Regional spatial plans must do more than describe a preferred future or place projects on a map. To provide a sound basis for subsequent land-use, infrastructure, investment and implementation decisions, they need to explain why change is required, where it matters and what the intended response should achieve.

That requires an appropriate level of evidence, clear treatment of uncertainty and a disciplined distinction between defining a need and prematurely selecting a solution. For councils, infrastructure providers, mana whenua, government agencies, utilities, airports, developers and major landowners, the quality of these early spatial decisions can shape the planning and investment processes that follow.

A spatial plan should explain the decision behind the map

Vision statements and outcomes help establish what a region wants to achieve. But they do not necessarily explain why a particular spatial response is justified, or why one location, sequence or direction should be preferred over another.

As regional spatial plans take a stronger role in shaping growth, infrastructure, constraints and sequencing, they need to create a clearer bridge between the desired future and the decisions required to support it. A map should express a spatial decision, not become the starting point for one.

Better spatial plans begin by defining the issue they are trying to address, not by drawing the map.

Start with what is changing and why it matters

Before identifying a spatial response, decision-makers should establish the issue, opportunity or obligation requiring attention. Four questions provide a practical starting point:

• What growth pressure, infrastructure issue, environmental condition, risk or opportunity needs to be addressed?

• How significant is it?

• Where and when is it likely to occur?

• What happens if nothing changes? [

The guidance does not call for exhaustive analysis in every case. It calls for enough information to demonstrate why a spatial response is warranted and to indicate the likely scale of that response.

Use the evidence that already exists

Councils are unlikely to hold all the information required for every spatial decision. Relevant evidence may already exist in infrastructure investment cases, network and asset plans, transport modelling, airport or port masterplans, housing and economic assessments, natural-hazard information, mana whenua strategies, development investigations or central government programmes.

The task is not simply to produce more evidence. It is to bring relevant information together early enough to influence the spatial decision. Where evidence or objectives point in different directions, those tensions should be identified and worked through rather than concealed within a high-level statement.

Define the change before choosing the solution

Spatial plans sit upstream of many project, regulatory and investment decisions. They should therefore define what needs to change, where and by when, without unnecessarily locking in a particular project or design.

For example, evidence may establish that additional strategic network capacity will be required before a forecast threshold is reached. The spatial plan can identify the necessary connection and protect the ability to respond, while leaving the preferred intervention to later transport and investment analysis.

Be specific about the need. Be only as specific about the solution as the evidence reasonably supports

Keep spatial plans strategic and decision-relevant

Not every issue belongs in a regional spatial plan. Before elevating a matter into the plan, consider whether it is strategically significant, spatial, consequential, decision-relevant and connected to other land-use, infrastructure, investment or environmental decisions. It should also be addressed at the right level, leaving detailed design, funding and project choices to the appropriate later process.

Turn uncertainty into a clear next step

Long-term planning will always involve uncertainty, but actions do not need to remain open-ended. For each significant direction, the plan should make clear:

• the outcome sought;

• the timing or trigger for further action;

• the key dependencies;

• the next decision required; and

• who is best placed to carry the work forward.

This allows unresolved matters to remain appropriately open while establishing a useful pathway for the decisions that follow.

A six-part spatial decision test

Before confirming a substantive spatial direction, test whether the why, evidence, change, location, outcome and next step can each be clearly explained. If these questions remain difficult to answer, the matter may require further development before it is included as a substantive direction.

Need more information?

Download the full guidance for a more detailed explanation of how councils and infrastructure providers can establish the need for a spatial response, use proportionate evidence, distinguish needs from solutions and provide a clearer pathway from spatial direction to action.

The resource also includes practical examples, criteria for deciding what belongs in a regional spatial plan and a six-question spatial decision test.

Download the full document