One of the major planning tasks and headache for the amalgamated Auckland Council is the requirement to produce a single Unitary Plan under the Resource Management Act (which itself is under further pressure for change to make it even easier for development to occur).
NZ Herald ran a helpful story here last week and in today's Herald, there's a useful piece from Brian Rudman.
The last significant post I did about the Unitary Plan was after a presentation last year by Council Planner Penny Pirrit at Auckland University. It helps set the scene.
The public interest in the Unitary Plan tends to get concealed by all the noise made by the development community that would prefer to be able to do what it wants without much challenge. Their complaints about red tape find fertile ground among the red necks among us who want to be to what they like on their properties without much regard for their neighbours, let alone the environment.
But this Auckland Unitary Plan will not, or should not, be like the District Plans we have all become used to in Auckland - whether we wanted to develop in Waitakere, Auckland, Manukau, Rodney or Franklin. This plan will need to integrate the oversight that existed in the Auckland Regional Council's Regional Plan and Regional Plan Coastal. In the pre-supercity era, large and contentious applications were required to be tested against the provisions of different plans which had different purposes, but which were integrated, and which together delivered the overall purpose of the Resource Management Act - namely the sustainable management of Auckland's natural resources.
Of course there are countless examples of where this did not work well, or where the process was by-passed, and where damage was inflicted was private property, public property, and natural ecosystems. This comes with the territory of the RMA which is to enable development to occur, to permit anything, provided it does not contravene provisions in the relevant District Plan.
We have lived with the RMA and its strengths and weaknesses for over twenty years. The test of whether Auckland's environment and its natural resources have been sustainably managed over that period - thanks to the RMA and its various instruments - has never been properly investigated. Instead there are worthy, but unspecific "State of the Environment" reports produced.
There are no robust limitations imposed on what can be done. We have in New Zealand, and in Auckland, what is loosely termed "weak sustainability". It is mainly when private property rights are infringed or threatened that the RMA can be powerful. It can enable people to defend and advocate for their own property rights.
But the environment and Auckland's ecosystems have a weak and quiet voice at the table when applicants get down to the brass tacks of their plans and their implications.
This is not the place or the post to litigate the weaknesses of Auckland RMA planning. But I think this is the time for it, before allowing Auckland to be rail-roaded into a rough and ready Unitary Plan by Auckland Council - one that essentially rubber stamps and perpetuates the problems that are evident in the existing set of plans, and which will be exacerbated under any approach that simply bolts them together.
The thing that I really want to state here though, is that it's not just about the plan. Those pages with all of the rules, discretionary rights, controlled activities, and such like. It's about the machinery of implementation, assessment, compliance, checking - and it's about the opportunity this process presents to engage the public and get some genuine involvement and participation. These are issues. These are RMA issues, and they need objectives and policies and methods.
Three things to say:
1) I am aware that the main reporting that is done to Ministry for Environment relates to how many consent applications are processed within statutory time-frames. This reporting puts huge pressure on Council staff to push consent applications through - and it is inevitable that mistakes get made - and if those lead to damage to the environment it is rare that anyone will complain. Or that any checks are made. The emphasis is on allowing development and growth to occur - pretty much unchecked. That might be good in the short-term - but we will suffer in the long term. The emphasis of reporting in favour of development is an RMA issue that needs to be addressed.
2) Since the Super City came into being there has been a noticeable drop off in the quality of consents and compliance of residential works around the North Shore. This is partly anecdotal. However I have seen encroachments into public street reserves, I have seen developments that do not comply with site coverage rules. There is a lot of chatter about this. People who were involved as Commissioners - perhaps they were on Community Boards in the past - make similar comment. "This would not have been permitted before..." There is a risk that this slide into permissiveness in the council consent machinery, will seep further into the unitary plan. This review of the Unitary Plan will fail the public unless it also takes a hard look into how the plan actually operates on the ground. This is a developing issue that is a consequence of amalgamation. It needs to be addressed.
3) A major and long standing criticism of the RMA has been that it is all about prevention of adverse effects, rather than promoting positive outcomes. It's about planning for what you don't want, rather than planning for what you do want. Councils in other parts of New Zealand - for example Kapiti Coast and Wellington City - have adopted Urban Design frameworks which are explicitly integrated into their RMA District Plan documents and consent processing. These sorts of provisions allow for Urban Planning to occur and to be incorporated into RMA plans. It is also a way of ensuring that unique urban character is identified, recognised, maintained and protected. And I'm not just talking about Heritage areas of Auckland. Auckland has developed as an urban conurbation of diversity, contrasts and different qualities. This is partly a reflection of culture, cultures, life styles and city landscapes. These urban characters can be built into a Unitary Plan that can be part of shaping city development.
This Unitary Plan process could be a quick and dirty. I'm sure there will be many who would find that convenient. But that would not be true to the purpose of the Resource Management Act.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Public Interest and the Unitary Plan
One of the major planning tasks and headache for the amalgamated Auckland Council is the requirement to produce a single Unitary Plan under the Resource Management Act (which itself is under further pressure for change to make it even easier for development to occur).
NZ Herald ran a helpful story here last week and in today's Herald, there's a useful piece from Brian Rudman.
The last significant post I did about the Unitary Plan was after a presentation last year by Council Planner Penny Pirrit at Auckland University. It helps set the scene.
The public interest in the Unitary Plan tends to get concealed by all the noise made by the development community that would prefer to be able to do what it wants without much challenge. Their complaints about red tape find fertile ground among the red necks among us who want to be to what they like on their properties without much regard for their neighbours, let alone the environment.
But this Auckland Unitary Plan will not, or should not, be like the District Plans we have all become used to in Auckland - whether we wanted to develop in Waitakere, Auckland, Manukau, Rodney or Franklin. This plan will need to integrate the oversight that existed in the Auckland Regional Council's Regional Plan and Regional Plan Coastal. In the pre-supercity era, large and contentious applications were required to be tested against the provisions of different plans which had different purposes, but which were integrated, and which together delivered the overall purpose of the Resource Management Act - namely the sustainable management of Auckland's natural resources.
Of course there are countless examples of where this did not work well, or where the process was by-passed, and where damage was inflicted was private property, public property, and natural ecosystems. This comes with the territory of the RMA which is to enable development to occur, to permit anything, provided it does not contravene provisions in the relevant District Plan.
We have lived with the RMA and its strengths and weaknesses for over twenty years. The test of whether Auckland's environment and its natural resources have been sustainably managed over that period - thanks to the RMA and its various instruments - has never been properly investigated. Instead there are worthy, but unspecific "State of the Environment" reports produced.
There are no robust limitations imposed on what can be done. We have in New Zealand, and in Auckland, what is loosely termed "weak sustainability". It is mainly when private property rights are infringed or threatened that the RMA can be powerful. It can enable people to defend and advocate for their own property rights.
But the environment and Auckland's ecosystems have a weak and quiet voice at the table when applicants get down to the brass tacks of their plans and their implications.
This is not the place or the post to litigate the weaknesses of Auckland RMA planning. But I think this is the time for it, before allowing Auckland to be rail-roaded into a rough and ready Unitary Plan by Auckland Council - one that essentially rubber stamps and perpetuates the problems that are evident in the existing set of plans, and which will be exacerbated under any approach that simply bolts them together.
The thing that I really want to state here though, is that it's not just about the plan. Those pages with all of the rules, discretionary rights, controlled activities, and such like. It's about the machinery of implementation, assessment, compliance, checking - and it's about the opportunity this process presents to engage the public and get some genuine involvement and participation. These are issues. These are RMA issues, and they need objectives and policies and methods.
Three things to say:
1) I am aware that the main reporting that is done to Ministry for Environment relates to how many consent applications are processed within statutory time-frames. This reporting puts huge pressure on Council staff to push consent applications through - and it is inevitable that mistakes get made - and if those lead to damage to the environment it is rare that anyone will complain. Or that any checks are made. The emphasis is on allowing development and growth to occur - pretty much unchecked. That might be good in the short-term - but we will suffer in the long term. The emphasis of reporting in favour of development is an RMA issue that needs to be addressed.
2) Since the Super City came into being there has been a noticeable drop off in the quality of consents and compliance of residential works around the North Shore. This is partly anecdotal. However I have seen encroachments into public street reserves, I have seen developments that do not comply with site coverage rules. There is a lot of chatter about this. People who were involved as Commissioners - perhaps they were on Community Boards in the past - make similar comment. "This would not have been permitted before..." There is a risk that this slide into permissiveness in the council consent machinery, will seep further into the unitary plan. This review of the Unitary Plan will fail the public unless it also takes a hard look into how the plan actually operates on the ground. This is a developing issue that is a consequence of amalgamation. It needs to be addressed.
3) A major and long standing criticism of the RMA has been that it is all about prevention of adverse effects, rather than promoting positive outcomes. It's about planning for what you don't want, rather than planning for what you do want. Councils in other parts of New Zealand - for example Kapiti Coast and Wellington City - have adopted Urban Design frameworks which are explicitly integrated into their RMA District Plan documents and consent processing. These sorts of provisions allow for Urban Planning to occur and to be incorporated into RMA plans. It is also a way of ensuring that unique urban character is identified, recognised, maintained and protected. And I'm not just talking about Heritage areas of Auckland. Auckland has developed as an urban conurbation of diversity, contrasts and different qualities. This is partly a reflection of culture, cultures, life styles and city landscapes. These urban characters can be built into a Unitary Plan that can be part of shaping city development.
This Unitary Plan process could be a quick and dirty. I'm sure there will be many who would find that convenient. But that would not be true to the purpose of the Resource Management Act.
NZ Herald ran a helpful story here last week and in today's Herald, there's a useful piece from Brian Rudman.
The last significant post I did about the Unitary Plan was after a presentation last year by Council Planner Penny Pirrit at Auckland University. It helps set the scene.
The public interest in the Unitary Plan tends to get concealed by all the noise made by the development community that would prefer to be able to do what it wants without much challenge. Their complaints about red tape find fertile ground among the red necks among us who want to be to what they like on their properties without much regard for their neighbours, let alone the environment.
But this Auckland Unitary Plan will not, or should not, be like the District Plans we have all become used to in Auckland - whether we wanted to develop in Waitakere, Auckland, Manukau, Rodney or Franklin. This plan will need to integrate the oversight that existed in the Auckland Regional Council's Regional Plan and Regional Plan Coastal. In the pre-supercity era, large and contentious applications were required to be tested against the provisions of different plans which had different purposes, but which were integrated, and which together delivered the overall purpose of the Resource Management Act - namely the sustainable management of Auckland's natural resources.
Of course there are countless examples of where this did not work well, or where the process was by-passed, and where damage was inflicted was private property, public property, and natural ecosystems. This comes with the territory of the RMA which is to enable development to occur, to permit anything, provided it does not contravene provisions in the relevant District Plan.
We have lived with the RMA and its strengths and weaknesses for over twenty years. The test of whether Auckland's environment and its natural resources have been sustainably managed over that period - thanks to the RMA and its various instruments - has never been properly investigated. Instead there are worthy, but unspecific "State of the Environment" reports produced.
There are no robust limitations imposed on what can be done. We have in New Zealand, and in Auckland, what is loosely termed "weak sustainability". It is mainly when private property rights are infringed or threatened that the RMA can be powerful. It can enable people to defend and advocate for their own property rights.
But the environment and Auckland's ecosystems have a weak and quiet voice at the table when applicants get down to the brass tacks of their plans and their implications.
This is not the place or the post to litigate the weaknesses of Auckland RMA planning. But I think this is the time for it, before allowing Auckland to be rail-roaded into a rough and ready Unitary Plan by Auckland Council - one that essentially rubber stamps and perpetuates the problems that are evident in the existing set of plans, and which will be exacerbated under any approach that simply bolts them together.
The thing that I really want to state here though, is that it's not just about the plan. Those pages with all of the rules, discretionary rights, controlled activities, and such like. It's about the machinery of implementation, assessment, compliance, checking - and it's about the opportunity this process presents to engage the public and get some genuine involvement and participation. These are issues. These are RMA issues, and they need objectives and policies and methods.
Three things to say:
1) I am aware that the main reporting that is done to Ministry for Environment relates to how many consent applications are processed within statutory time-frames. This reporting puts huge pressure on Council staff to push consent applications through - and it is inevitable that mistakes get made - and if those lead to damage to the environment it is rare that anyone will complain. Or that any checks are made. The emphasis is on allowing development and growth to occur - pretty much unchecked. That might be good in the short-term - but we will suffer in the long term. The emphasis of reporting in favour of development is an RMA issue that needs to be addressed.
2) Since the Super City came into being there has been a noticeable drop off in the quality of consents and compliance of residential works around the North Shore. This is partly anecdotal. However I have seen encroachments into public street reserves, I have seen developments that do not comply with site coverage rules. There is a lot of chatter about this. People who were involved as Commissioners - perhaps they were on Community Boards in the past - make similar comment. "This would not have been permitted before..." There is a risk that this slide into permissiveness in the council consent machinery, will seep further into the unitary plan. This review of the Unitary Plan will fail the public unless it also takes a hard look into how the plan actually operates on the ground. This is a developing issue that is a consequence of amalgamation. It needs to be addressed.
3) A major and long standing criticism of the RMA has been that it is all about prevention of adverse effects, rather than promoting positive outcomes. It's about planning for what you don't want, rather than planning for what you do want. Councils in other parts of New Zealand - for example Kapiti Coast and Wellington City - have adopted Urban Design frameworks which are explicitly integrated into their RMA District Plan documents and consent processing. These sorts of provisions allow for Urban Planning to occur and to be incorporated into RMA plans. It is also a way of ensuring that unique urban character is identified, recognised, maintained and protected. And I'm not just talking about Heritage areas of Auckland. Auckland has developed as an urban conurbation of diversity, contrasts and different qualities. This is partly a reflection of culture, cultures, life styles and city landscapes. These urban characters can be built into a Unitary Plan that can be part of shaping city development.
This Unitary Plan process could be a quick and dirty. I'm sure there will be many who would find that convenient. But that would not be true to the purpose of the Resource Management Act.
1 comment:
-
Public Interest for me under the RMA is exemplified in the results that were achieved by meaningful debate and discussion in regard to the revision of the Rosedale treatment plant which had become woefully outdated.
Apart from anything else the outcome achieved a 'no spill ' outcome from the plant and it's ponds into the Oteha stream and thence the Upper Harbour and a greatly enhanced quality of treated effluent than proposed originally plus a discharge point much further out to sea with carefully designed diffusers to ensure rapid and efficient dilution without harming the environment.
Without the 'NO Spill" engineering it is possible that the recent extreme rain event could well have caused overflow of partially treated sewage into the Upper Harbour.
I am very concerned that the Unitary Plan concept will ignore the positive outcomes that can be achieved by public consultation and tere will be some future planning disasters . -
July 10, 2012 at 1:26 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Public Interest for me under the RMA is exemplified in the results that were achieved by meaningful debate and discussion in regard to the revision of the Rosedale treatment plant which had become woefully outdated.
Apart from anything else the outcome achieved a 'no spill ' outcome from the plant and it's ponds into the Oteha stream and thence the Upper Harbour and a greatly enhanced quality of treated effluent than proposed originally plus a discharge point much further out to sea with carefully designed diffusers to ensure rapid and efficient dilution without harming the environment.
Without the 'NO Spill" engineering it is possible that the recent extreme rain event could well have caused overflow of partially treated sewage into the Upper Harbour.
I am very concerned that the Unitary Plan concept will ignore the positive outcomes that can be achieved by public consultation and tere will be some future planning disasters .
Post a Comment