Outstandingness

As noted previously, the RMA91 requires as a matter of national importance that ‘outstanding natural features and landscapes be protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development’ (Resource Management Act, 1991). Landscape architects are relied upon within landscape planning to determine which landscapes are outstanding and which are not. This concept of ‘outstandingness’ in relation to landscape is an artefact of the RMA91 having its origin in the legislation relating to water conservation orders (Dosser, Milne, Palmer, & Barton, 2005). The TCPA77 had allowed for ‘The preservation or conservation of trees, bush, plants landscape, and areas of special amenity value’ only (TCPA77 S36(5)(a)). It was this elevation of landscape to a matter of national importance that so excited the Landscape Architecture profession in the late 1980s and early 1990s in New Zealand. Thus the concept of ‘outstanding natural landscape’ has largely developed as a result of interactions between landscape architects, planners and the Environment Court. Therefore, it seems important to understand what landscape architects mean by ‘outstanding’ and how they determine it.

The majority of respondents (eight of the eleven) considered ‘outstanding’ to mean preeminent, extraordinary, top quality and several commented that it should be able to speak for itself. Several respondents referred to a quotation from a decision of the Court relating to the landscape categorisation of the Queenstown Lakes District where it stated that:

…ascertaining an area of outstanding natural landscape should not (normally) require experts. Usually an outstanding natural landscape should be so obvious (in general terms) that there is no need for expert analysis. (C180/99 Para 99, Pp 56-57)

This has been interpreted as meaning that they must entail a ‘wow’ factor and this has been commonly cited in statements of evidence to support the landscape architect’s particular approach, showing the influence of the Court upon current practice.

A further issue is raised by the Court’s argument that outstanding landscapes should be so obvious as to not require expert analysis. If Joe and Josephine Public are able to determine which are the outstanding landscapes of their district then this requires that people and communities are asked which of their landscapes are outstanding, acknowledging that the values which they may express in regard to their landscape are likely to be both aspects of aesthetic appreciation and aspects of habitation or attachment to place. Lesley and Taylor both considered that, at the local level at least, public preferences should be a part of determining outstandingness. Both justified this in terms of ‘attachment to place’, that is, that local knowledge, associations and relationships may make places special to those communities. There was, however, little evidence of the adoption of this approach within the research data, although stake-holder consultation and public surveys were used in the Banks Peninsula Landscape Study.

38

Cameron raised an objection to the idea of basing assessments of outstandingness on public survey (or similar). While it may be important to take public preferences into account he considers that it is still necessary to know not only what is preferred but also what is preferable and that the latter is the role of the expert. This he likened to the role of an art critic as opposed to someone who ‘doesn’t know anything about art but knows what they like’ and referred directly to landscape aesthetics as being the core competency of the Landscape Architect.

Another perspective on the idea that what is preferred might not be preferable was presented by Quinn. Quinn raised this issue when considering that the current landscape management regime of the RMA was unhelpful in the restoration of degraded landscapes. We know that ecologically healthy systems, for example, are often messy and not considered desirable by those who are not cognisant of their environmental value (Egoz, 2002; Nassauer, 1995b). Similarly, we know that what is preferred from an aesthetic point of view, is often not ecologically desirable (Nassauer, 1995a). It seems that there is a need to co-ordinate the various types of value and that this should be, as suggested by Cameron, the role of the landscape architect. That is, to be able to pull together the threads of understanding about the processes which are occurring within a landscape which includes land management practices; natural processes; and social values.

Pat and Quinn expressed difficulty with the very concept of ‘outstandingness’ as well as with its application. Quinn complained that in most instances the assessment of outstandingness was done on the basis of visual aesthetics only and paid scant regard to the ecological health or integrity of the landscape. He said:

A lot of those landscapes are so degraded they’re simply not functioning anymore. Poor water quality. Lack of biodiversity. Eroding slopes. Loss of topsoil. You name it, I could go on and on…We can’t just be scenic.

Pat complained that he found the term ‘outstanding’ difficult and talked about the pre RMA days:

In days gone by, often someone had done a broad study of an area, Ministry of Works often, and they would determine landscapes in terms of rarity, sensitivity, vulnerability, harmony, coherency, those sort of factors, and then it would come up with an analysis of what each landscape unit was like and I think that was quite a good way…it was something to work from.

He continued:

It also depends on the judge, whether he’s green or pro-green or pro-development and it’s still left to a person’s decision making even though he’s got case history.

This issue was raised by Jessie with regard to classifications in Regional and District Plans being always open for challenge. The case of Project Hayes was raised, where four landscape architects determined the receiving environment was not an Outstanding Natural Landscape (a conclusion incorporated into the relevant District Plan) but a fifth determined

39

that it was8. It was with the fifth landscape architect with whom the Court agreed. As Pat noted, ‘Where does that leave the developer? There’s just nothing definitive’.

An issue of concern raised by Taylor, Cameron and Jessie was that they see that there is a tendency to argue that a landscape is outstanding in order to gain some legal protection for it or to stymie a development project considered inappropriate. As Cameron said, quoting Abraham Maslow, ‘It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.’