One of this country's eminent environmental policy analysts, Raewyn Peart, described in the book Castles in the Sand (published last year in association with the Environmental Defence Society) the state of the coastline and what has been happening to it as a consequence of 160 years of organised settlement.
She concluded that, from an ecological perspective, much of the development along our coastlines has been detrimental, although it was not by any means all bad news.
The South has largely been spared the kind of rampant urban sprawl that has occurred along so much of the North Island's coastline, especially north of Waikato, where many accessible beaches and sandspits mirror city suburbs.
Ms Peart felt the local body election cycle encouraged decision-making to focus on short-term local issues, and that in small coastal communities landowners and developers could exert undue influence.
She advocated a politically independent body - a "New Zealand coastal commission" - to oversee the management of the coast in the public interest; an organisation that would be charged with creating a national coastal strategy with a framework to guide local-level decision-making, and to ensure areas of accessible undeveloped coastline were preserved.
This type of controlling entity is not a new suggestion.
As recently as the 1970s, the development of coastal land was keenly debated and a Bill - the Coastal Moratorium and Management Bill - was intended to provide just such a commission, with sole jurisdiction over coastal planning and development.
It was sacrificed on a change of government and since then the subject has been debated desultorily and largely without political or public impetus.
Against this background, the Government's publication last week of a revised "national policy statement" to guide local authorities in protecting and managing the coastal environment is a step in the right direction, but a small one nonetheless when a giant stride is so clearly needed.
The new statement "supports positive planning for growth", according to the Minister of Conservation, Kate Wilkinson, and includes policies specifically for aquaculture, with councils directed "to recognise the potential value of aquaculture and plan for it in appropriate places".
The Government has placed the emphasis of the document on councils to produce plans "that more clearly identify where development will need to be constrained to protect special areas of the coast".
But there is equally an intention to take into account proposals which fit with the Government's economic growth ambitions: while the statement is not a law or regulation, council plans must give effect to its relevant provisions.
It nods in the direction of preservation by requiring councils to take into account the protection of natural character, outstanding landscapes, biodiversity and nationally significant surf breaks; to identify where water quality is degraded and needs to be enhanced; to maintain public access to and along the coast (it requires walking access as the basic priority) and to better manage vehicles on beaches.
It will remain the task solely of local authorities to determine where new subdivision and development is likely to be appropriate, or where it should not happen.
The specific provision for aquaculture is significant, even in Otago where at least one large farm has been proposed.
The Government says it is actively working to advance aquaculture as it believes the industry has great potential and it has been advising councils to think about where aquaculture can fit with regional planning.
In reality, however, the statement means councils must now recognise the potential value of aquaculture and plan for it.
It does not, most regrettably, advance policies on dune protection which is a matter of considerable urgency since so much urban coastal development has been taking place on sand spits and dune beaches.
Instead, landowners and other affected parties are to be further "consulted" before any policy decisions are made.
Such an inevitable delay will only make existing matters worse.
Ms Peart's conclusion in her study is relevant to the Government's announcement: "There is one thing that the past 50 years of coastal management has made very clear.
Central government will not act to rein in coastal development unless there is strong and vocal public pressure to do so.
Otherwise the political fallout from coastal farmers and developers wanting to be able to cash in on their coastal properties - and councils resisting being told what to do - is too great."
It remains to be seen whether the Government's somewhat tentative measures will provide the necessary corrective of slowing thoughtless coastal housing expansion in favour of the preservation of outstanding areas - for everyone's benefit.
The question of whether such further development should be permitted at all or only under very severe limitations remains, alas, unresolved.
