Archive for the ‘Planning’ Category

Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2009

RMA reform was part of National's 100 days actions, and it's now online. Here it is.

I don't have time to read it yet, I'll try to do that this weekend to see if there's anything interesting. So far it looks like they didn't change the definition of environment, that's a good sign.

The bill is currently before the Local Government and Environment select committee, and the submission is open until 3 April.

More on RMA changes

just got this file, and inside there are, in my opinion  some worrying trend.

Since the RMA nobody, no political parties have changed the definition of the word "Environment", it's the footstone of the legislation, change it would mean a new law is created. Well I guess that's why National wants to change it, that's the most easy way to divert the way we were heading without abolishment of the whole law.

So for those who are not very familiar with the RMA, here's current definition of "Environment":

Environment includes:

(a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and

(b)all natural and physical resources; and

(c)Amenity values; and

(d)the social, economic, aestheic and cultural condition of which are affected by those matters

Second part of (a) is most vulnerable to the next law change. Act would definitely like to see it removed, National ... don't know, old guards like to see it go, don't know much about how John Key take on this issue.

Some pats in (d) are also vulnerable.

I think for most people, the question "whether we are part of the environment" should be a no brainer. The real issue here is whether Resource Management Act should cover people like us - well go and check the purpose of the RMA:

Sustainable management means managing the use, development ... which enables people and communities to provide for their social, eocnomic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while ...

:)

Another strange thing regarding RMA from Nats' policy is about the resource consent. If a council did not process it on time, then it's free.  I don't want to spend too much time on this, because you don't need a brainy Chinese kid, even a dumb one can tell you council can simply use gibberish excuses to decline the consent application before exceeds the the statutory timeframe, not to mention there are also some clauses that allow councils to extend deadline, legally.

To get the job done, you either exploit people's labour, or pay enough.

Bigger is greater?

The Royal Commission’s report on Auckland Governance will be presented to the Governor-General at end of March this year. However, I saw in the news yesterday that John seemed so eager to get that “Lord Mayor” post he jumped out to claim that title months before the final report.

Auckland region is NZ’s economic powerhouse and has about 1/3 of total New Zealand population. Any changes on how Auckland is governed should be considered in national, even international context. As a student in this area I was fully aware of the issue, and made a submission myself.

In my opinion, a super, single council is simply not viable, and I believe the Royal Commission should understand this fact too. The coverage of the authority is just too wide, if it controls 1.4 million people from Wellsford to Bombay, this council will grow enormously big, effectively become another central government of New Zealand, creating even more confusion and more red tapes to make this monstrous authority work.

Another risk of creating a big, super council is that, no matter who runs it, that Lord Mayor is likely to run the whole region the way he managed his smaller council before. Now there’s problem, most of us think all district councils in Auckland region as part of the same “Auckland”, but in real life each district has its own local identity and, sometimes culture as well. An obvious example jumped out of my mind is Waitakere City’s “EcoCity”.

Auckland will become one, super city eventually, but not now. The problem facing Auckland is not much of the red tape, it’s local councils' very short sighted, self centred vision and lack of policy consistency across the region. The region, especially metropolitan areas are becoming more connected and a lot of decisions, like the Rugby World Cup, will likely to affect several councils.

I think there’s two ways to go. First is to create a new super council but with smaller jurisdiction area. What I prefer is to include Auckland Metropolitan Area and some parts of rural land for future development and buffer. Regional Council stays but all city councils must go.

I also liked the idea of elect councillors based on electorate-like wards. If this is the case, however, I don’t think there’s a need for a Lord Mayor, or even councillors. Each City elects one Mayor as a person should be enough, and those mayors become councillors of the bigger council.

The only viable route for a region wide super council, is to maintain current local councils to be at least some kind of services branches of a super council.

No matter which way it goes,  our adolescent-like urge to change is likely to stay for a while longer.

Emissions Trading Scheme review now calling submissions

My position on climate change is that it is happening, and it is not as some said, "just a recovery from the little ice age" - human activities are at least partially responsible. There are uncertainties on how worse it would be, but there should be no doubt that it is happening.

So I feel very unease to talk about a "balance" between combating climate change and accommodate economic growth.  Environment, the global weather system is still something that we don't fully understand how it works and when it will strike, yet it is so closely connected with  the future well beings of  mankind. Nature should be something that every one of us respect, not something that you can do "trade and exchange" or mess up with. Our survival solely depend on environment, not economic development.

For this review, any significant change that denies the existence of the climate change will send a wrong message to the world(yes, I'm talking about Rodney Hide). This looks unlikely for now, but there are still chances for surprises in the final select committee report, for example, extracted from the terms of references:

• identify the central/benchmark projections which are being used as the motivation for international agreements to combat climate change; and consider the uncertainties and risks surrounding these projections
• consider the timing of introduction of any New Zealand measures, with particular reference to the outcome of the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting, the position of the United States, and the timetable for decisions and their implementation of the Australian government

Well, what you say? The submissions close on February 13 - it's shorter than usual, but hey, at least they didn't sneak it through the system before the Christmas.

Another victim under the RMA?

Eden Park Stadium upgrade  may not be completed in time for the 2011 rugby world cup.

I wasn't watching this case so there isn't much I can comment on. However, it still serves as a notice to all the developers out there - plan early, give the process plenty of time, and ... bug National and ACT to let them get away with any necessary democratic and judicial processes, as NZ Herald reports:

"The stadium still needs consent for its final stages and the Eden Park Redevelopment Board is concerned this could get bogged down in delays and appeals ... "

"The Government would therefore give "serious consideration" to legislating "'because that is the option that delivers absolute certainty, and certainty is what we need.'"

MfE Briefing to the Incoming Minister released

It's here.

I 'm only interested in the Resource Management Act part, so here's what the briefing said.

• Devolved RMA decision-making has exacerbated capacity issues in local government and led to variability in planning controls and consent processing. It is often difficult (both practically and politically) for councils to factor national benefits, priorities and strategies into planning and decision making when the costs of decisions fall locally.
• Central government is now making more use of the RMA instruments that offer greater national direction, involvement and guidance. Because there is no overall strategy for use of these powers, there is a lack of certainty about when and how central government will intervene.
• Under current RMA practice, effective and efficient resource allocation is not occurring, and new or expanding high-value uses are not being provided for. Problems are most keenly felt where resources are approaching or at full allocation in some areas: fresh water, coastal space, and air-sheds.
• The current ‘first-come-first-served’ system evolved from case law in the absence of central government direction, in a period of less resource competition.

Another thing worth to notice is that MfE stressed that "Meeting New Zealand’s international climate change obligations" as part of critical issues for environmental sustainability - bit harder for Rodney Hide to explain why he wants to dump the carbon credit system.