Enough coastline for all, or is there?

Press, 22 February 1977, Page 20

Enough coastline for all, or is there?

By JOHN WILSON New Zealanders take for granted being able to get down to the sea when and where they want to and many of them own a seaside bach.

New Zealand has one of the longest coastlines, in proportion to its area, in the world, and with a relatively small population it might seem unlikely for people to be worried [about ugly development along the coast and restricted public access to the shore. There is coast to spare for everyone, seems a typical attitude, and no need to impose restrictions on coastal subdivisions. The hostility which a private member’s Coastal Management and Moratorium Bill aroused when it was introduced in Parliament in 1975 appears to confirm that

this is a widespread attitude. The bill would have taken away from local authorities the right to authorise developments in a strip one kilometre deep around the coast and established a commission to control future planning and development in that strip. But it was withdrawn in the face of vigorous protest. The ill-fated bill was similar to a law adopted in Cali-

[fornia last year. The Californian law will, in effect, restrict future building along the 1070-mile Californian coast to already developed areas. All construction in a zone along the coast nowhere less than 1000 yards wide and sometimes up to five miles deep will be controlled by a commission which came into existence at the beginning of the year. All local governments along the Californian coast are now required to prepare plans for the development and management of the coastline. The commission

can override anv plan it considers unsatisfactory. In California, about 60 per cent of the coastline is already in private hands and another 15 per cent off limits to the public as military reserves, for instance. Such a strict law may not be needed here, but many people believe that things cannot be left to slide for verv much longer. Controlling coastal subdivisions and ensuring ready access to the coast for all New Zealanders has concerned governments for a decade or more. In 1969, the National Development Conference declared that the protec-

tion of coastal land from unnecessary development should have high priority; three years later the Town and Country Planning Division of the Ministry of Works adopted a new policy about coastal development which was aimed at limiting it to suitable places

and preventing the destruction of coastal scenery. One of the general purposes of the present Reserves Bill is to ensure public access to the coast, preserve the coast’s natural character and prevent unnecessary coastal development. To some extent, undesirable development along the coast is not a Canterbury problem. But on the east coast north of Auckland and on the Coromandel

Peninsula subdivisions have already destroyed the scenic value of much coast- ■ line and limited public

access to the shore. There may be less demand for sections on the coast in Canterbury than there has been on the coasts accessible to Auckland, but some demand

exists there. It appears to have been met so far by the exchange of existing leases in the beach settlements like Leithfield, Woodend, and Waikuku and by subdivision in already settled areas on Banks Peninsula, especially around Lyttelton and Akaroa harbours. The proposed subdivision at Wainui, modest and wellplanned by Auckland standards, "should help reduce pressure for unplanned development elsewhere on the Peninsula.

The most sustained effort the Government has made to deal with the probems of access to and preservation of the coastline has been the coastal reserves survey on which the Lands and Survey Department has been quietly working since 1966. The survey is being done county by county. In Canterbury, Lanus

and Survey officers havi completed the coastal sur veys for Cheviot and Wai para counties. The survej of Banks Peninsula, whicl contains Canterbury’s most varied and scenicallx attractive sea coasts ant where the pressures foi development are likely tc be strongest in the future should be finished by the end of this year. The reports arising out of these surveys will not be made public until they can be presented to the county councils concerned. The Lands and Survey reports merely state in detail what reserves there already are and what the department thinks should be done to add to them. Planning control over coastal land is still in the hands of the counties which border the coast.

The Lands and Survey Department can only offer advice and professional services to help the counties when they draw up or review their district planning schemes. The department hopes, of course, that the counties will eventually write any recommendations into their schemes. Some smaller rural counties have already shown that they are mindful of their national and regional responsibilities in controlling development along the coast. The Mount Herbert County Council, for example, when it reviewed its district scheme in 1975, set aside generous reserves around the head of Lyttelton Harbour and attempted to bring subdivision around the harbour under closer control. New coastal reserves are being created not just to preserve coastal scenery but also to ensure continued easy public access to the shore. Many New Zealanders seem to think that there is no problem of access to the shore because of the chain of Crown land above the high-water mark. But the “Queen’s chain” is by

no means an adequate guarantee of access at many points along the coast. The Counties Act was amended in 1961 to require county councils to take strips of land along the shore as reserves on every coastal subdivision and some counties, especially in the North Island, have begun exercising this power with discrimination and foresight to ensure that public access to the entire coastline is practically as well as legally possible.

Even if there is a narrow strip, wider than the “Queen's chain” around the entire coastline, there will still be a need for many larger reserves, especially at the best parts of the coast.

When the Lands and Survey Department sees the need for a new reserve of regional or even national significance it will try to buy the land itself. In 1972 a trust fund of SIM a year for five years was set up to buy new coastal reserves, but the SIM for 1976-77 was committed even before the year began. The Lands and Survey Department in Christchurch has its eye on four areas

in Canterbury for negj, coastal reserves, but will* not make any approach to} the present owners untffi the money is there to buy’ the land. Money is the main con}strain! on the acquisition) of new coastal but there has "been talk.' in the department of a I tern-, atives to outright purchase.! In some cases the depat't--ment may be able to' achieve its goals by having" the Government "rent" the* development potential of’ some coastal land, allowing the farmer to go on farm 4 ing the land but without altering its appearance. The department may give "management assistance* to private owners in return < for the public gaining certain rights or the owner agreeing to halt any un-' desirable development ot) the land.

All this activity suggests that in Canterbury where there is, as yet, little development that has marred the appearance of the coastline or restricted public access to the shore, future generations should continue to enjoy the same opportunities as the present generation to take advantage of the province’s varied coastline.