Taupo District Plan (Residential Environment Area) 8.3.3 Example of the rule structure of an activity-based plan Rules Structure - Selwyn District Plan (Living Zone Rules) 8.3.4 Research question 2 - findings If were any common structure features for effects based plans, is this structure similar to or different from other more activity-based plans? All that were reviewed used a similar rule structure when determining activity status for proposals, this approach was: To specifically list an activity; and To list performance standards and assessing ability of an activity to meet these. The effects based plans relied heavily on performance standards but also specified specific activities, albeit to a lesser extent than activity-based plans. The activities based plans listed more specific activities but also relied on performance standards. The listing of specific activities meant that the definitions of these activities had to be clearly stated to ensure that the rules were applied correctly e.g. from home” “work activity, activity all require clear definitions. “non-residential” 8.4 Format 8.4.1 Structure There was no clear overall structure evident in the effects-based plans that were researched. There was however some consistency in the workings of the rules of the plans as noted in the previous section. Given that effects-based plans rely more heavily on standards’ and less on ‘performance activity listings’, an exercise was undertaken to reformat the content of an effects-based ‘specific plan into the format of an activities based plan. For the purposes of this activity the content of the Otorohanga District Plan Content (Land Use chapter, sections 1, 5, 6 and 7) was rewritten into the format of the Ashburton District Plan, Section 4 Residential Zone layout. – The full results are shown in Appendix 1 of this report. The main findings of this exercise are:
Taupo District Plan (Residential Environment Area) 8.3.3 Example of the rule structure of an activity-based plan Rules Structure - Selwyn District Plan (Living Zone Rules) 8.3.4 Research question 2 - findings If were any common structure features for effects based plans, is this structure similar to or different from other more activity-based plans? All that were reviewed used a similar rule structure when determining activity status for proposals, this approach was: To specifically list an activity; and To list performance standards and assessing ability of an activity to meet these. The effects based plans relied heavily on performance standards but also specified specific activities, albeit to a lesser extent than activity-based plans. The activities based plans listed more specific activities but also relied on performance standards. The listing of specific activities meant that the definitions of these activities had to be clearly stated to ensure that the rules were applied correctly e.g. “work from home” activity, “non-residential” activity all require clear definitions. 8.4 Format 8.4.1 Structure There was no clear overall structure evident in the effects-based plans that were researched. There was however some consistency in the workings of the rules of the plans as noted in the previous section. Given that effects-based plans rely more heavily on ‘performance standards’ and less on ‘specific activity listings’, an exercise was undertaken to reformat the content of an effects-based plan into the format of an activities based plan. For the purposes of this activity the content of the Otorohanga District Plan Content (Land Use chapter, sections 1, 5, 6 and 7) was rewritten into the format of the Ashburton District Plan, Section 4 – Residential Zone layout. The full results are shown in Appendix 1 of this report. The main findings of this exercise are:
NPT-Effects-based-plans-Report.docx