Posts Tagged ‘RMA’
Open season for trees
The Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is currently in the house. I've spent a bit of time to watch the debate, with particular interest in section 52 of the Bill.
The bill is not finalised so I'm not going to put it here. You can view the most updated version here. In a nutshell, the bill prohibits a district plan that prohibits tree removing, unless the tree is expressively protected in the district plan.
There are at least several concerns for this.
Firstly central government should not intervene local government businesses at such level of detail. District Plans have to give effects or at least have regard to several national documents, is not that enough? Every part of the country has its unique environment and situation, why the central government thinks it knows better than locals?
Secondly, this bill removes an important mechanism to protect urban enviroment. Environment minister Nick Smith argued that 98% of tree related concents are granted, therefore it is just a waste of time. Now here is an example of incompetency, he seems to forgot that consents can be granted with conditions and modifications.
Thirdly, it is likely to add unnessary workload for local authorities. I do expect an increased number of surveying in order to put more trees in the schedule after the law is passed, but happens for an area of unprotected bush? Waitakere is a good example - scheduling each single tree would be a process that you would never want to do it again.
So ... end of tree huggers?
Councils say they will not be able to stop people cutting down native bush and coastal pohutukawa in cities under planned changes to environment laws.
The Government wants to take away councils' power to stop trees over a certain size being chopped without permission. If the change goes ahead, landowners will be free to cut down any tree on their land unless it is listed in their council's district plan. (Via New Zealand Herald)
Oppositions to the councils' tree management claim that "it's their land so they should be able to do anything they like", but let's face it, it's no different than how a teenager feels like "I'm free and independent so I can do what ever I want", we all get that kind of feeling during our adolescence time, most grow out of it, but sadly, some don't.
The basic principle of the Resource Management Act is the "effect based approach", as long as you can demonstrate that you can minimise the adverse effects on environment, even a non-complying activity can get a go ahead. I was a "tree hugger",which means that use trees as an excuse to stop development in quite a few cases, in one case, a two storey new residential development is proposed on about two lots away from my friend's house, developer wants to chop down a 60m+ tree to provide an extra one or two parking spaces.
From my friend's point of vew it's actually quite hard to see that tree, just the top part, but I still criticized the development plan anyway because this is just too ridiculous. If development cannot get ahead without chopping down that tree I may just let it go, but such a tall tree for a mere parking space? Quite a lot of people still don't treat environment protection as part of citizens' responsibility, and think that as optional.
Property right was never absolute, before the current law system there were several common law principles existed, such as good neighbourliness, as long as you don't affect your neighbours' economic well-being then you should be fine. But we don't live in the beginning of the industrial age, we understand the value of our environment more than just a place to dump all our wastes for free.
Not a good one from National, I say, central government should minimise its influence on local government.
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.
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.
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.'"
