Some people regard the Resource Management Act 1991 (the "RMA") as an obstacle to development. Others say it has failed to deliver the environmental protection it promised. Regardless of your perspective, it has an enormous impact on the way we live and work. This article discusses proposed changes to parts of the RMA.
During 1999, the previous government introduced the Resource Management Amendment Bill. This Bill contained significant changes to the RMA, which were generally considered to be more "developer friendly".
The present Government has made it clear that it does not support several of the proposed changes and does not want to see any erosion of community participation in resource management.
Select Committee
The Select Committee recommended the Amendment Act come into force on 1 October 2001, subject to some changes. Parliament is yet to accept the Select Committee's report and there may still be changes, but some of the most far-reaching recommendations for change include:
enabling the Environment Court to consider whether a local authority should have decided to process a resource consent application on a non-notified basis. At present, it is not possible to appeal to the Environment Court on this point, and the only way to challenge a local authority's decision is to make an application to the High Court for the review of that decision;
allowing rules in a proposed district plan, which by that point are beyond challenge, to replace corresponding rules in the operative plan. This would mean that a developer need comply only with the proposed district plan, where beyond challenge, without the need to comply with the operative plan as well, thus making the consent process less complex during the transition period to a new plan;
extending the time in which a lease is deemed to be a subdivision from 20 to 35 years. This will mean that long-term leases of parts of a property (i.e. those for between 20 and 35 years) will not require subdivision consent.
The most significant of these changes is that which enables the Environment Court to consider whether a consent application ought to have been processed on a non-notified basis. This change will ensure that all resource management litigation goes to the Environment Court, although there will still be a right of appeal to the High Court on questions of law.
Amendments Not Supported
The select committee has rejected several of the proposed changes. Some of those include:
the concept known as "contestable consent processing" has been abandoned. This proposal would have enabled resource consent applicants to choose whether their application was processed by a council employee or privately;
enabling applications to be filed directly with the Environment Court without the council holding an initial hearing. A number of factors led the select committee to recommend rejecting this. They include the concerns that it could reduce public participation and local democracy, increase the Environment Court's workload, and reduce the ability of appeals to focus on areas of disagreement only.
These changes clearly reflect the philosophy of the present Government that a council's function is to represent its community and that part of that function is to consider resource consent applications.
Environment Legal Assistance
The Ministry for the Environment now has funding available to assist groups such as environmental and community interests, iwi and hapu to prepare for, mediate, and present resource management cases to the Environment Court.
The fund is designed to pay costs of lawyers and technical experts when the case involves public interest. The maximum funding for each case is $20,000.
Conclusion
It will be interesting to see whether Parliament will accept the recommendations made by the select committee. However, one thing is clear: there will be changes to the RMA that will affect many New Zealanders.
Copyright The Lawlink Group Ltd 2001
Every effort has been made to ensure that this information is accurate. However, it is general introductory information only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specialist legal advice should be sought in particular matters. Any reference to law and legislation is to New Zealand law and legislation.
Michael Garbett is an associate of the Dunedin and Queenstown Lawlink firm of Anderson Lloyd Caudwell. His focus is on resource management, with a strong interest in local government law.
Email: michael.garbett@alclegal.com
Web site: Anderson Lloyd Caudwell
March 2002
During 1999, the previous government introduced the Resource Management Amendment Bill. This Bill contained significant changes to the RMA, which were generally considered to be more "developer friendly".
The present Government has made it clear that it does not support several of the proposed changes and does not want to see any erosion of community participation in resource management.
Select Committee
The Select Committee recommended the Amendment Act come into force on 1 October 2001, subject to some changes. Parliament is yet to accept the Select Committee's report and there may still be changes, but some of the most far-reaching recommendations for change include:
The most significant of these changes is that which enables the Environment Court to consider whether a consent application ought to have been processed on a non-notified basis. This change will ensure that all resource management litigation goes to the Environment Court, although there will still be a right of appeal to the High Court on questions of law.
Amendments Not Supported
The select committee has rejected several of the proposed changes. Some of those include:
These changes clearly reflect the philosophy of the present Government that a council's function is to represent its community and that part of that function is to consider resource consent applications.
Environment Legal Assistance
The Ministry for the Environment now has funding available to assist groups such as environmental and community interests, iwi and hapu to prepare for, mediate, and present resource management cases to the Environment Court.
The fund is designed to pay costs of lawyers and technical experts when the case involves public interest. The maximum funding for each case is $20,000.
Conclusion
It will be interesting to see whether Parliament will accept the recommendations made by the select committee. However, one thing is clear: there will be changes to the RMA that will affect many New Zealanders.
Copyright The Lawlink Group Ltd 2001
Every effort has been made to ensure that this information is accurate. However, it is general introductory information only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specialist legal advice should be sought in particular matters. Any reference to law and legislation is to New Zealand law and legislation.
Michael Garbett is an associate of the Dunedin and Queenstown Lawlink firm of Anderson Lloyd Caudwell. His focus is on resource management, with a strong interest in local government law.
Email: michael.garbett@alclegal.com
Web site: Anderson Lloyd Caudwell
March 2002
March, 2002
Copyright © 2009 FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. All rights reserved.