its

locality through:

259.1. The introduction of an incongruous and prominent structural element

into the marine environment, disrupting natural patterns;

259.2. The introduction of activities associated with the operation of the farm

(day to day operations and servicing) into any area not currently

characterised by human interventions of this nature.21

259.3. Disrupting the natural behavioural patterns of sea birds and marine

mammals, particularly fur seals and dolphins, resulting in the

acculturation (or habituation) of birds and mammals to the farm and

activities undertaken in the course of its operation. I note the

presence of a king shag buffer area within close proximity to the

proposed WHR farm. Having observed a king shag roosting on the

existing Waihinau Bay farm, I consider the proximity of the proposed

farm to the king shag buffer zone must have implications for king

shag behaviour.

35.4.2.9 Marine Farms in Coastal Marine Zone Two35.4.2.9.1.4 Consideration of aesthetic and cultural matters including:

Proximity to, and likely effect on areas of: ...

d) Scenic value;

260. The scenic value of Pelorus Sound generally and Waitata Reach in particular

derives from what is referred to elsewhere in the MSRMP as “outstanding

visual values” (see section 5.1.1, reproduced as Appendix C to this evidence).

These visual values (scenic value, or aesthetic value) will be diminished as a

consequence of the same adverse effects the farm has upon naturalness.

89


21 The permitted mussel farm, if developed, would not require the same daily management regime as the proposed salmon farm.

Whereas some human artifactual elements can be introduced into a natural

landscape with minimal effect on naturalness, the salmon farm is different in

two important respects: (i) it has no mitigating aesthetic merit, but rather is an

ill-fitting and incongruous industrial element within the marine environment,

and (ii) the incongruity of the farm is sharpened by the degree of contrast

between the structure and the simple planar surface of the sea.

35.4.2.9.1.6 Other matters including:...b) The visual effect of the farm and its operation; ...d) The alienation of public space; and

261. In addition to the effects of the farm and its operations on naturalness and

scenic value, already noted, I reiterate the distance over which the proposed

farm will exert adverse visual effects: (i) some 3km, more or less according to

sea and atmospheric conditions, when viewed form the waters of Waitata

Reach, and (ii) some 6km, more or less when viewed from the land. I also

note that a salmon farm is not a (relatively) passive operation in the sense

that a mussel farm is, but is an operation that requires daily activities relating

to its operation, maintenance and servicing. These activities would see

greater frequency of marine traffic to the site than would be the case for the

permitted mussel farm, and considerably greater traffic than if the site

remained undeveloped and subject only to recreational use.

262. With respect to the alienation of public space, I note the following:

262.1. Unlike mussel farms, which permit the passage of small craft through

their midst, a salmon farms totally occupies the space to the

exclusion of all other activities.

262.2. I consider the presence of staff on board salmon farms will act as a

deterrent to recreational users of the marine environment around the

farm, effectively privatising an area of the marine environment that

includes the farm itself and a notional area of space around its

perimeter. This is space that would otherwise be freely accessible to

the public, even in the event of a mussel farm being built.

90


Conclusions

263. Having considered the proposed WHR salmon farm in the context of Part 2 of

the RMA, the NZCPS and the relevant provisions of the MSRMP it is my

opinion that:

263.1. The proposal will be an example of inappropriate use and

development within an area of at least High natural character and

outstanding landscape significance, and thus will not be consistent

with sections 6(a) and 6(b) of the RMA;

263.2. With regard to Policy 13 of the NZCPS, the significant adverse effects

on natural character associated with the development of the WHR

farm should be avoided. With regard to Policy 15 of the NZCPS,

adverse effects on outstanding natural landscape of the Waitata

Reach should be avoided. Policies 13 and 15 can be met by declining

consent. In my opinion, the adverse natural character, landscape and

amenity effects of the proposed WHR farm can neither be remedied

nor mitigated.

263.3. With regard to the relevant assessment criteria from the MSRMP

discussed above, I consider none of the provisions can be met.

ML StevenFriday, 10 August 2012

91


APPENDIX A:

A DIAGRAMMATIC SUMMARY OF THE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR RMA PURPOSES

Landscape character assessment and interpretation

Natural character assessment – Natural elements, natural patterns and natural

processes and the extent to which they have been modified by human intervention or

management

Identification of landscapes and landscape features for evaluation purposes – Landscape Character

Types (LCT) & Landscape Character Areas (LCA)

Natural enough for evaluation for s6(b) purposes – passed 1st

threshold test

Not natural enough for evaluation for s6(b) purposes – failed 1st

threshold test

Landscape evaluation

Natural science values stream of inquiry

(Biophysical)

Aesthetic values stream of inquiry

(Sensory/perceptual)Drawing upon other streams of

inquiry: natural science knowledge and sense of place

Socio-cultural stream of inquiry: Community-held

values (Associative)

Synthesise all values for assessment of overall landscape significance

Landscape or landscape feature passes threshold

for outstandingness

Identify landscape or feature as an Outstanding Natural

Landscape (ONL) or Outstanding Natural Feature (ONF) for s6(b)

purposes

DESCRIPTIVE / INTERPRETIVE PHASE

EVALUATIVE PHASE

Not significant enough for for s6(b) purposes – failed

2nd threshold test

92


APPENDIX B:

A TYPOLOGY OF COMMUNITY HELD VALUES22

1 Aesthetic: Areas valued for the scenery—mountains, glaciers,

forests, beaches, tidelands, bays and islands

2 Biological: Areas valued because they provide places for a

variety of plants, animals and wildlife

3 Cultural: Areas valued because people can continue to pass

down wisdom, traditions, and a way of life

4 Economic: Areas valued because they provide economic

opportunities such as fisheries, tourism, or processing

5 Future: Areas valued because they allow future generations to

know and experience the areas as they are now

6 Historic: Areas valued because they are places and things of

natural and human history

7 Intrinsic: Areas valued just because they exist, no matter what

humans think about them or how we use them

8 Learning: Areas valued because we can learn about the

environment

9 Life sustaining: Areas valued because they are places that

produce, preserve, clean, and renew air, soil, and water

10 Recreation: Areas valued because they provide places for

outdoor, recreation activities and experiences

11 Spiritual: Areas valued because they are sacred, religious,

spiritually important

12 Subsistence: Areas valued because they provide necessary

food and materials to sustain people's lives

13 Therapeutic: Areas valued because they make people feel

better, physically and/or mentally

14 Wilderness: Areas valued because they are wild

93


22 Alessa, Kliskey & Brown (2008). Social–ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social–ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning 85, 27-39

APPENDIX C:

EXCERPT FROM MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN: CHAPTER 5, LANDSCAPE

5.1.1 Identification of Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes

In its entirety, the landscape of the Marlborough Sounds Plan area has outstandingvisual values. It displays a broad range of types of visual landscapes and featureswhich are often of greater value for their collective contribution than for theirindividual value. The location of the Sounds at the top of the South Island withthe role as a sea corridor and gateway to the South Island ensures a high publicprofile as a travel route.

Some of the visual features of the Sounds which contribute significantly to itsoutstanding character are:

• The curving coastline with a range of tidal estuaries and sandy and rocky beaches;• Island landforms set with a skyline backdrop;• Highly weathered coastal cliffs;• Rolling ridgelines along the skyline;• A complex mosaic of vegetation patterns which gives rise to a range of textures and colours in

the landscape; and• Uninterrupted sequence from hilltop to seafloor.

Within the overall landscape of the Marlborough Sounds there are some partswhich can be described as individually outstanding such as coastal cliffs includingthose facing Cook Strait and on D’Urville Island, the Rangitoto Islands, FrenchPass Channel and the coastal forests and waters of Tennyson Inlet. Otheroutstanding features and landscape components can be identified and, wherethey occur, are generally:

• Headlands;• Spurs and steep hillsides;• Skylines;• Significant hills and landform peaks;• Water;• Shorelines and small coves;• Indigenous forests;• Mudflats and tidal estuaries;• Flat valley floors; and• Cliff faces.

Areas of outstanding landscape value are indicated on the planning maps inVolume Three. This material is intended to provide a guide to assist those involvedin resource consent applications to assess adverse effects on outstandinglandscape criteria and values.

94


APPENDIX D:

1: LANDSCAPE MAP 74, MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN SHOWING AREAS OF OUTSTANDING LANDSCAPE VALUE (PURPLE)

Tasman Bay

GrevilleHarbour

Stephens Passage

TrioIslands

(Kuru Pongi)

RangitotoIslands

AdmiraltyBay

StephensIsland

ManuhakapakapaBay

PortHardy

Tenn

yson

Inlet

ChetwodeIslands

French

Pas

s

PortLigar

D'UrvilleIsland

CurrentBasin

MaudIsland

CatherineCove

AnatakupuIsland

Kaitira

ForsythIsland

WaitataBay

WaitataReach

Tawhitinui Reach BeatrixBay

ForsythBay

Halla

m Co

ve

East Arm

OkuriBay

Paparoa

Clay Pt

CroisillesHarbour

Squally Cove

MapD'Urville Island

26

Fe

b 2

01

0

1

77

1F Scale: 1:

Original drawn scale for printing at A3

150000

1 75

78

74

76 74

95


2: ENLARGED SECTION OF LANDSCAPE MAP 74, MSRMP, SHOWING AREAS OF OUTSTANDING LANDSCAPE VALUE (PURPLE)

An element of arbitrariness if apparent in the definition of areas of outstanding value.

There is no explanation given as to why areas of sea between outstanding landscapes are not consistently shown as outstanding - compare Tennyson Inlet landscape (previous map) with the sea (Apuau Channel) between Maud Island and the mainland.

96


APPENDIX E:

SCREEN SHOT OF INTERISLANDER FERRY HOME PAGE, SHOWING KAITAPEHA/RUAOMOKO SITE IN BACKGROUND

97


APPENDIX F:

SECTION OF NAVIGATION IMPACT MAP 8, RUAOMOKO, KAITAPEHA, FROM THE APPENDICES TO THE EVIDENCE OF MR DAVID WALKER

98


before the board of inquiry at blenheim in the matter … · 3 dr michael steven_evidence_landscape...

Documents