Skip to main content.

Part D - Improving local policy and plan making

Background

125. The Act provides for a hierarchy of policy statements and plans at the local level. At a regional level Regional Policy Statements (which are compulsory) and Regional Plans (which are optional with the exception of a regional coastal plan) are prepared. District Plans must be prepared at a territorial authority level. District-level plans must not be inconsistent with regional policy statements, and regional-level plans (in respect of matters of regional significance), and all these documents must in turn give effect to national policy statements. This helps to promote consistency and integration.

What is the problem?

126. Most regional councils have developed regional plans which cover the majority of natural resources, but after 13 years some water short regions do not have plans.

127. Conversely, some local authorities have spent a lot of time producing dense plans that do not provide certainty or the environmental outcomes desired by the community. The documents are difficult to interpret or do not achieve an intended purpose to reduce the need for consent applications.

128. The policy statement and plan making process under the RMA has proved to be burdensome, with variable consistency throughout the country. An acceptable level of public participation needs to be agreed upon so that consultation and public input do not create delays that exacerbate the difficulties. Litigation has delayed progress with some plans (the median time from local authority decision to Environment Court resolution has been 9 years - 60% of the time to prepare plans) and the threat of litigation has added to the bureaucracy surrounding plans.

129. The process of preparing plans has also been costly - the total average cost of preparing a plan is estimated at $1.8m.

130. Interpretation of the RMA by the court has lead to a diminished role for regional policy statements inconsistent with government's current application of the instrument, for example, as proposed for Auckland's regional policy statement through the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004.

What is the outcome sought?

131. The primary outcome sought is a streamlined plan making process - getting plans operative quicker and reducing compliance costs associated with lengthy and protracted debates. The Environment Court will be dissuaded from determining matters of local policy, instead referring these back to local authorities to determine.

132. Further goals are to increase the effectiveness of local policy documents, make them simpler for people to interact with and have plans in place to address significant resource management issues.

133. Regional policy also needs to be more influential and strategic in its direction to address land use conflicts, providing increased certainty to promote sustainable urban form, manage infrastructure and its integration with land use activities and allocate natural resources.

What is proposed?

134. Improvements are proposed to the way plans are developed as follows:

(a) Provide clear mandate for government to require local authorities to develop plans to address specific issues (such as water allocation).

(b) Achieve more effective regional policy statements and in addition to the matters of regional significance require regional councils to consider: promoting sustainable urban form, timely and effective provision of infrastructure and its integration with land use policies, and allocation of natural resources.

(c) Reduce the range of matters to be included in regional and district plans to only require those matters essential for regulatory management - ie. policies (that identify action) and rules (that identify what you can and cannot do). The remainder of matters currently required (eg, objectives, non-regulatory methods, monitoring requirements, anticipated environmental results) could be included in supporting 'section 32 documentation' (required by the Act to contain the analysis of proposed provisions).

(d) Streamline the plan making process by:

  • Clarifying consultation requirements of local authorities, particularly in relation to the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.
  • Requiring local authorities to undertake every reasonable endeavour toward consultation with the persons identified in clause 3 of the first schedule over a period of time (ie. not just a single attempt) [Clause 3 of the First Schedule to the RMA requires:
    (1) During the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan, the local authority concerned shall consult:
    (a) The Minister for the Environment;
    (b) Those other Ministers of the Crown who may be affected by the policy statement or plan;
    (c) Local authorities who may be so affected; and
    (d) The tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities and tribal runanga.
    (2) A local authority may consult anyone else during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan.].
    An exemption will be considered if, despite every reasonable endeavour the person does not wish to or does not take any action toward responding to the local authority.
  • Permitting local authorities to use pre-hearing meetings that allow up front negotiation of issues (similar to that occurring for resource consents now - s99).
  • Allowing submissions to be neutral (ie. not just in support or opposition) as the current status is too constraining.
  • Retaining further submissions (on original submissions to proposed plans), but preventing people from impeding the system by making numerous unnecessary further submissions (in support) that replicate their original submission. Those making further submissions must be directly affected by the original submission, ie. there must be an effect on their private property rights.
  • Adopting a more inquisitorial approach at hearings as is outlined for consents (in Part B of this paper at paragraph 84 (e)).
  • Limiting the ability to re-litigate local policy direction in the court. The Environment Court's role will be redefined as an appeal authority to test whether local policy meets the requirements of the Act and referring the matters back to the local authority for reconsideration, with directions as appropriate. Failure to comply with directions will see the Environment Court making appropriate steps necessary to achieve the desired outcome.
  • Requiring the Environment Court (as is proposed for consents) to have regard to the local authority's decision and conduct a 'rehearing', rather than a hearing de novo.

135. In the longer term it will be desirable to undertake further work on improving the operation of local policy and plan formulation. It is appropriate to signal government's intention to work on the following areas following the completion of this review of the Act:

  • how explicit recognition of other government statements and strategies can be better undertaken
  • improved linkages to long term council community plans under the Local Government Act 2002, and to regional land transport strategies under the Land Transport Act 1998.

What are the risks, benefits and costs?

136. When the RMA was passed, it was intended that plans would simplify decision making. Unfortunately this objective has not been widely achieved. The proposals will result in less cumbersome plan making and present fewer opportunities for unnecessary litigation of community values.

137. Local Government New Zealand has indicated support for more effective regional policy statements, and for retaining them as a mandatory requirement, but indicated no support for a mandatory requirement for regional plans. The proposals are in accord with this stance, but recognise the need for central government leadership where issues are not being addressed, such as in relation to the Waitaki Catchment. Local Government New Zealand has also given considerable support for the Court to not make local policy decisions and to instead refer these matters back to the local authority for determination.

138. The proposals do not address concerns strongly expressed by Federated Farmers about compensation for impinging on private property rights. Such an issue is a long term matter with the potential to be addressed through the next generation of plans.

 

[previous page | next page]

Last updated: 6 May 2008