Developing a plan for the Dunedin City Council's Harbour Cone block may have taken several years, but it was important to "get it right", Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull says.
Mr Cull chaired the steering group set up for the property after the council bought it for $2.6 million in 2008 and has been keen on community input throughout the process.
He is confident when the draft management plan goes to the council's community development committee in June that there will be general satisfaction with the result.
It had been an iterative process, where those involved had not had to "backtrack", but had changed things and "taken on board" others' views.
An example of that was the controversial cluster of housing proposed for the end of Bacon St, in Broad Bay, which had now "fallen off" the plan, largely due to public concern.
He said it probably had not been a cheap process, but he agreed it was likely to carry less risk of future litigation than any process where those interested had been less involved.
Mr Cull said he could see the process of using a working party with ongoing community involvement and "good open public consultation" being adapted for other projects.
"It's got to be productive."
The development of the draft management plan followed earlier deliberations from the steering group, which included community representation, and preparation of options for consideration by consultants.
It has taken about five months, planning having begun with a full-day public workshop organised by consultants Forest Environments Ltd and attended by about 60 people.
From that time, four working groups were set up to explore heritage/cultural values, recreation and visitor use, land use and food production, and ecology.
Consultant Rhys Millar said the groups included representatives of statutory organisations and other important local organisations, council staff and other experts as well as "locals".
The consultants led the development of the various sections of the draft plan and did "the grunt" and bulk of the plan's development, but unlike typical processes, it involved constant community review and input rather than having those things confined to the end of the process.
Further input was possible when there was a presentation of the draft management plan at a public meeting in Broad Bay earlier this month.
The council paid $40,000 for the plan's development, but Mr Millar indicated that was less than the actual cost.
He emphasised he was not "griping" about that. He had been keen to test the process he had developed and had wanted to do a good job because he was a local.
However, if such a process were to be considered in future he was not sure many other consultants would have done the job for that price, and the council needed to be aware of the costs.
Mr Millar said he had enjoyed the process and hoped it had produced a "robust document" that would be well received.
Steering group members Irene Scurr and Neville Peat are also among supporters of the process.
Ms Scurr said everybody had the opportunity to have their say, and for some people, that was the important thing.
In the workshop or small-group setting, people could also be open to hearing others' views instead of being dogmatic about their own ideas.
A possible drawback to this type of process would be if the community found the people on the focus committees were not representative.
Mr Peat said council staff had also made a strong contribution to the project from the outset.
The council had responded quickly to community pressure to buy the land in the first instance, and had been aware from the outset that the future of the block needed to involve a partnership with the community.
One of the attractions of the block was it was still a working farm and easily accessible to "urbanites".
Broad Bay resident Lala Frazer, one of those who campaigned for the council to buy the land originally, said she had been impressed by the process and felt the plan would reflect the view of the community and people with expertise in different areas.
It was important to emphasise that "we do not have to move fast" on proposed developments, including bush fencing, walks, stream enhancement and cycle tracks.
These could all evolve gradually over time.
On a personal level, she still had some concerns and was against any suggestion of subdividing parts of the block for sale to offset the original cost.
The type of governance that might be decided was also a matter of concern. She favoured some type of body that would jointly manage the property with the council, rather than have ownership passed to a voluntary organisation.
Mr Cull said it would be important to find a governance model that fit with what the council and community wanted to achieve for the property with the "least downsides".
