Letter to the Editor - Thursday June 26, 2012

Blaming planners

The New Zealand Planning Institute (NZPI) represents almost 2000 professional planners working within New Zealand.

NZPI has a growing concern with recent criticisms reported in the media of both planners and more widely, the planning profession. NZPI seeks to clarify the role of planners for your readers.

The planning profession is concerned with the sustainable management of resources and the interaction of people with the environment, now and in the future. This is enabled primarily through legislation, including the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act. Planners work across this process, which includes plan-making and implementation.

It is important to bear in mind that plans developed under this system are the result of public and community processes, and determined by the relevant local authority. In simple terms the RMA and these plans provide the basic framework within which the planner can objectively assess resource consent applications for development.

What the recent media commentary has not acknowledged is that decisions and assessments of planning applications are not made in a vacuum, but are constructed within the framework of the regional and district plans adopted by its respective local authority. Policies and provisions relating to heritage, for instance, may be included in such plans.

Decisions on applications in the first instance are made by the elected representatives of the local authority, such as district or city councillors (these may be appealed to the Environment Court). The choice to delegate decisions to commissioners or even an officer is made by the elected representatives of the local authority.

Regardless of who has commissioned or employed them, a planner's role includes objectively assessing the effects of any development proposal, weighing the different effects in terms of the relevant policy framework (the RMA and plans) and forming an expert opinion. The planning system recognises and allows for testing of opinions, and every case is determined on its merits within the policy framework that applies.

Members of the NZPI are held accountable for their conduct through the 'Professional Standards' and Code of Ethics of the Institute. NZPI is both dismayed and concerned to see criticism levelled at its members out of context, without accurate reference to the planning process, and in particular that such reports may imply a lack of professionalism when no complaint has been formally laid, investigated or upheld.

BRYCE JULYAN

Chairman, NZPI