|
« 2008 Green Plans Conference Video Now Available Online |
Main
| Portland and San Francisco Sustainability »
Proposed Changes to New Zealand's Resource Management Act
In December 2008 the Government set up a Technical Advisory Group to study streamlining and simplifying the RMA. The following summarizes the proposed changes. The legislation is moving through Parliament with scrutiny by a Select Committee and public comment. Plans are to finalize the changes in late August 2009.
1. Removing frivolous, vexatious, anti-competitive objections to consent applications
a. Rationale: eliminate costs & delays from trade competition ("supermarket wars") or vexatious individuals
b. Method: put up security for costs; increase filing fees from $55 to $500; loser pays if appeal based on improper motive
2. Streamlining for projects of national significance
a. Rationale: efficiency for projects with national benefit
b. Method: Project proponents apply directly to the (new) Environmental Protection Authority. Eligibility based on existing "national significance" criteria in RMA with one new criterion recognizing infrastructure needs of a nationwide network utility operator. If project eligible, EPA refers it to board of inquiry; if not, it's referred back to relevant local authority. Board of Inquiry chaired by Envt Court judge (current, former or retired); board appointments to have local knowledge with nominations by local authorities. Nine-month period for decision, extendable by Envt Minister based on report from Board of Inquiry.
3. Creating Environment Protection Authority
a. Rationale: centralize regulatory roles for national envtl goals
b. Method: administered by Secretary for the Environment with statutory authority separate from Environment Minister
4. Improving Plan Development and Plan Change Processes
a. Rationale: eliminate repetitive, costly consulting and broad appeal rights, time consuming reporting requirements, years of process; and administrative burden of having to notify parties, summarize submissions, make decisions on each submission, and ensure each applicant has a copy of decision
b. Method: eliminate general challenges or those seeking withdrawal of entire proposed policy statements and plans; reduce local authorities' requirement to summarize submissions; change non-complying activity category to discretionary with three-year transition; local authority need not decide each individual submission but broadly, according to issues raised; regional and territorial authorities of a region can produce single RMA planning document; rules in proposed plans no legal effect until decisions noticed except to protect a natural resource, historic heritage or aquaculture management area; appeals on proposed policy and plans limited to question of law unless Envt Court gives leave; 10 year review of territorial plans eliminated in favor of as and when required.
5. Improving Resource Consent Process
a. Rationale: time spent on complex applications ranges from 20-85 days
b. Method: remove presumption in favor of notice of application and change criteria when public notice required regarding projects with more than minor impact on environment; simplify council decisions' reporting requirements; remove ability for blanket tree protection rules in urban areas; limit local authorities' ability to stop the clock when requesting additional information to one time only; develop a fee discount policy for delayed processing; formally close proceedings 10 working days after hearing.
6. Streamlining Decision Making
a. Rationale: costs and time delays
b. Method: Consent applicants can choose to be heard by elected local representatives or an independent commissioner selected by local authority and accredited by "Making Good Decisions" program; request applicant can submit directly to Environment Court to complement 'proposals of national significance' process; remove power of Conservation Minister regarding restricted coastal activities and replace with recommendation of the hearing panel to the Minister
7. Improving Workability and Compromise
a. Rationale: enforcement officers and local authorities ability to act limited by minor technical matters and inability to recover substantial proportion of their costs; Crown treated differently from private companies
b. Methods: raising fine for offenses from $200k to $600k for corporate and $300k for individuals; enable enforcement to be taken against crown by local authorities
8. Improving National Instruments
a. Rationale: clarify relationships between competing national strategies and matters of national importance
b. Methods: Give Environment Minister power to cancel, postpone, restart a national policy statement before published; allow national authority to order local authority to change objectives and policies without need for further local planning processes; appeals on plan and policy changes limited to points of law only; consent decisions must relate to national envt standards
Posted on March 30, 2009 4:35 PM
| Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rri.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/38
|
