Transcript Proposed changes to the RMA 2013

Proposed changes to the RMA
2013
Clare Lenihan Barrister
Presented as part of a panel,
Invercargill March 2013
Major changes (as per proposal)
• Greater National consistency and guidance;
• Fewer resource management plans;
• An effective and efficient consenting system;
Greater National consistency and
guidance - issues
• Proposal to combine ss6 and 7
• Currently hierarchical
• s 6 matters of national importance – shall
recognise and provide for
• s7 other matters – shall have particular regard to
• Addition of several matters and deletion of others
• Combine them all into s6 Principles “recognise
and provide for”
Greater National consistency and
guidance - issues
• Add “effective functioning of the built
environment and urban expansion” “efficient
provision of infrastructure” and “managing risks
of natural hazards”
• S6 now “In making overall broad judgment…”
• Is current approach of Courts
• Now only have to consider “specified”
outstanding natural features and landscapes and
“specified” areas of significant indigenous
vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous
fauna
Changes to current s6
• …the preservation of the natural character of the coastal
environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and
lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from
inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:
• (b) the protection of specified outstanding natural features and
landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development:
• (c) the protection of areas of specified significant indigenous
vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna:
• (d) the value (maintenance and enhancement) of public access to
and along the coastal marine area, wetlands, lakes, and rivers:
• (e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with
their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga:
• (f) the importance and value (protection of) historic heritage (from
inappropriate subdivision, use, and development):
• (g) the protection of protected customary rights
Changes to s7
• In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and
powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and
protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard
to—
• (a) kaitiakitanga:
• (aa) (the ethic of stewardship):
• (b) the benefits of the efficient use and development of natural and
physical resources:
• (ba) the efficiency of the end use of energy:
• (c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:
• (d) intrinsic values of ecosystems:
• (e) [Repealed]
• (f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:
• (g) any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources:
• (h) (the protection of the ) areas of significant aquatic habitats, including
(habitat of )trout and salmon:
• (i) the impacts (effects) of climate change:
• (j) the benefits of efficient energy use (to be derived from the use and
development of) and renewable energy generation .
New section 7
• Process oriented – timely, efficient etc.
• Have regard to any voluntary form of
environmental compensation, off setting or
similar measure not encompassed by s5(2)(c)
– intent not clear. Should only be considered
after requirement to ARM adverse effects
• Achieve an “appropriate”? balance between
public and private interests in the use of land
Fewer resource management plans
• One plan for each Council, consistent with national
template – standardised terms and definitions, content for
specific standardised zones and rules of particular activities
• Councils can combine plans e.g. region wide
• Different process for combined plan
• Collaborative vs. adversarial approach early on – greater
emphasis on pre-notification engagement and
collaboration
• Independent hearing panel – oversee formal consultation
and submission process, mediate and resolve issues and
make recommendations on submissions to Councils
Fewer resource management plans
• “Encouragement” to use this process is limited
appeal rights to E.Ct – only if Council not
accept IHP recommendations. If do accept,
appeal to High Court only on a point of law
• Also, if do go to E.Ct then no longer “de novo”
– afresh – only rehearing of original
• Could rehear evidence “when appropriate”?
• Limits on new evidence (esp., if available at
time)
Consents
• Limited notification -regulations direct nonnotification nation-wide for some activity
types
• Limited submission scope of participation in
submissions and appeals to reasons why
application notified and effects that led to
notification
• Consent appeals could be narrowed as for
plan appeals? Rehearing only