Skip to main content.

A statement of the nature and magnitude of the problem and the need for government action

Research and feedback from stakeholders and the public have identified problems with delays, costs, inconsistencies, uncertainty, and a lack of national leadership relating to RMA processes and decision-making. These concerns relate to:

  • expressing national interest
  • approvals processes and decision making
  • local policy and plan making
  • iwi consultation and resource planning
  • natural resource allocation
  • best practice and implementation.

Expressing the national interest

The national interest is expressed in Part II of the RMA and through instruments such as national policy statements, national environmental standards, as well as Ministerial call-in of resource consent applications. The government can also submit on proposed planning documents and applications for approvals. However, there has been a lack of uptake of these instruments because they are seen as inflexible or overly burdensome. For example, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement is the only national policy statement that is operative under the RMA; it is also the only mandatory national instrument.

Local government and the courts are not best placed to determine the national interest, yet these bodies are often left with the task of interpreting and balancing the national interest with local concerns. This has led to uncertainty for those involved in the process and a disproportionate burden on some local authorities. As an example, some councils in the Waitaki catchment would have lacked the capacity to deal with applications for Project Aqua and other projects had central government not intervened.

Variations in the requirements between different districts or different regions can make applications for approvals that cross territories complex and costly. For example, the nationwide roll-out of mobile phone technology has encountered a raft of different requirements from district to district. Telecommunications companies indicate that they each face total regulatory costs in the order of $1.5 to $2 million for upgrading existing facilities across more than 70 districts.

As a result of regulatory failure, central government has borne the cost of intervening in particular resource management issues through the passing of special legislation. Examples of government intervention include addressing aspects of Auckland’s transport problems, and water allocation in the Waitaki catchment.

Approvals process and decision making

Approval mechanisms under the RMA include resource consents, designations and heritage orders, plan changes, and certificates of compliance. Uncertainty and inefficiency in the process of obtaining approvals has led to high costs and delays for applicants in some cases.

Research on eight major projects has shown that it took approximately six to eight months for the council process, at an average cost of $0.6 million to the applicant for the hearing process. This is in addition to an average period of two years, at an average cost of $1.3 million, for the applicant to develop a proposal and prepare applications. All projects were appealed to the Environment Court, adding an average period of 16 months, at an average cost of $1.4 million. It should be noted, however, that recent improvements to the Environment Court have substantially reduced the delays on appeals, and are likely to have a flow-on effect for costs.

Applicants have expressed concern about third parties who delay consultation processes, make ill-informed submissions (eg, outside the scope of the application), make vexatious or frivolous appeals, and are not accountable for the cost or delay they cause to the approvals process.

Anecdotal evidence indicates that there are inconsistencies from council to council in their processes and decisions. There are perceptions that decision making can be biased, and that in some cases decision makers themselves lack the relevant skills and knowledge.

There is also concern that some appeals to the Environment Court duplicate processes by hearing evidence in full a second time (de novo), and that new evidence can be introduced that was not heard at the council level. Although the Environment Court has the powers to define the issues under dispute, and thereby limit the scope and length of an appeal, these powers are not often used.

Local policy and plan making

Local government is responsible for resource management planning through the preparation of planning documents such as regional policy statements, regional plans and district plans. There are concerns about the time and cost it takes to prepare such planning documents. The median length of time for preparing a plan is nine years. On average, 61% of that time is spent on the appeals process, 28% on preparing a plan for notification, and 11% on council hearings and decisions.

The total average cost of preparing a plan is estimated at $1.8 million. Based on survey data, the average cost for local authorities in resolving all appeals to their plan was $599,012 (the cost to other parties is not known). This figure can be compared to the average cost to councils of $673,469 for the preparation of plans through to their notification, and $646,042 for receiving, processing, hearing submissions and making and releasing decisions. In terms of unit costs, on average it costs $775 per submission (at the council hearing stage), and $15,177 per appeal (at the Environment Court).

Public feedback has indicated that plans are difficult to understand, such as when transitional plans, proposed plans, variations on proposed plans and other plans all need to be considered.

There is a view that regional policy statements are failing to provide direction, and lack the strength to achieve their purpose of integrating the management of natural and physical resources. Also, there is no onus on plans to implement regional policies (plans are only required to be ‘not inconsistent’ with regional policy statements).

The fact that regional plans are optional has resulted in a lack of plans to manage specific natural resources, such as the allocation of water in water-short regions.

Iwi consultation and resource planning

Some applicants have indicated they have had difficulties with iwi consultation and participation in the approvals process, in particular with identifying which group or persons have a mandate to represent a specific iwi or hapu. In some cases this has led to delays; for example, when agreements reached with one party do not hold with other iwi and hapu members. In some cases every effort has been made to consult, but iwi or hapu groups have not engaged in the process.

On the other hand, iwi groups can be inundated with consultation on all types of matters and are not always resourced to deal with them. Anecdotal evidence has indicated that iwi groups are concerned that their views are not being incorporated into resource management planning.

Natural resource allocation

There is legal doubt that the allocation of natural resources is a function of regional councils under the RMA. There is also a lack of mechanisms for allocating resources. Holders of resource consents (and potential applicants) face uncertainty about the renewal of consents and therefore whether their investment will be ‘stranded’. The ‘first-in-first-served’ approach means a new entrant could potentially apply for a consent ahead of an application to renew an existing consent to use resources.

Best practice and implementation

Local government practice in implementing the RMA has been steadily improving. However, there is still variability in the capacity and capability of councils to respond to resource management issues, and some councils fall short in their performance.

[ Previous | Next ]

Last updated: 6 May 2008