Day One Session Two: Features of a well organised and structured RPS
Discussion
The Horizons OnePlan
Discussion opened with Patrick McHardy showing the group the structure of the proposed Horizons Regional Council OnePlan, which was set out with the regional policy statement being the first part. Central to the overall structure of the document was the grouping of provisions around topics such as:
- Strategic management
- Iwi issues
- Water
- ‘Living heritage’
- Air
- The coastal marine area
- Natural hazards
- Hazardous substances and contaminated land.
From section 12 onwards, the proposed OnePlan takes on the structure of a sequential series of regional plans, though the issues and objectives are contained in sections 3-11 (what is effectively the regional policy statement portion).
The OnePlan also features regulatory and non-regulatory methods of addressing issues, including the use of LTCCP instruments. Many in the group agreed that the LTCCP could be used as a way of identifying and addressing issues if the regional policy statement and LTCCP were developed at the same time. If the timing was out, integration could be more difficult. The broadness of community outcomes that are currently seen in many LTCCPs would need to be addressed if they were to be of use in regional policy statements. This was something that was being done in Southland, where a set of what were essentially ‘second tier outcomes’ had also been produced.
Dealing with issue significance and variability
Jan Crawford said that what the regional policy statement needed to do was to take the significant environmental issues identified in the LTCCP consultation process on board and to determine their regional significance. As a starting point, you could use the community outcomes. However Martin Butler and Tami Woods noted that community issues could vary within the same region, and there was also the likelihood that the community would not be familiar with every facet or fact about the environment within a region. There was also the possibility that an issue could be regionally significant, but may only be located in one particular area of a region.
One way of dealing with the geographic variability and significance of issues may be to structure the regional policy statement in a similar way to district plans. There could be a discrete section or part of the regional policy statement that dealt with issues that were ‘region-wide’ followed by a section or several sections based around specific areas or issues that were limited in geographic extent. In effect, the latter sections may be dealing with issues in more detail than regional policy statements may have done before. Tami Woods noted that this hybrid-type model was similar to that contemplated by Greater Wellington Regional Council. Greater Wellington was considering having their regional policy statement broken down into “biophysical bottom line” and “area management” chapters. Hans Versteegh also noted that something similar existed in Marlborough where, effectively, there were issues dealt with through ‘regional zones’ and others dealt with on a ‘region-wide’ basis. Comment was made that greater opportunities for integrated management and better targeted direction appeared to exist with a hybrid model of regional policy statement.
During discussion, the following tables were drawn up to illustrate a possible “hybrid” region-wide issues and geographic area based issues approach to structuring a regional policy statement, compared to an older style topic based approach to structuring a regional policy statement.
| Example hybrid approach to the RPS | Example topic approach to the RPS |
|---|---|
Region-wide issues
Locality specific significant issues
|
Air quality
Water
Land
Natural hazards
Contaminated land Biodiversity. |
Issues, content and writing of the RPS
In determining what issues should be dealt with by the regional policy statement it was suggested that issues should follow the legal presumptions set out in sections 6-8 and 9-14 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and be grouped accordingly. However just restating the matters outlined in Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991 is inadequate, as these matters need to be applied to the region to help define the issues that were important. Greg Hill offered the thought that while the issues may need to be defined with reference to Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991, there was no reason why they could not be grouped into topics in much the same way Auckland has set strategic directions for urban growth.
Martin Butler provided a model for looking at how issues, objectives, policies and methods could be viewed in the context of the regional policy statement. In this model policies were seen to be way of managing issues and objectives. Policies could be written both from the standpoint of minimising the issues (which may be written from the negative position of something that needed to be resolved) and maximising the positive objectives (which are written from the positive position of the desired end state or response sought).
A comment was made that first generation regional policy statements often contained a lot of information based around the background science of issues, descriptions of the environment, and processes that was not absolutely necessary to the operation or use of the policy statement.
Comments were also made to the effect that:
- The regional policy statement should focus on the integration of issues, possibly including those associated with urban growth
- The regional policy statement needs to serve as a point of reference for plans.
- The regional policy statement was not just a framework for assessing consents but provided a context for non-regulatory approaches such as education.
- The regional policy statement provided the big picture in terms of environmental management.
One plan or many?
Combining separate regional plans into one document is an increasing trend amongst regional councils, while Nelson City (a unitary authority) has gone so far as to incorporate their district plan provisions into a combined plan as well. Given that several regional councils were already integrating their regional policy statements and regional plans into a single document, the question was raised as to whether this was best practice. There were mixed opinions as to whether this model would work well outside the unitary authorities, particularly if regional policy statements are to be seen as a regional document rather than regional council document. There was also a view expressed that having the regional policy statement as a separate document made it less intimidating to users, and made it more convenient to refer to and read alongside other plans.
Use of explanations in the RPS
A brief discussion ensued as to the place of explanations and reasons in the regional policy statement. It was suggested that there was value in retaining explanations in the regional policy statement in the interests of integration, but that reasons could be located in a section 32 report or similar type document. Duncan Laing reminded the group that the content of a regional policy statement is still defined by s.62 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Section 62 requires councils to include explanations and reasons in the regional policy statement.
The provision of explanations and reasons within a regional policy statement, and the requirement for plans to ‘give effect to the regional policy statement’, could see some of the material previously contained in plans transferred to the regional policy statement. The effect of this would be to place much greater importance on the regional policy statement to identify and justify the inclusion of regionally significant issues that needed to be addressed through plans. Duncan Laing raised the possibility that should this be the case, then it was likely that “battles” over the inclusion of certain issues and the need to control them could be fought at the regional policy statement stage rather than the plan or consent stage. It could be argued that the regional or district plan would be doing nothing more than meeting its statutory obligation to give effect to the regional policy statement.
Key points
- S.62 of the Resource Management Act 1991 is a starting point for regional policy statement content.
- The regional policy statement defines issues that are of significance to the region. These may be issues that apply on a region-wide basis, or a local issue that is regionally significant because of its effect or overall importance to the region.
- Significance may be evaluated by checking if the issue:
(1) is a matter derived from sections 6 and 7, or 9-14 of the Resource Management Act 1991;
(2) related to an LTCCP outcome regarding an environment of the region;
(3) is a matter identified through technical or scientific studies as having a significant impact on the environment; or
(4) affects more than one territorial authority in the same region. - The structure of the next rounds of regional policy statements are likely to start to look more like the hybrid-model of district plans. “General’ chapters with “region-wide” issues, and other chapters which seek to manage issues that are geographically defined.
- To assist those drafting plans, the regional policy statement should state what is to be given effect to, and by whom. The regional policy statement should serve as a key point of reference for both regional and district plans.
Question for possible follow up in guidance note
Should the regional policy statement be incorporated into a single combined regional policy statement/regional plan, or be a separate document?
Last updated: 26 October 2007
