3. So what’s our plan?
Our story of inspiration, participation, control, confusion, and hope.
Our Future Masterton and the Town Centre Strategy
In 2016 Massey University research arm, Toi Āria: Design for Public Good and Letting Space’s Urban Dream Brokerage were commissioned by Masterton District Council [MDC] to conduct a participatory planning project called Our Future Masterton — Ahutahi ki mua, “a radically new approach to assist in the public re-imagining of Masterton’s town centre”. Its purpose was to gather from Mastertonians strategic, social and physical perceptions to inform its future direction. For this process, ‘participatory’ meant seeking and including the unheard. It meant seeking creative contributions rather than reactions to preordained ideas. Participants included youth, Māori, recreation workers, public citizens, central business district [CBD] workers, retailers and local government people. It was a series of local citizens assemblies, with workshops held in settings from the golf club to schools to a marae. Still, Toi Āria felt there were missing voices, so further adapted their approach. This included “understanding the different rhythms of Te Ao Māori and the Pākeha world”. They saw “some locations come with social barriers and different audiences may have felt more comfortable than others” (Moving Forward Together 22). At the conclusion of the workshops Toi Āria presented an independent report to Council titled Moving Forward Together.
The ideas it contained spoke of value fulfilment and wished-for experiences. Key themes were intergenerational connection, recognising tangata whenua, connection to and visibility of nature, connection to history, creating shared spaces and connection between spaces. We wanted our place to feel good going to it and through it. Encounters with food, nature and informal arts featured more prominently than facelifts or businesses.
These ideas had been gathered via hands-on group activities, then presented back to contributors and the wider community in an engaging and accessible way. I observed a parade of people delighting in seeing their ideas directly referenced in an informal, walk-in gallery of how their wishes might reflect in their township. Reflecting later, Wellington Architect Nina Boyd, who turned community ideas into these compelling visuals described a “notable willingness of the Masterton community to contribute skills and time”.
The next stage of this work — a Town Centre Strategy — was conducted by landscape architects Boffa Miskell, bookended by Council-led “community engagement”. From this, ‘Developed Designs’ were presented to the community for a critical east-west corridor of the town centre. But from a Toi Āria perspective, a lot was lost in translation since the participatory workshops. In a reflective presentation, they described “traces of success”. I wanted to find out what Toi Āria meant by this, and why only traces. I wanted to look at the context, the existing forces Our Future Masterton and the following Town Centre Strategy were generated under.
Visions, strategies, plans and local leadership
This section contains a lot of legislative names and acronyms. Click on the
Whakaoriori Masterton has a unique pool of entities that shape the political, cultural, social and environmental development of our township. Masterton Trust Lands Trust and Masterton Community Trust (with Trust House Foundation) exist for the purpose of enhancing wellbeing. They are major players with portfolios of property and mechanisms for channelling proceeds back into our community. In our Central Business District (CBD) many properties are owned by a small handful of private individuals with familial connections to Whakaoriori Masterton. Our town’s main framework of public space, roads and facilities is collectively owned by us (the public) and managed by our national, regional and local governments. Iwi Management Plans are lodged with Councils as statutes and intended to inform the direction of private and public development. Councils must include local iwi Māori interests in strategy, policy and district planning, although their degree of effectiveness is questioned. Our local Council has added this iwi voice to its Wellbeing Strategy 2018.
Masterton District Council is part of the Wellington Regional Leadership Committee [WRLC], a union of councils, iwi and central government within the Greater Wellington Regional Council rohe (region). WRLC has a distinct focus on growth-related challenges in urban settings and local government innovation to evolve the way we solve today’s spatial problems, including spatial planning for resilience.
With WRLC resources, South Wairarapa District (which includes Greytown, Martinborough and Featherston) completed its first stage Spatial Plan in 2021, “a blueprint for what we want our district to look like in the future”. Operating as a “living document”, it connects environmental development to a suite of other strategy goals including “Nurturing and creating the District’s special character, qualities and culture” (Spatial Plan 8). The Council website provides some legislative context stating “The Spatial Plan will align with our district vision, refresh and feed into future annual plans, long-term plans and district plans, and provide guidance for the development of infrastructure” (Spatial Plan).
Whakaoriori Masterton forms part of a Wellington regional growth framework with a Future Development Strategy [FDS] currently in draft. Our township hasn’t yet generated a local spatial strategy or plan, but is experiencing a growth phase, so how are we going forward right now? What mechanisms do we use to design and act collectively in the development of our specific place, and how do we put them into action?
Across Aotearoa New Zealand any individual or entity making a change to a property must legally abide by one common rule book: their local District Plan, “clear objectives, policies and rules to manage the effects of land use activities on the environment.” Our tendency is to negatively associate District Plans with restriction and compliance, but we have the opportunity to associate them with positive transformation. Our District Plan could express the global movement that comes hand in hand with climate adaptation—regenerative development. In Aotearoa New Zealand, a legislative evolution toward this has been made over the last decade.
District Plans are mandated under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). If its reforms were to be broadly maintained by the incoming government, superceding the RMA are the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 and Spatial Planning Act 2023.
Note: in 2024 an incoming coalition government repealed the Natural and Built Environment Act discussed here. Jeff McNeill, Honorary Research Associate at Massey University School of People, Environment and Planning explains what this means in June 2024 in The Conversation article, Resource management is always political — the Fast-track Approvals Bill is just honest about it.
According to the Ministry for the Environment website there are two chief intentions of the Natural and Built Environment Act: to streamline the permission process for development; and to evolve from regarding our environment as a resource toward regarding development as an opportunity for environmental restoration—a regenerative approach. Over time District Plans would become Natural and Built Environment Plans and become regional for more consistency across district borders. Wairarapa has preempted this by having a Combined District Plan for Masterton, Carterton and South Wairarapa District Councils since 2011.
Wairarapa places are not all the same, so within the structure of the plan fine-grain local detail can be defined and differentiated. Each Council describes features and values of their places with associated objectives, policies and rules in the Combined District Plan. Of the three Councils this opportunity appears most developed by South Wairarapa, and least developed by Masterton in our current Proposed Plan.
District Plans are the distillation of many complicated inputs (Environment Guide). Central government, regional government, iwi, and local government all contribute policies, strategies and plans. This constitutes a bewildering and sometimes incongruent array of ingredients to bake into a cohesive cake.
At central government level, National Policy Statements [NPS] are progressively passed into law to guide future development. They live under the RMA as self-contained documents like Urban Development [NPS-UD], Indigenous Biodiversity [NPS-IB], Natural Hazards [NPS-NHD], etc. Of course on the ground these environmental characteristics are not separate, they share the same space at the same time. It’s up to Regional and local Councils to produce strategies showing how these National Policy Statements will work in combination in their places, taking effect together with locally expressed goals. This is quite a design challenge, and it’s not obvious we’re equipped for it.
For example our regional government is in the process of producing its Future Development Strategy. These describe where, when and how our places will develop with forecast population growth. The Wairarapa-Wellington-Horowhenua Draft 30-year Future Development Strategy states that it has considered all current National Policy Statements in its synthesis (p56). However, the requirement to prepare Future Development Strategies comes via one NPS: Urban Development [NPS-UD], so its chief policies naturally hog the oxygen in our Future Development Strategy: intensifying built infrastructure within existing urban footprints. This seems practical, but what’s the effect of this prioritisation on other National Policy Statements, or local values?
The NPS for Indigenous Biodiversity [NPS-IB] ranks at the same top legislative layer as NPS-UD. Its chief policy prescribes preservation and restoration of local biological heritage—a way to increase critically scarce indigenous green and blue infrastructure everywhere. We know re-prioritising nature is particularly important for urban environments for a multitude of existential reasons, but to find any meaningful reference to this policy in the development of our region I had to search deep into our draft Future Development Strategy to find a series of ‘placemaking principles’ treated less as critical policy, more as sidebars, in the Appendices (p77–78).
This might seem like trivial paperwork, but our Future Development Strategy directly informs our District Plan (where the rubber hits the road daily), and our Long Term Plan (10-year projects). If Whakaoriori Masterton is to take the NPS-UD or our draft Future Development Strategy as direction for our urban development, our spatial future looks like higher built density with little ecological restoration or climate adaptation (ie: Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy). Are we more likely to build density in biodiversity-enhancing ways if we envision all relevant National Policy Statements and local priorities together as co-existing layers within one space? (ie: WCC Central City Framework and Green Network Plan). Would our Future Development Strategy be a more useful tool if it specified our future natural environment as clearly as it specifies our future built environment?
If Whakaoriori Masterton fails to strategise and visualise our priorities working in unison, we perpetuate a blinkered vision of our future at best. At worst we instigate actions today whose legacies shape a future we wouldn’t choose. Our daily decisions, informed by our regulatory framework, are opportunities to set our chosen future in motion, to accumulate actions that drive us toward the future place we want.
How does our District Plan see and describe our place?
Through the eyes of a District Plan we see our landscape as ‘zones’—groups of colour-coded ‘parcels’ with associated rules. This forms a regulatory base layer (see screenshot below). Then certain features or values are defined and grouped into broad categories like Infrastructure, Hazards, Natural Environment and Cultural values. We describe them in our written Plan, and mark them as ‘overlays’ in the corresponding Map Viewer.
Overlays mark features and values. They are how District Plans see a particular place’s identity. For example Martinborough is building its identity and economy around local viticulture, and the recent NPS for Highly Productive Land supports this. To develop toward this future, South Wairarapa has proposed a unique overlay to mark grape-friendly soils with corresponding objectives, policies and rules, and clear visibility in the Map Viewer.
For Whakaoriori Masterton, connections to nature and specifically our awa (waterways) come through strongly as our place identity. How are our awa treated in our Plan? In the Natural Environment Values section we describe “Surface” and “Significant” waterbodies. “Surface waterbodies that require additional special protection from inappropriate use, subdivision, and development are identified as Significant Waterbodies” (eg: NATC — Natural Character or PA — Public Access). At least twenty waterbodies spring and flow through our township meeting the “Significant” criteria (NATC4) — just seven waterbodies are listed in our schedule (SCHED11), and only three are marked in the map overlay. What happens over time to the un-described waterbodies? Does this speak of past values? Is this an opportunity to review how we describe and value our waterbodies? If we don’t plan today for our future identity, we go forward ignorant of the opportunity given by a District Plan.
Over time the profound, compounding impact on our town centre — contained in just a few words — is easy to see by comparing the objectives and resulting policies for Masterton and South Wairarapa Town Centre Zones:
Masterton Town Centre Objective:
Masterton’s town centre is the principal retail and servicing area of the Wairarapa, and is the primary location for a wide range of retail and business service activities of varying scales. (TCZ-O5)Masterton Town Centre Policies:
a. Recognise and protect the pedestrian environment of Masterton’s town centre by maintaining active street frontages, including controlling the provision and form of verandas, the amount of display windows on shop frontages and limiting vehicle access across pedestrian routes.
b. Provide for large-scale vehicle-oriented activities outside the identified active street frontages in Masterton’s town centre. (TCZ-P7)
Masterton Town Centre has one objective, to prioritise “retail and business service”. Is this objective working well? Is this enough? The values and activities we want for our town centre — those described by the community for Our Future Masterton — are absent from our wording and absent from our place.
South Wairarapa Town Centres Objectives:
Values: The special characteristics and historic heritage values of the town centres of Featherston, Greytown, and Martinborough are maintained and enhanced. (TCZ-O8)
Activities: A range of commercial activities and other compatible activities are provided for within the town centres of Featherston, Greytown, and Martinborough. (TCZ-O9)South Wairarapa Town Centres Policies:
a. Avoid development and uses in the historic heritage precincts that have significant adverse effects on the special characteristics and historic heritage values of those precincts.
b. Provide for new development and uses within the historic heritage precincts that are compatible with their special characteristics and historic heritage values.
c. Promote a pleasant pedestrian-oriented retail environment.
d. Encourage use and development that promotes the town centres as the focal point for their communities”. (TCZ-P11)
South Wairarapa describe their objectives in terms of values and activities. Values-wise they hone in on “historic heritage”. Activities-wise they see beyond retail and business to include “other compatible” activities. Picture yourself in any of these town centres and this wording is palpable. These objectives have enormous consequences enacted through the policies and rules that fall out of them. They impose themselves profoundly, so could we write them to better develop toward the future place we want?
Our District Plan is our most powerful local system of collectively seeing, valuing and developing our environment day-by-day through time. Most powerful because what it describes has absolute effect until another change is made to that site. This is a development machine whose work transcends political terms, Long Term Plans and 30-year spatial plans.
Today all scales of government for public good are laser-focussed on whenua (landscape) for climate adaptation, indigenous biodiversity recovery, social, cultural and financial imperatives. While we design our place for this, if our action misaligns with who we want our place to be, we progress toward a future we didn’t ask for, sending us off course until a correction opportunity arises, like a District Plan review. How might we better record what we value in our environment so we can apply meaningful rules?
Environmental Consultant and Rangitūmau resident Simon Miller says from experience, “when we sit at the table with engineers who see nature as critical infrastructure like they see pipes, roads and buildings, we get somewhere.” Whakaoriori Masterton is projected by NIWA to suffer the most severe climate-induced heat island effect of the Wellington Region with an increase of 70 hot days by 2040, 17 years from now. To address this, central government’s planning guidance is “Planting more trees and nature-based solutions for infrastructure help to cool urban areas”, providing Auckland Council and Kāinga Ora’s Urban Ngāhere schemes as exemplars for this. Whakaoriori Masterton has the opportunity to create its own urban ngāhere scheme, and for this to be embedded in our District Plan, thereby a collective implementation plan for public property and private property. If we learned and prioritised our unique, ultra-local ngāhere, this could steer us toward several local development goals at once, eg: to mitigate climate-induced flooding and heat island effects, to increase indigenous biodiversity, to develop place-identity, and build community connection via biophilia—connection to nature.
Asked about how District Plans can support this in practice, Simon suggests a more developed overlay system to describe the nature and value of both existing and potential vegetation in certain areas. This would act separately to the protection of specific trees (ie: ‘Notable Trees’). He points to Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan which employs overlays extensively to describe overlapping features and values as future goals, to steer development toward a long term vision, eg: the preservation and reestablishment of sightlines toward maunga (‘viewshafts’), or ‘walkable catchment’ areas.
District Plans are typically reviewed at 10-year intervals. This is in progress for our District Plan right now, chiefly to improve legibility, accessibility, and to reflect new central government legislation. This process is drawing to a close, with the community asked for submissions on the proposed update until the end of December 2023. It is acknowledged however, by councillor emeritus Fraser Mailman (representing Masterton in the update process), that it should not be an open and shut process. In these times agility and change is imperative.
How are Whakaoriori Masterton’s values and vision decided, and are these reflected in the way we develop our place?
Our local government Vision statement is: “Masterton/Whakaoriori: Providing the best of rural provincial living” with four ‘pillars’:
• an engaged and empowered community
• pride in our identity and heritage
• a sustainable and healthy environment
• a thriving and resilient economy
— and efficient and effective infrastructure.”
This Vision feels generic and subjective enough to be aimless — these statements could apply to any town on the planet. What do we mean by this, and how do we measure?
I dug deeper to understand the Strategies we’ve developed to achieve this Vision. This turned out to provide intelligence and compelling arguments for evolving our place in a new direction.
Whakaoriori Masterton’s principal strategy is Our People, Our Land Strategy: He Hiringa Tangata, He Hiringa Whenua (Wellbeing Strategy 2018). It is divided into four development areas: Social, Cultural, Environmental and Economic — these correlate to those generic pillars in our Vision statement, but there is new language to explain them. Our local government has taken the step to integrate Aotearoa indigenous perspectives deep into the wording: “The four development areas are interconnected and can be viewed as symbolising ‘raranga’ or ‘weaving’. Each development area is represented by a ‘whenu’ or a ‘weaving strip’” (Introduction 6).
In all four development areas, mana whenua statements are situated with local, national and international “strategic contexts”. The result is an integrated, bi-cultural consideration of place…
“Our unique natural heritage and biodiversity contribute to our sense of place and our collective identity, or culture. Our indigenous biodiversity inspires national icons like the kiwi, silver fern and koru that are part of ‘who we are’ as New Zealanders [Pākeha]…For tangata whenua the contribution to identity is even more significant given ancestral and spiritual connections with the natural environment. Māori traditionally introduce themselves in relation to their tribal boundaries and their tūrangawaewae (standing place) with reference to mountains, land and waterways.”
—Environmental Development 13
Of the four areas, Environmental Development is positioned as “the base of the whenu”. “We believe that Environmental Development…provides the conditions for Social Development, Cultural Development and Economic Development. If we don’t have a healthy natural environment, the three other development areas cannot be realised” (Introduction 6).
What will we do about environmental development?
In the Strategy, Environmental Development priorities are listed as: Clean air and water; Preserving natural heritage and biodiversity; Climate change action; Creating a culture of sustainability; and Working together as kaitiaki. “We want sustainable practices to be ‘the way we do things’ at MDC [the Council] and in the wider community…Our aspiration is for Masterton/Whakaoriori to be a leader in environmental development” (Environmental Development 18). This is a sentiment our community echoes. “In an online survey ‘Preservation of the natural environment’ had the highest level of dissatisfaction (45%) across all MDC services” (Environmental Development 7).
A page later we backpedal: “There will be challenging decisions to be made in balancing the desire for economic development against environmental outcomes as tensions between economic growth and green values come to play” (Environmental Development 8). Will we revert to this either-or perspective?
MDC is currently working on an Implementation Plan for this Wellbeing Strategy, but are we committed enough to truly enact its intent? Are our town’s major property owners on the same page? Collective and coherent implementation requires a well articulated future so we can unite around ‘how’ to get there. We don’t have to look far for concrete exemplars of this. Melbourne City has done this for its Urban Forest Strategy
Isn’t this what the Our Future Masterton process began to build? Do we need to more continuously discuss and paint our future picture?
Town Centre Strategy
The Our Future Masterton report was provided to a large landscape architecture consultancy to inform 2018’s Town Centre Strategy, “a spatial framework for the town so it can transition over time” (Action Plan 58). Its introduction explains: “Why a Town Centre Strategy? Masterton’s town centre is in need of a re-think. The town was laid out over 150 years ago and, in common with many of New Zealand’s town centres, there are multiple changes that have occurred in our society, economy, culture and environment since.” This chimes with Wolfe’s observations (discussed in chapter 2) which question the parochial imposition of our towns on the landscape. It also ties to the four “whenu” of our 2018 Wellbeing Strategy. A more business-oriented purpose is also stated: “To enable everyone to make decisions, be that investment decisions by property owners or developers, prospective residents or businesses looking to see what Masterton’s aspirations are, or existing residents and businesses looking for Council vision to help shape or give meaning to their own endeavours” (Introduction 5).
The Strategy provides a summary of Whakaoriori Masterton’s spatial history from “Arrival of Kupe”, 1000 AD. It’s a quick skip-over, but makes particular mention of the formerly “meandering form of the Waipoua River”, its course straightened as the township built up near it. It also singles out Bridge Street (now Queen Street), originally exposing the town’s natural stream network “all but disappeared from view, channelled and piped to respond to historic and current land use patterns” (Introduction 6–8).
The engine room of the Strategy is its Analysis section. In it, today’s town centre is mapped five times, each using a physical theme: ‘land use’, ‘built form’, ‘green and blue space’, ‘street space’ and ‘movement corridors’. Aspects we like, problems we see, and how we’ll address them are described. This is a bold spatial critique of our township, and forecasts potent changes, eg: “Dixon Street feels as if it is a street within a park” and “Identified buildings make way for…publicly accessible open spaces” (Analysis 26, 21).
But getting there feels like repeating the methods of 150 years ago. Precinct blocks are imposed containing site locations for buildings and certain activities (Analysis 13–14). ‘Green and blue’ infrastructure is treated as a ‘view’, a ‘feature’, a ‘hazard’ or an ‘opportunity’, not as the base infrastructure of “land use” (Analysis 13–14, 23–24). A photo-stitched critique of Queen Street assesses its buildings by some invisible list of generic qualities. It speaks of experience, yet all are severed from their physical context and associations, a fraction of how we experience them.
The Analysis also reflects the limitations of its scope and source material. Aoteraroa’s most reliable basemap sources provide a present-day snapshot of topography, building footprints and roads (eg LINZ data service, Cadmapper) or utilities (eg MDC local maps). But there is basemap data these services don’t see. Tony Garstang’s awa finding and naming project is an example of this (discussed in chapter 1). Arguably the most integral and commonly valued aspects of Whakaoriori Masterton as a place are its original and altered water catchments, patterns of vegetation and the settlement stories that occurred right here because of these aspects. Yet in the town centre Analysis these are either obscure, incomplete, inaccurate or reduced to lines and dots. How do we get these into our shared knowledge, our mind’s eye, and a “spatial framework for the town so it can transition over time”? Further, is it wise to isolate our built infrastructure from its landscape context in the face of climate risk and resilience decisions? What if we visualised our township’s spatial story the way we experience it, and imagine futures with speculative layers?
At this stage community feedback was sought for 10 “draft projects”, each focused on improving a patch of town. We (the public) were invited to number them in order of priority. Unsurprisingly the highest ranked were the Waipoua River and Queen Street (Engagement 33). A critical section of Queen Street connecting East-West movement corridors was chosen by Council to ‘revamp’. A Concept Design Report detailing how this could be implemented was produced in 2019, with the resulting Developed Designs posted online.
Like the Analysis, the Concept Design Report contained suggestions for telling Masterton’s cultural landscape story (Analysis, Concept 6–9). One objective stated: “Streetscape design to address Masterton’s cultural and landscape setting to reflect its unique identity within New Zealand” (Concept 6). It is suggested for example that the former Bunny’s Bush area — originally spread across a substantial zone of our CBD could be ‘greened up’ to improve summer shade, treat stormwater, increase biodiversity and invertebrate habitat (Concept 6, 19). The town’s unique whenua (landscape) is touched on like this, but it isn’t specified in infrastructural terms and we see only a generic ‘revamp’. Can our uniqueness be overtly expressed in town? Which native trees and shrubs belong here and will encourage invertebrates? How do we measure? Should the “Town Drain” that pipes the culturally significant Mangaakuta awa underground be named and treated as a drain? Is a mural to commemorate this awa enough? Are rain gardens and timber boardwalks enough where the Waipoua River naturally flowed? Will they protect the area in a flood? (Concept 9, Developed Designs). What other stories might we be missing? Could we align our district planning objectives to these answers?
The Our Future Masterton process showed us a participatory way to design our place as a community, by continuously capturing and feeding back diverse contributions. Two years later, the ranking exercise was the next and last invitation for the community to contribute. There was no invitation to explore the Analysis that led to our 10 choices, nor the Concept Design Report that followed. A Project and Reference Group consisting of Council and selected business/service/property owners did this on our behalf. Some of their feedback was collated in the Report’s Appendix (Concept 38–41).
A Council representative in the Group commented: “Storm water — I fully support this being a theme, expose it and create water features. Queen Street should be renamed Bridge Street and for water to be the main theme… Exposing water, natural murals, trees and plantings”. She later instigated five nature-based murals in her role with Masterton Trust Lands Trust (MTLT). Most business representatives in the Group expressed common ground with this, as long as safe sightlines and lighting would be built in. Largely legal and financial consultancies, their voices opposed street furniture that might encourage playing and noise in their street (Concepts Appendix).
Another Councillor who owns a business in a historic building in the (currently) most vibrant part of the CBD opposed the CBD Revamp plans outright, calling its aim to reposition the town centre with a Civic Facility built near the Waipoua River “unbelievable arrogance”. He suggested “Enhance where the people are now. It is they that provide the vibrancy. Don’t try to change their behaviour.” He advocated for investigating “ways of incentivising building owners to enhance their buildings, a much more cost-effective way to improve the look of the town”.
Each Councillor, each citizen will have their own angle, but our failure to articulate an inspiring common identity, while allowing room for diversity, has lead to only traces of success. I asked Councillor-emeritus Frazer Mailman about this. “At the present time we have several Strategies developed but no cohesive plan to bring them together. Although Council staff endeavour to bring aspects of those Strategies into the Long Term Plan a lot of it gets lost in the red tape…It goes from triennium to triennium with Council making the best decisions it can, meeting to meeting”.
Our Future Masterton treated us, the broad citizenry, as its main stakeholder, and kept us inside the process to the end. It revealed desires beyond building sites and deeper than ‘looks’. It revealed optimism for a re-orientation. However, its scope restricted our opportunity to see today’s township as part of a much larger and deeper context. Local perceptions weren’t investigated thoroughly enough to develop into spatial principles or patterns. We wanted our place to help us reconnect to it and through it, but the next work felt at best, distilled to generic improvements, and at worst, a manipulation. In 2022 the Council re-prioritised projects, deferring the CBD Revamp for three years.
