RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill
|
Wellington Civic Trust P O Box 10183 Wellington
2 April 2009
|
|
Committee Secretariat
Local Government and Environment Committee
Parliament House
Wellington
Submission on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill
This submission is from:
Wellington Civic Trust
PO Box 10-183
Wellington
Secretary: Tel 566-3034, 027-285-6304
Wish to be heard
1 The Trust wishes to appear before the Select Committee in support of its submission.
About the Wellington Civic Trust
2 The Wellington Civic Trust is a charitable trust established in 1981. It is governed by a Board elected at its Annual General Meeting of members. Membership, including corporate members, is approximately 200.
3 The broad objective of the Trust is to help make Wellington the best of all possible places to live and work. The Trust is a vehicle for people who care about the city, to channel their energies and combine their resources into collective contributions to the city’s development. The Trust regularly organises seminars where members and the public are invited to discuss with invited speakers, issues critical to the city’s development. The Trust’s Biennial Awards recognise outstanding urban projects which enhance the city. The Trust keeps in touch with development opportunities and projects within the city and where necessary makes submissions to the Council. A good working relationship is achieved and maintained with the Council and its officers.
Comments on the Bill
4 The Trust opposes the Bill as drafted. A major objective of the Trust since its inception has been to encourage public participation in decisions that affect Wellington City. We are concerned that provisions in the Bill will curtail opportunities for citizens to have an effective say in the development of the communities in which they live. The aspects of the Bill which particularly concern us are discussed below.
Security for Costs
5 The Bill would allow the Environment Court to require a bond to be paid before an appeal is heard. The Trust has been involved in two appeals to the Environment Court (both of which were successful) and consequently it is well aware of the very great burden in personal and financial resources imposed by the process. Individuals and organisations would be greatly mistaken if they committed to such a process lightly. The Trust accepts that frivolous and vexatious appeals would be a hindrance to good community planning. We are not aware that this is a real problem. If it is, some means should be found other than penalising appellants representing community interests, who may have a strong case but weak financial resources. People with legitimate planning issues should be heard not only because it is their individual right to have a say, but because a public good is involved. The community as a whole benefits from a thorough consideration of developments that impact on local environments.
6 The Trust recommends that clause 133 be deleted, but we would not necessarily oppose provisions that more specifically targeted frivolous and vexatious appellants.
Reduction in Public Notification
7 The Bill overturns a key principle of the Resource Management Act – under the existing provisions consents are notified by default. The Bill will make non-notification the norm. Because most developments have only minor effects on the environment they are not notified and notification is only required where that test fails. We can understand the wish of those supporting this change to speed up the consent process and we accept that delays in this area are a source of frustration, and at times distress. However, the change proposed will replace the present reasonable balance of interests with an imbalance which will undermine the planning process.
8 The Trust recommends that section 94 be deleted.
Restriction on Appealing Plans
9 The Bill restricts the right to appeal a Council Plan decision to only points of law. Appeals on broader grounds can only be taken with the leave of the Environment Court. The Trust believes that the Court’s ability to hear appeals on Council Plans is an opportunity for communities to have their concerns considered by an independent body, able to hear and cross-examine expert evidence in public and establish the merits of the case. The issue is that developments once undertaken are, at least for generations and sometimes well-beyond, irrevocable. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to provide for an independent judicial body to hear expert witnesses for and against the Council’s decision and determine the appeal on the evidence presented. We fear that this change, along with others proposed to speed the planning process, is in the category of “Act in haste and repent at leisure.”
10 The Trust recommends that clauses 132 and 136 be deleted.
Removal of Non-Complying Category
11 The proposal to remove the “non-complying” activity from the categories of resource consents is, in the view of the Trust, likely to lower the environmental bar. Councils should be able to state a bottom line - those uses/activities which they consider would be unacceptable.
12 The Trust recommends that clauses 147 and 152 be deleted.
Removal of Public Interest Group Power to Become a Party
13 The Trust values the current provision which allows community groups representing the public interest to become party to an appeal if they were not a submitter. The provision is an opportunity for groups in the community to work together, to pool expertise and resources to achieve ends held in common. We are at a loss to understand why such a provision which promotes active and healthy communities should be opposed.
14 The Trust wishes clause 131 to be deleted.
Signed for the Chair and Trustees of The Wellington Civic Trust
Alan Smith
Secretary
2 April 2009
