Developers could have more certainty about getting consent to do projects in different areas of New Zealand as a result of two new laws planned to replace the Resource Management Act, a specialist says.
But another expert says there is no need to reform the RMA, it had been abused and misused and he doesn’t see any need for the big change.
Kate Storer, a Berry Simons lawyer who specialises in resource management and planning, said the replacements could speed up consenting processes compared to what they are now.
“It’s about time. We’ve been waiting years for this. Previous governments have tried and not succeeded,” Storer said of the laws planned: the National and Built Environments Act, which is the main replacement, and the Spatial Planning Act.
Environment Minister David Parker is leading the reforms and has previously said the RMA had failed at two of its key tasks: allowing development and protecting the environment. The Government has unveiled its replacement to the RMA today, fulfilling a promise that’s been in the works for more than a decade.
Storer said: “The intention is to have much more certainty in terms of the type of development that is appropriate in different areas of New Zealand and desired in each location upfront. There will be national and regional frameworks which will spell out what types of developments are being encouraged in a particular area.
“Part of the legislation is to require the Government to develop a national planning framework to say what’s expected in a particular locality and how competing priorities will be reconciled in terms of perhaps more housing but balancing that against protecting waterways. Commercial growth will be balanced against the need to protect air quality,” she said.
Getting more houses in places like Auckland and Queenstown could be one priority, she said.
“We have plans for each area now via regional and district plans from councils. There are around 100 of those at the moment. Under this new system, there will only 15 plans because there will only be one for each region - not as many as before. These 15 plans will also be much more consistent, making it easier for developers potentially to interpret them,” she said.
Berry Simons had lodged submissions on the two new laws, she said.
“We’ll be looking in detail at what’s proposed because the devil is always in the detail.”
Asked about problems, Storer said: “For me, the main issue is the content of the national planning framework. This gives the Government an awful lot of responsibility to prepare the documents, particularly the national planning framework. We hope the Government is getting on with that already. The document is likely to be contentious.”
One of the main problems with the RMA was that the Government was meant to introduce directives to reconcile competing interests but didn’t do enough, she said.
“We just haven’t had enough of that national direction. One feature of the new legislation is the Government will be required to produce a set of national directions. So it should be better,” Storer said.
That could potentially avoid litigation and debating issues time and time again, she said.
“But that’s a really, really big challenge and there are reasons why the Government hasn’t been able to do this in the past. It’s to do with resourcing and to do with the hard questions that need answering when you do that work.”
She cited a policy statement on biodiversity planned for years, but never completed.
Richard Brabant, who has 40 years of experience in environmental law, said today there had been nothing wrong with the RMA, “only the way it got abused and misused.” He cited a speech by ex-MP Simon Upton defending that law.
The law was a world leader when it was brought in, Brabant said.
“Politically it became impossible to save the RMA because both sides of the political spectrum had been persuaded that the RMA was responsible for delays and cost when in actual fact it’s been the way it’s been applied and administered. The way the act was developed, the district plans were supposed to be very simply documents based on an approach that said what we’re concerned about is the effects of activities on the environment,” Brabant said.
“Councils had been overly prescriptive in their district plans and under the RMA, we were meant to move away from a prescriptive plan into dealing with effects-based plans”.
One of the principles behind the RMA was to bring in different types of legislation together and do everything under the one umbrella under integrated planning.
Now, with two separate acts, it introduces more complexity - not simplicity, Brabant said.
“We lost our way in terms of how the RMA was meant to be interpreted and applied and everyone found it expensive and took a long time. So the answer was the act’s no good. That wasn’t true from my perspective. I did a lot of work when the legislation was new and I thought it was extremely effective and enabled new ideas and ways of consenting to be achieved. The process was faster and the cost lower,” he said.
One of his biggest criticisms was the number of non-notified consents for new developments going through under the current law.
“Iwi consulting has increased but what about neighbourhoods and communities? It’s the fault of how we’ve managed the law - not the law itself,” Brabant said.
Amendments had not improved the RMA, he said.
The Environmental Defence Society today welcomed the two new laws, saying they had long been in the making, and a result of a large and impressive collective effort in Government.
“These bills are intended to represent a generational change in how we manage our natural and built environments,” said society chief executive Gary Taylor.
The RMA was not working for the environment or for the economy, no longer reflecting the values that we hold as a society. It had become cumbersome, complex and costly. The change was certainly needed, Taylor said.
Complexity and cost should be reduced by cutting down around 112 plans in the current system to around 14. They will be more integrated and directive, which will leave less to the consenting process and better manage cumulative impacts, he said.
Housing developer Gibbons Co has around 400 new homes under development and in various stages of completion. When asked about the reform, founder Kurt Gibbons said: “To be honest, I haven’t even looked at it. Usually, it’s what my planner will does.”
Vijay Lala at Tattico was Gibbons Co’s consultant on Auckland property matters. In Wellington, Spencer Holmes is the firm’s planners.
“Planners will have a much better idea about these new laws. Over time, I’ll get to learn more about them but I’ve just been too busy lately,” said Gibbsons.
Gibbson Co had sold “hundreds” of new houses lately. The business has around 400-plus new residences under construction in Wellington and Auckland.
“There’s very little stock left to sell - only five houses,” Gibbons said today.
Judges said they were impressed with the first-time entrants' overall excellence.