5. Consultation process

Hard copies of the discussion document are available, on request, by using the contact details provided below. The document is also available electronically on the Ministry’s website: www.mfe.govt.nz

5.1 How to make a submission

The Government welcomes your feedback on this discussion document. A series of questions are provided in this chapter to guide your feedback on the main options. However, broader comments are also welcomed. You may also choose to raise other issues and/or only respond to some of the issues or questions. To ensure your point of view is clearly understood and also to provide more evidence to support the Government’s final decisions, you should provide reasons for your answers or in support of your position.

To make a submission, you can either complete the online submission form (by downloading a writable version from www.mfe.govt.nz and then emailing it back to us) or prepare your submission in a separate document. The Ministry asks that submissions sent in hard copy also be provided in electronic form (Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft Word (2003 or later version) or a compatible format).

The closing time and date for submissions is 5:00pm on Friday17 December 2010.

After receiving submissions, the Ministry will evaluate them and may, where necessary, seek further comments. After this, recommendations will be developed for Ministers, and then Cabinet, to consider.

5.2 Contact for queries and submissions

Please direct all submissions and any queries to:

Freephone: 0800 RMREFORM (0800 767 336)
STD: +64 4 439 7794
Facsimile: +64 4 439 7700
Email:rmreform@mfe.govt.nz
Postal: RM Reform, PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143

5.3 Publishing and releasing submissions

The Ministry may publish all or part of any written submission on its website, www.mfe.govt.nz. Unless you clearly specify otherwise in your submission, the Ministry will consider that you have consented to website posting.

In any case, contents of submissions provided to the Ministry will likely have to be released to the public under the Official Information Act 1982 following requests to the Ministry (including via email). Please advise if you have any objection to the release of any information contained in a submission, and, in particular, which part(s) you consider should be withheld, together with the reason(s) for withholding the information. The Ministry will take into account all such objections when responding to requests for copies of, and information on, submissions to this document under the Official Information Act 1982.

The Privacy Act 1993 establishes certain principles with respect to the collection, use and disclosure of information about individuals by various agencies, including the Ministry. It governs access by individuals to information about themselves held by agencies. Any personal information you supply to the Ministry in the course of making a submission will be used by the Ministry only in conjunction with the matters covered by this document. Please clearly indicate in your submission if you do not wish your name to be included in any summary of submissions that the Ministry may publish.

5.4 Feedback form

Submitter details

I am responding as (please select one):

An individual
Name:
Email:
Address:

On behalf of a group or organisation

Name of group or organisation:
Email:
Address:

Chapter 2: Problems with the planning system

1. Do you agree/disagree with the list of potential problems identified in the discussion document?
   

    

   Urban planning system

   1. Inadequate recognition of urban environment in the RMA.
   2. Complex planning system.
   3. Lack of consistency in decisions.
   4. Barriers to effective implementation.

   
   

   Infrastructure development

   1. Lack of clarity and consistency of national objectives and
      standards.
   2. Mixed access to designations.
   3. Complex and inflexible approval processes.
   4. Lack of robust and integrated decision-making.
   5. Inefficient and inadequate land acquisition process.

   
   

   Comment:

2. Can you provide any evidence that supports or questions the assessment of the problems identified?

Comment:

3. Are there any other problems that you think need to be considered?

Comment:

Chapter 3: Options for change: Planning and urban design

3.1 Recognise urban environment in the RMA framework

4. Do you agree/disagree with Options 1 and 2 to more adequately recognise the urban environment in the RMA framework?

• Option 1: Broaden definitions to include the urban environment by
  1. modifying the definition of ‘environment’ to specifically
     include the urban environment
  2. extending the definition of ‘amenity values’ so that it
     addresses the quality of the urban environment to a
     greater extent.
• Option 2: Amend the RMA to recognise the benefits of a quality
  urban environment by making specific reference to it in:
  1. section 6 (matters of national importance to recognise and
     provide for) and/or
  2. section 7 (other matters for which to have particular regard).

Comment:

3.2 Greater national direction and clarity

5. Do you agree/disagree with Options 3 and 4 to give greater national direction and clarity on the urban environment?

• Option 3: Provide for the scope of the NPS to:
  1. include policies to require local authorities to provide an
     adequate supply of land to meet future urban growth demands
  2. include policies requiring the consideration of housing
     affordability in decision-making, and regional and district
     plans under the RMA.
• Option 4: Rename the NPS from ‘urban design’ to the ‘built’
  or ‘urban environment’

Comment:

3.3 Spatial planning – enhancing it for Auckland and implementing it for other regions

6. Do you agree/disagree with Options 5 to 9 for spatial planning in Auckland?

• Option 5: Retain the current spatial planning legislation, which
  provides flexibility for the Auckland Council in developing and
  implementing the spatial plan.
• Option 6: Simplify the planning framework for Auckland by:
  1. using the Auckland spatial plan to incorporate either the:
     1. the Regional Land Transport Strategy and Auckland
        Regional Policy Statement or
     2. the Regional Land Transport Strategy
  2. replacing RMA plans (ie, regional policy statement, regional
     and district plans) for Auckland with a requirement for a single unitary plan.

• Option 7: Improve the effectiveness of the Auckland Spatial Plan
  by giving it an appropriate level of statutory influence on the
  RMA,^{Footnote 57} LGA^{Footnote 58} and LTMA^{Footnote 59} Plans by either:
  1. ‘giving effect to’^{Footnote 60} the Auckland spatial plan or
  2. ‘being consistent with’^{Footnote 61} the Auckland spatial plan or
  3. ‘having regard for’^{Footnote 62} the Auckland spatial plan
  4. considering the Auckland spatial plan on a voluntary basis.

• Option 8: Reduce litigation and improve the certainty of decisions,
  while providing safeguards during development of the spatial plan by either
  1. providing for:
     1. full appeal rights on the spatial plan or
     2. limiting appeal rights to points of law
  2. and/or providing for a statutorily prescribed consultation process
     instead of the Special Consultative Procedure under the LGA, that:
     1. ensures effective multi-party engagement in regional
        strategic direction-setting and/or
     2. improves iwi/Māori participation in resource management
        decision-making
  3. and/or during the development of the spatial plan, requiring an
     independent specialist review of the spatial plan to test its
     evidence base, robustness, affordability and coherence, and
     provide recommendations to the Auckland Council. The
     Auckland Council to publicly report its response to the
     recommendations of the review before it adopts the spatial plan.

• Option 9: Provide for review of the spatial plan by
  1. amending the Local Government (Auckland Council)
     Act to require the spatial plan to be reviewed every three
     years, with defined responsibilities for the Government
     and the Auckland Council in the review process. Neither
     party can force a review in between the three-year period
  2. amending the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act to
     require statutory linkage with the LTCCP and require the spatial plan
     to be adopted at the same time or up to one year prior to adoption
     of the LTCCP.

Comment:

7. Do you agree/disagree with Options 10 and 11 to clarify central government’s role in Auckland’s planning?

• Option 10: Mechanisms for central government to influence
  the Auckland spatial plan:
  1. a GPS that sets out the Crown (or national) objectives for
     Auckland and/or
  2. require ministerial certification that the Auckland spatial plan
     complies with all GPSs, before final adoption by the Auckland
     Council and/or
  3. make more effective use of existing mechanisms to express
     Government priorities and direction, including NPSs and NESs
     and/or
  4. express central government priorities and objectives in a policy
     mechanism, such as the National Infrastructure Plan and/or
  5. use the spatial plan as the mechanism for engagement between
     central government and the Auckland Council.

• Option 11: Central government using suitable and appropriate
  mechanisms to direct its entities, agencies and departments, and
  funding agencies to
  1. give effect to a GPS for Auckland and/or
  2. be consistent with the adopted Auckland spatial plan in
     decision-making and/or
  3. have regard to the adopted Auckland spatial plan in
     decision-making and/or
  4. reflect central government’s priorities and objectives for
     Auckland in their statements of intent.

Comment:

8. Do you agree/disagree with the range of options set out in Option 12 to consider extending spatial planning with legislative influence to areas outside of Auckland?

• Option 12: Regional spatial planning with legislative influence to be:

1. limited to Auckland only or
2. implemented on a voluntary basis by regions, but only available
   for those regions facing growth pressures and subject to
   significant levels of local and central government investment in
   infrastructure and services or
3. mandatory in all regions facing growth pressures and subject
   to significant levels of local and central government investment
   in infrastructure and services or
4. implemented on a voluntary basis by regions, for all regions or
5. mandatory for all regions.

Comment:

3.4 Improve tools

9. Do you agree/disagree with Options 13–20 that aim to improve the delivery of quality urban environments through effective implementation tools?

• Option 13: Introduce a national template for local and regional plans.
• Option 14: Stage the implementation of a national template plan for
  NPSs and NESs.
• Option 15: Provide for the production of a combined NPS and
  NES as a single document.
• Option 16: Establish a National Urban Design Panel.
• Option 17: Establish a Government Architect.
• Option 18: Rely on existing methods and processes to amalgamate
  land, including purchase, negotiation and joint ventures.
• Option 19: Extend the scope of the Public Works Act to ensure that
  local authorities are able to compulsorily acquire and amalgamate land
  for major urban regeneration projects provided:
  1. some form of central government oversight is required as a
     safeguard and/or
  2. the power to compulsorily acquire land for urban redevelopment
     should be used as a tool of last resort and/or
  3. power to compulsorily acquire land should be limited to
     specifically defined works and/or
  4. Māori land is not able to be compulsorily acquired under
     any circumstances.
• Option 20: Develop new tools for land assembly.

Comment:

10. Are there any other options for planning and urban design that you think need to be considered to address any of the problems identified in chapter 2 or any alternative problems you have identified?

Comment:

11. When decisions are taken to adopt a set of preferred options they will need to work together as a coherent approval system. Do you think your feedback helps to maintain a coherent system for planning, especially in urban areas?

Comment:

12. Can you provide any data or other information to support the views you have expressed in this section?

Comment:

Chapter 4: Options for change: Social and economic infrastructure development

4.1 Greater national direction and consistency

13. Do you agree/disagree with Options 1–3 that will improve the clarity and consistency of national objectives for infrastructure?

• Option 1: Using NPSs, NESs^{Footnote 63} and other forms of national
  standards in a more systematic way through
  1. developing an agenda of proposed NPSs and NESs
  2. developing a greater number of nationally-consistent standards
  3. allowing certain aspects of infrastructure construction and
     operation to be conducted without the need to apply for
     approval, as long as it meets nationally-consistent standards
  4. taking into account where ‘reverse sensitivity’^{Footnote 64>}issues are, or could be, an issue.

• Option 2: Making use of the options in Chapter 3 to support the
  efficient delivery of infrastructure: a) enabling the development of combined NPS and NES documents
  to communicate national priorities, so councils can more easily
  incorporate national direction into plans b) introducing a national template plan for local and regional plans.
• Option 3: Amending sections 6 or 7 of the RMA to explicitly refer to
  importance of infrastructure and the benefits that derive from it.

Comment:

4.2 Changing access to the designation system

14. Do you agree/disagree with Options 4–8 that seek to change access to the designations system ?

• Option 4: Extend eligibility to a broader range of infrastructure
  types, particularly to ports and electricity generation.
• Option 5: Define eligibility based on the ‘nature of
  development’ rather than the type of infrastructure.
• Option 6: Narrow eligibility for full ‘requiring authority’ status^{Footnote 65}
  and establish a new status of “limited requiring authority”:
  1. eligibility: a ‘limited requiring authority’ would make more of a
     distinction between public and private benefit of the infrastructure
     and/or whether the ownership or financing is publicly or
     privately provided
  2. approval process: approve ‘limited requiring authority’ status
     on a project-specific basis only, to reflect the purposes of each
     particular project

powers: a ‘limited requiring authority’ would have access to a
lesser range of powers than available to a full requiring authority.
Limits could be applied on one or more of access to compulsory
acquisition; protection against incompatible development; and
removal of decision-making rights.

• Option 7: Change all references in RMA from ‘network utility
  operator’ to ‘infrastructure provider’.
• Option 8: Amend definition of ‘infrastructure’ in the RMA
  so it reflects the full range of eligibility for requiring authority status.

Comment:

4.3 Improved approval processes: increased streamlining and flexibility

15. Do you agree/disagree with Options 9–11 to introduce ‘concept designations’ as a way to support longer-term infrastructure planning?

• Option 9: Eligibility for concept designations. Either:
  1. all infrastructure projects eligible for designations should
     be able to make use of concept designations or
  2. only a subset of projects eligible for designations should
     be able to make use of concept designations and/or
  3. concept designation status should be conferred on any future
     infrastructure identified in a statutory spatial plan.
• Option 10: Level of detail required with application. Either:
  1. sufficient detail is required to identify a comprehensive envelope
     of future impacts or
  2. sufficient detail is required to identify high-level impacts only.
• Option 11: Powers, protections and obligations provided to
  infrastructure providers:
  1. infrastructure providers would have the full range of powers
     currently provided through notices of requirement including
     access to PWA powers or
  2. infrastructure providers would have more limited range of
     powers than currently provided under notices of requirement,
     and limited PWA powers and/or
  3. a maximum lapse period of 10 years would apply or
  4. a longer maximum lapse period, such as 20–30 years
     would apply.

Comment:

16. Do you agree/disagree with Options 12 to 15 that seek to streamline approval processes?

• Option 12: Integrate multiple approval processes into a single
  approval process for a nationally significant infrastructure project.
• Option 13: Remove duplicated processes through:
  1. providing for designations to be automatically ‘rolled
     over’ into updated district plans when provided for in
     a spatial plan ^{Footnote 66}and/or
  2. removing the current two-stage process (‘notice of
     requirement’ and ‘outline plan’) for approving development
     by establishing the development’s limits when the initial
     designation is approved and/or
  3. providing that where a concept designation is in place, ‘controlled
     activity’ consent status ^{Footnote 67} would automatically apply to any
     subsequent resource consent applications.

• Option 14: Establish consistent processes by:
  1. requiring clearer and earlier notification for individual
     landowners who may be affected by a compulsory acquisition,
     specifying the amount and location of their land likely to be
     affected to the extent that this is known; and the type of
     interest to be acquired and/or
  2. introducing pre-application consultation requirements for
     concept and project designations and/or
  3. requiring public hearings for any concept designation and/or
  4. providing non-statutory guidance to inform ‘notice of
     requirement’ and ‘outline plan’ processes and/or
  5. applying consistent statutory timeframes to all project
     designations.
• Option 15: Improve investment certainty for resource consents.
  1. introduce a new process for re-consenting with the
     following features:
     1. confer rights to apply for an existing consent holder
     2. expressly allow renewal applications well within the
        existing consent term
     3. provide for the consented scale of activity to continue while
        the re-consenting application is being processed
     4. limit the scope of the new consent to the existing scale of
        activity within the same ‘effects envelope’^{Footnote 68}, where practical
     5. constrain the information required in an application to the
        effects of the existing operation, emerging/new effects, or
        emerging values or expectations. Applicants would not be
        required to provide information about the effects of the existence
        of a physical structure, such as the existence of a dam occupying
        a river bed
     6. constrain notification and consultation requirements to
        directly affected parties, rather than the public at large
     7. take account of Treaty settlement issues where they are
        relevant.
  2. When deciding on re-consenting applications, consider either:
     1. requiring consent authorities to confine their concerns to
        the effects of the existing operation, emerging/new effects,
        or emerging values or expectations. Consent authorities
        would not be permitted to consider the effects of the
        existence of a physical structure or
     2. allowing a consent authority to consider any matter it
        considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine
        the application.

Comment:

4.4 Enhanced decision-making framework

17. Do you agree/disagree with Options 16–19 to enhance
    decision-making for designations?

• Option 16: For “limited requiring authorities” only require a
  decision-maker for designations to be independent of the
  infrastructure provider:
  1. for notices of requirement, remove the decision-making role
     from requiring authorities to make the decision-maker
     independent from the infrastructure provider and
  2. if the option to remove the outline plan stage is not adopted
     (option 13b), consider retaining decision-making for outline
     plans with the infrastructure provider and
  3. the decision-maker for concept designations, if sought by
     limited requiring authorities, would also be independent of
     the infrastructure provider and
  4. the significance of the project should determine the most
     appropriate decision-maker.

Comment:

• Option 17: Ensure the objectives of infrastructure investment are
  appropriately recognised. Decisions on designations (both concept
  and project) should be based around the following considerations: Agree Disagree
  1. whether the project is consistent with the purpose and
     principles of the RMA
  2. the extent to which the project is consistent with any
     relevant NPSs, NESs, regulations and/or other nationally
     consistent standards
  3. the extent to which the infrastructure provider’s objectives
     are delivered by the project – guidance on these matters could
     be provided by relevant NPSs
  4. the extent to which any adverse effects of the option have
     been avoided, remedied or mitigated
  5. the benefits of the project
  6. the impacts of any conditions that are imposed on the delivery
     of the objectives of the project
  7. the extent to which the proposal is consistent with other
     planning documents such as a spatial plan, regional policy
     statement, national infrastructure plan, growth strategy, etc,
     and the need for consistency in approach across council
     boundaries
  8. the extent to which realistic options for co-location of
     infrastructure could be appropriate and have been considered.
• Option 18: Ensure that national consistency is achieved where
  appropriate by making use of the identified options (1 to 3) to
  provide greater national direction on objectives and standards.
• Option 19: Amend the RMA in relation to projects called-in by the
  Minister, to give greater status to the reasons for ministerial call-in.
• Option 20: Support integration with spatial planning
  1. decisions about individual project or consent designations
     should seek to ‘give effect’ to infrastructure that is consistent
     with an existing spatial plan, where the effects of the
     development are reasonable given the scale of the project
  2. any applications for designations that are not consistent with
     an existing spatial plan would need to provide additional
     justification.

Comment:

4.5 An efficient compensation process under the Public Works Act 1981

18. Do you agree/disagree with Options 21–26 that seek to provide adequate compensation under the PWA?

• Option 21: Increase the current solatium^{Footnote 69} of NZ$2000.
• Option 22: Link the value of the solatium to the length of time an
  affected landowner has owned the property.
• Option 23: Widen the solatium provision to provide for a
  discretionary payment when acquiring land that does not include
  a dwelling used as a private residence.
• Option 24: Introduce a hardship payment mechanism.
• Option 25: Undertake further research into the accuracy, objectivity
  and reliability of current New Zealand valuation practices used to
  determine ‘fair market value’ based on the average ‘willing
  purchaser willing seller’ price settlement.
• Option 26: Authorise requiring authorities to pay a premium of up
  to 10 per cent where there is demonstrable benefit to the requiring
  authority in securing early settlement.

Comment:

19. Do you agree/disagree with Options 27–28 that seek to improve the acquisition process under the PWA?

• Option 27: Allow a requiring authority to take early possession
  of a property by paying an affected owner the amount specified
  in the valuation it obtained.
• Option 28: Require the requiring authority to obtain a further
  valuation on the affected landowner’s behalf if the affected
  landowner has not done so after a reasonable period.

Comment:

4.6 Transitional issues

20. Do you agree/disagree with Options 29–31 for managing the transition of adopting any of the options?

• Option 29: Introduce a sunset clause on existing designations that
  have not yet been used.
• Option 30: ‘Grandfather’ existing designations into any new
  system for minor improvements or maintenance.
• Option 31: Ensure that the next generation of district plans give due
  account to existing designations, where development and
  investment has taken place in accordance with the designation.

Comment:

21. Are there any other options for infrastructure that you think need to be considered to address any of the problems identified in chapter 2 or any alternative problems you have identified?

Comment:

22. When decisions are taken to adopt a set of preferred options they will need to work together as a coherent approval system. Do you think your feedback helps to maintain a coherent system for infrastructure approvals?

Comment:

23. Can you provide any data or other information to support the views you have expressed in this section?

Comment:

Privacy Act 1993 and Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) declarations

1. Please indicate whether you want to have your name on your submission when it is released.
   

    

   Yes. I give permission for my name to remain on my submission when it is released.

   
   

   No. Please remove my name from my submission before it is released and record my submission as ‘anonymous’ in any summary of submissions.

2. Please outline if this submission contains commercially sensitive information that has been included to support your submission, but which you feel should be withheld under the OIA.

Comments: