This could have alarming ramifications Kerrie Christian From: Ian Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ian Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PQList] re Privatising planning Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 14:09:36 +1300 This is a matter of real concern, to give developers all the power and community people very little if any. ---------- From: City Voice[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Privatising planning The government wants to change the Resource Management Act to stop councils being both "judge and jury" on new developments. Bernie Napp reports CHANGES to the Resource Management Act, due to be detailed tomorrow (23 Oct), could effectively privatise what is now a core function of New Zealand's local government. Not planning itself - that will stay in council hands. But if the Government adopts proposals unveiled by Environment Minister Simon Upton, the administration of district plans, once councils have set them, will be handed over to private consultants and independent commissioners. Upton wants to reduce bureaucracy and council involvement in line with business criticism of high costs and inconsistent handling of resource consent applications. But those organising a campaign against the proposed changes say the Act works fine. Instead, central government should focus on upskilling councils. The campaign joins the forces of environmental groups, the Maruia Society, the Runanga o Ati Awa Whakarongotai, Fish and Game NZ, and the Historic Places Trust. The RMA is about "sustainable" management of resources and was passed in 1991 to replace the Town & Country Planning Act. If you want to add a room to your house near the boundary of your section, or clear native bush to park your car, you need a "resource consent" under the Act. Council will decide the application at an informal hearing, according to the District Plan. The "effects" of the proposed activity are considered. They include noise, visual, space, landscape, environmental. If third parties (such as neighbours) are potentially "affected", they must be notified. If Council says no to your application, you may appeal to the Environment Court. In response to lobbying from business, Simon Upton commissioned consultant Owen McShane to write a "think piece" on the Act. He collected examples of poor council decisionmaking and recommended less council involvement. His paper was released in April and attracted 750 submissions, most against. Upton also asked a group of consultants to report on McShane's findings. This 'Reference Group' report and a summary of submissions on the McShane report came out on 20 Sept. Upton has now floated a number of changes pending the release of a proposals document tomorrow (23 Oct). One proposal is appointing commissioners to decide on resource consents and consultants to process applications. Councillors would merely set the plans. Upton said applicants now have no choice about who processes their applications or what they are charged. "A common complaint of the existing system is that councils act as both judge and jury. They set the rules and interpret them." The chair of the Wellington City Council's regulatory committee, Cr Robert Armstrong, says: "Many district plans around the country are subjective in content. Councils have tended to interpret them according to their political convictions rather than applying the rules." He says contestable resource consent processing and commissioners could avoid this situation. But others say the cure would be worse than the disease. "If this goes through, consultants working with developers will have the job of getting approval from commissioners," says consultant Martin Ward. "This is not neutral and will lead to a conflict of interests in interpreting the Act." Contestability would also raise the question of liability, according to Sylvia Allen, a consultant for Montgomery and Watson and former President of the Planning Institute. "Under contestability, I'd want indemnity insurance in case a decision went the wrong way from my client," she says. A second proposal is to limit appeals to resource consent applications to points of law only. But, according to Allen: "Limiting appeals to points of law will increase the level of formality at the first judicial hearing. If there is only one opportunity for a hearing on points of fact, lawyers will want to cross-examine. This will increase costs. The hearings will take more time. It could also disenfranchise "ordinary" people who will have to be much more careful in saying what they think atn planning hearings." Other issues include compensating landowners for not being able to use land covered in native forest, and notifying third parties to developments. 'Save the RMA' believe gutting the Act will only create more problems than it solves. Says former Governor-General Cath Tizard: "It is accepted that some amendment is necessary to make the Act work better. The minister said he wouldn't undermine the spirit of the Act. Let's bring him back to this." Write to Simon Upton through his internet chatline, Environet (www.arcadia.co.nz). Save the RMA Campaign, ph 04 385 9013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If at anytime you wish to leave this list, simply send a letter to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with the following as the body of the letter unsubscribe pqlist . For further material and comments on the topics discussed on this list, visit our web site at http://www.pq.godzone.net.nz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List As vilified, slandered and attacked by One Nation mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
