Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Filter by Custom Post Type
Search in pages
Team
Search in posts
Specialties
Fields

New process, guidance and direction – a summary of recent changes and developments in the RMA field.

September 8, 2020

Gerard Cleary Partner
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Gerard Cleary looks at recent developments in the RMA field, and their likely implications for the provision of infrastructure.

 

It is an indisputable fact that infrastructure is a public good; its provision and maintenance contributes significantly to the ongoing economic and social wellbeing of New Zealand.  Equally, an approach to urban planning which seeks to align the provision of infrastructure and future development is unquestionably correct.  

 

Long the focus of seemingly ubiquitous criticism, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) provides the regulatory framework for the provision of new infrastructure.  Despite a long held recognition of the national significance of infrastructure in subordinate planning documents (regional policy statements and district plans), a common refrain of infrastructure providers is that the RMA processes for obtaining approval for new infrastructure are time consuming, expensive and uncertain.  

 

This article looks at recent developments in the RMA field, and their likely implications for the provision of infrastructure.  These developments are the enactment of the COVD -19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 and the release of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, which takes effect from 20 August 2020. In addition, brief reference is made to the recommendations contained within the Randerson Report on the proposed reform of the RMA as they relate to mechanisms for approving infrastructure projects. 

 

COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 (COVID-19 Act)

In summary, the Covid-19 Act is a short term (2 year) measure enacted by the Government with the specific purpose of providing an alternative, more efficient and certain consenting pathway for projects that can boost employment and aid economic recovery.  As legislation goes it is certainly not without recent precedent, with a number of its features paralleling provisions of legislation enacted to promote rebuilding and recovery in the aftermath of the Canterbury and Kaikoura earthquakes. 

 

The principal feature of the Covid-19 Act is the adoption of a fast track consenting process for both “listedand “referred projects. In total, there are 17 listed projects in Schedule 2 to the Act, a number of which include projects that are the responsibility of key infrastructure providers such as New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), Transpower New Zealand and KiwiRail Holdings Limited (KiwiRail).  “Referred” projects on the other hand can only take advantage of the new fast track consenting process if approved by the Minister for the Environment. Anyone can lodge an application with the Minister to refer a project. In deciding whether to approve or decline such an application, the Minister may have regard to a range of specified eligibility criteria, including:

 

  • The project’s economic benefits and costs for people or industries affected by Covid -19.
  • The project’s effect on the social and cultural well-being of current and future generations.
  • Whether the project may result in public benefits such as generating employment, increasing housing supply, minimising waste and providing infrastructure in order to improve economic, employment, and environmental outcomes, and increase productivity. 

 

Decisions on applications for listed and referred projects are to be made by specially constituted expert consenting panels, to be chaired by a Judge or retired Judge.  The process for considering an application differs significantly to the current RMA process. In particular, applications must not be notified on either a public or limited basis and rights of appeal against the decisions of an expert consenting panel are limited to points of law only. Furthermore, for listed projects, a panel can only decline approval on very limited grounds, these being inconsistency with either a national policy statement or the Treaty of Waitangi. There is less certainty of outcome for referred projects with the range of matters the expert panel required to take into account paralleling the current provisions of the RMA. 

 

Another feature of the Covid-19 Act is the direct enabling of certain work on existing infrastructure that is carried out by a range of agencies including KiwiRail, NZTA and all local authorities.  For example, it is a permitted activity for KiwiRail and NZTA undertake any activity for the operation, maintenance, replacement, or minor upgrade of existing infrastructure subject to meeting listed performance standards. 

 

Looked at as a whole, it is clear that the Covid-19 Act recognises and reinforces the importance of infrastructure and the benefits in providing certainty of outcome for projects that will assist with economic recovery. This is particularly the case for listed projects which essentially must be approved.  It remains to be seen whether or not there will be a significant uptake under the Act for the referral process, bearing in mind that the Minister will undoubtedly be careful to ensure that expert panels are not overloaded with applications that can and/or should be processed in the usual RMA manner. Anecdotally, it is understood that no decisions will be made on application for referral until after the upcoming general election. 

 

National Policy Statement on Urban Development (“NPSUD”) 

The negative effects of a constrained or inadequate supply of appropriately zoned land for urban development purposes have been well documented, and include in particular the rise of housing unaffordability in many communities throughout New Zealand.  Within planning documents prepared under the RMA, land constraints typically restrict the ability to either expand beyond, or intensify within, existing urban boundaries. 

 

To address these inefficiencies, the NPSUD directs local authorities to provide at least sufficient development capacity to meet expected demand for housing and business land in the short term (3 years), medium term (3-10 years) and long term (30 years).  Development capacity provided must be plan-enabled and infrastructure-ready, the latter requirement meaning that the infrastructure necessary to support development must either already exist or its provision is identified in a local authority’s long-term plan or infrastructure strategy. 

 

Planning for sufficient development capacity is to be informed by the preparation of Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessments (HBA), which are subsequently used to inform Future Development Strategies (FDS) under the Local Government Act 2002.  The purpose of an FDS is to promote long-term strategic planning to meet expected demand and to assist the integration of planning decisions under the RMA with infrastructure and funding decisions.  Accordingly, each FDS will likely have a very strong influence on the contents of planning documents prepared under the RMA. 

 

Broader spatial planning requirements aside, the NPSUD contains very firm directions to local authorities within Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington and Christchurch (Tier 1 authorities) to enable intensification.  Policy 3 of the NPSUD provides that within city centres, Tier 1 authorities must enable building heights and density of urban form to realise as much development capacity as possible. Building heights of at least 6 storeys must also be provided within at least a walkable catchment of the edge of city centre and metropolitan centre zones and existing and planned rapid transit stops.  Furthermore, the NPSUD requires territorial authorities to remove all provisions from district plans which have the effect of requiring a minimum number of car parks to be provided for a particular development, land use or activity. The rationale behind this requirement is simply that car-parking can be extremely land hungry and, as a consequence, can act as a barrier to intensification.  

 

The influence of the NPSUD on urban growth and development is likely to be significant, requiring as it does that local authorities to adopt a more real world, evidence based, approach towards providing development capacity. Further, the directions to support intensification have the potential to result in profound changes to the form and functioning of New Zealand’s largest cities. Somewhat ironically given the emphasis elsewhere within the NPSUD on planning decisions aligning infrastructure and development, the directions to support intensification appear to have been made on an assumption or expectation that supporting infrastructure either can or will be provided by local authorities. Funding the necessary infrastructure to support intensification may well come to dominate the annual and long term plans of local authorities. 

 

Randerson Report – recommendations on reform of the RMA

The recently released New Directions in Resource Management for New Zealand is the first all-encompassing review of our resource management system since the enactment of the RMA in 1991.  The review has been conducted by a panel of RMA experts, chaired by the Hon Tony Randerson, QC (the Randerson Report). It contains a series of recommendations by the Panel on reform, the most fundamental being the replacement of the RMA with a National Development and Built Environments Act and a Spatial Planning Act, the latter being broadly consistent with the NPSUD’s approach to planning for urban growth.  

 

The Randerson Report also scrutinises the consenting and approval processes for development, including those provisions of the RMA relevant to the delivery of infrastructure.  In very brief summary, infrastructure is delivered primarily through designations initiated by requiring authorities (Ministers of the Crown, local authorities and network utility providers).   The first step in the designation process is the lodging of a “notice of requirement” for a designation with the relevant local authority.  Notices of requirement are subject to an approval process similar in most respects to resource consent applications, and are regularly notified to enable full public scrutiny.  If a designation is forthcoming, approval is typically for a default period of 5 years within which a further step is required, being the lodgement of an outline plan of works including full details of the project. 

 

Broadly speaking the Review Panel does not recommend a major overhaul of the designation process, rather its recommendations can best be described as fine tuning. For example, the Panel recommends that the default lapse period for designations be doubled to 10 years in recognition of the fact that the existing period is considered by infrastructure providers to be inappropriate for planning and funding cycles.  In addition, the Panel recommends that the initial notice of requirement approval stage in the designation process be simplified in terms of the matters that need to be addressed, the corollary being that greater detail of the operational effects associated with a designated project be included within a construction and implementation plan. The rationale behind this suggested change is that often the requiring authority will not have completed the final design of a project until shortly before construction. Locking in a design at the initial notice of requirement stage is therefore regarded by infrastructure providers as restricting design options and potentially losing innovation and better environmental outcomes. While in principle there is merit in requiring authorities having the ability to obtain a “high-level” or conceptual designation, there is a fine line in prescribing the level of detail necessary to inform a decision on the appropriateness of a project from the outset.  At present, there is insufficient detail in the Randerson Report to provide informed comment as to where that line should be drawn, that detail being left to the drafters of the replacement legislation when the time comes.  Given the political will for reform of the RMA, this is expected to be within the term of the next Government.  

 

If you have any queries about this article or other resource management issues, please get in touch.

  • Bullying in the workplace
    November 26, 2020
    This article was originally published on the Legalwise website on 19 November 2020.   An employee has recently been awarded $20,000 plus three months' wages...
  • Privacy & Cross Border Transactions and Commerce
    November 23, 2020
    The Privacy Act 2020 introduces a new Information Privacy Principle (IPP 12) which imposes controls on the disclosure of personal information to overseas entities and...
  • The Digital Future of Infrastructure
    Kate Slater won the Emerging Talent Network's inaugural essay writing competition, as sponsored by Anthony Harper. Her essay is reproduced below. Once again, many congratulations...