Reaction to plan change halt mixed
Across the South, councils are at odds in their reaction to a government announcement halting some plan changes, ahead of further resource management reform.
One council said the decision was "unexpected"; others said it was anticipated or already incorporated into decision-making — one staff member called it "another piece of track on the reform rollercoaster".
Dunedin City Council city development manager Anna Johnson said the change's most immediate impact would likely be on Plan Change 2 — a review of the city's heritage provisions and design of multi-unit development.
A report recommending work on the plan change ceased would be considered at the council's August 12 meeting.
Cr Sophie Barker said "huge amounts" of work and community consultation had been done.
"I'm extremely unhappy that Plan Change 2 is caught in the halt," she said.
She remained concerned about central government interference in local decision-making.
"Seventy-three percent of people surveyed thought more should be done to improve the design of multi-unit developments in relation to effects on streetscape amenity or neighbourhood character," she said.
"This is a growing issue of concern."
Dr Johnson said the council had anticipated the halt to future plan changes — the wider impacts on council were still being considered, but there would be "substantial work" in preparing for Resource Management Act (RMA) reform.
On Wednesday, Minister Responsible for RMA Reform Chris Bishop announced the government would stop "unnecessary" plan changes, legislation expected to be in place by August — suspending requirements for councils to review plans or notify new plan changes, unless they met exemption criteria.
Too much time was spent on plan processes which would likely be incomplete or "largely wasted" under the government's RMA replacement.
Queenstown Lakes District Council planning and development general manager David Wallace said the changes were "another piece of track on the reform rollercoaster".
At a planning and strategy committee meeting yesterday, he said staff would continue their work, while assessing what exemptions would be allowed.
Waitaki District Council heritage and planning manager David Campbell said the announcement was "unexpected".
"[It] would have benefited all councils if it had been made clear earlier in the resource management reform programme," he said.
The council would seek clarification from the Ministry for the Environment to determine how the change would affect its notified proposed district plan.
Environment Southland strategy and regulation general manager Hayley Fitchett said the council had already paused work on two key pieces of local regulation while final changes were made to the new system — the council was focused on "a smooth transition".
Gore District Council operations general manager Dave Bainbridge-Zafar said the council was in a "good position" — the change did not affect its work programme.
"We still intend to notify decisions on the proposed district plan by January, on the presumption that [Minister for the Environment Penny Simmonds] grants our recent extension request."
A Central Otago District Council spokesperson also said the changes would not affect its work programme.
"In anticipation of reforms, we were not proposing to draft or notify any plan changes until after national direction is in place and the new legislation is introduced." — Additional reporting Guy Williams.
ruby.shaw@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Environment Canterbury's Chair Rebuffs Government's Directive To Stop Planning
Councils have been urged "not to stop the planning" despite the government saying plan changes are a waste of ratepayers' money. Environment Canterbury (ECan) chairperson Craig Pauling said the work of local government still needs to continue. ''At ECan we've already been impacted by stops to planning and I am personally disappointed some good things in our Regional Policy Statement, which would have made a difference, can't happen.'' The policy statements provide an overview of resource management issues in a region. Resource Management Act (RMA) Reform Minister Chris Bishop this week announced the government would halt changes to district and regional plans. It comes ahead of a shake-up of the RMA, which is expected to come into effect in 2027. Pauling made his comments during a panel discussion at the Local Government NZ conference on Thursday, July 17. ''I would encourage you not to stop the planning. Don't stop thinking. You've got to do the analysis. ''Keep the thinking going, so when things do land you are in the best position.'' ECan voted in November to put its RPS on hold until January 2026, while it awaits more certainty with RMA reform. It has been unable to adopt a plan change to fix issues in the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan, following a Supreme Court decision on a water bottling plant in Christchurch in 2023. The future makeup of councils There has been speculation the RMA reform could lead to regional councils being scrapped, but both Bishop and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said no decision had been made. Bishop, who met with regional council chairs during the conference, indicated an announcement was likely by the end of the year. Pauling said it made sense to consider the shape of local government alongside the RMA reform, as regional councils came into being in 1989, in anticipation of the RMA, which was enacted in 1991. He admitted there were flaws with the present model, as local and regional councils didn't always work together. ''My personal view is separating land-use between city and regional councils was wrong. We've had so many occasions when land-use has been consented non-notified and then it needs water table allocations (from the regional council).'' LGNZ passed a remit at its annual general meeting calling for a review of local government functions and governance arrangements. Its chief executive Susan Freeman-Greene said local government needed to be proactive and lead the changes required. Under existing legislation there are only two alternatives for regional government - regional councils and unitary authorities. Speaking to Local Democracy Reporting, Pauling said more options were needed, as different regions had different challenges. Canterbury is much larger than other regions, has more braided rivers and catchments, a centrally located population and sparsely populated districts such as Kaikōura, Hurunui, Mackenzie and Waimate. ''We need to be having the conversation and asking the questions. Would Kaikōura and Waimate survive as unitary authorities?'' Splitting the region into three - North, Mid and South Canterbury has been mooted - but Pauling thinks it would be ''problematic''. South Canterbury would likely be the largest unitary authority in the country in terms of geography, but with a population of only 60,000. The Hurunui district alone is the same size as Taranaki and half the size of Auckland, but with a much smaller population. A Christchurch or Greater Christchurch unitary authority has also been mooted, but questions have been raised about whether the rest of Canterbury would have a sufficient ratepayer base to manage regional council functions. Pauling said he believed it would be ''unworkable''. Another option, which ECan councillors considered at a recent workshop, was a Canterbury or South Island Assembly. This was based on the Greater Manchester model, where the existing local councils could continue and the mayors or council representatives and Mana Whenua representatives could form an assembly to make regional decisions. Whatever is decided, Pauling said local communities need to be involved in the decision making ''or it wouldn't fly''.
NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Ali Williams and Anna Mowbray's helicopter flights face court appeal by opponents Quiet Sky
She said the legal action was not just for Westmere, but for Auckland. 'If this decision isn't challenged, the floodgates for helicopters in backyards will open. We simply can't let this terrible decision stand.' Keith said the commissioners decided that helicopters were 'inherently residential'. 'Therefore, they say that using a helicopter is a permitted activity, like using a bike or a car. In our opinion, that is absurd.' Keith said the decision could open the door for private helicopter operations in residential Auckland without the need for resource consent, putting the burden on neighbours to prove noise limit breaches. 'How is that fair?' What's more, Keith said, the Government's latest proposal to stop plan changes until the Resource Management Act was sorted out reinforced the need for an appeal to ensure that helicopter applications were not processed as permitted activities in the interim. The Herald is seeking comment from Mowbray. After six days of public hearings in May, the three commissioners concluded that operating a helicopter in residential zones was a 'permitted activity', and inherently associated with residential land use. In their decision, the commissioners dismissed concerns about helicopter noise, including concerns about privately operated helicopters coming and going in nearby Herne Bay. The decision could open the door for more private helicopter operations in residential Auckland, says Quiet Sky. They said there was nothing untoward, unacceptable, or significantly out of character with helicopter noise in an urban residential environment per se. The panel acknowledged numerous submitters would be disappointed with the decision, but said their interpretation of the council's Unitary Plan and legal precedents led to the application's approval. The application drew 1400 submissions, of which more than 1300 were opposed. News of the appeal comes days before Auckland councillors could get the ball rolling to prohibit private helipads in residential areas. Waitematā and Gulf councillor Mike Lee is seeking to have two notices of motions under his name on Thursday's policy and planning committee agenda. They request staff to begin work to make private helipads a prohibited activity in residential areas under the Unitary Plan, and a prohibited activity in residential areas on Waiheke and Aotea/Greater Barrier Islands under the Hauraki Gulf Island section of the district plan. The agenda is still being worked on and is due to be published shortly. Lee said considering helicopters the same as cars and bikes under the Unitary Plan was 'clearly a damaging, socially destabilising outcome for the community' and increasing reputational damage to the council. Waitemata and Gulf ward councillor Mike Lee. Photo / Alex Burton The three local boards in his ward - Waitematā, Waiheke and Aotea Great Barrier - were calling for helipads to be prohibited in residential areas, he said, saying there were 60 helipads on Waiheke, 11 on Aotea Great Barrier and four in the city's western bays. Quiet Sky plans to present a petition with about 4000 signatures to the policy and planning committee in support of Lee's notices of motion. City Vision, the ticket of Labour, Green and community independents on the council, has issued a media release opposing the consent for the new helipad in Westmere, saying it is focused on working towards an enduring solution on helipads in residential areas. A council spokesperson said it currently had three resource consent applications for helipads on Waiheke Island, and one on Rakino Island. Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Spinoff
12 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Why can't we ever finish anything? A council planner at their wits' end
An anonymous council planner asks an anonymous council planner to explain what the government's halt on all planning work will mean for them. Last week, the government announced that councils must stop plan changes until the new Resource Management Act replacement legislation comes into force. Here, an anonymous council planner explains – through an exasperated interview with themselves – why it's such a 'massive sucker punch'. What do you do? I'm a planner working in resource management policy, into my second decade of working in local government. My main piece of work most recently has been a plan change relating to part of my local environment that is incredibly special to me, my community, and our country. Why do you do it? Great question, and one I often ask myself given the hatred and blame often thrown at planners for Ruining Everything All The Time™. Contrary to popular belief, I don't sit in an ivory tower sipping a ratepayer-funded latte in isolation thinking up what arsehole rules and red tape I can inflict upon the peasants. I am passionate about my community, and driven to use my professional training and expertise to help protect our environment and all the taonga within. This includes people and their health! And I work in a team of like-minded people who are all in it for the same reasons. What does this news mean for you? Do you still have a job? My team was on the cusp of putting a plan change out for public consultation. We've been working on it for years, a draft was already released to the community for feedback, and most recently, given we've been so close to this significant milestone, we've been working long hours, over weekends, and putting our lives a bit on hold to get it done. So this news is a massive sucker punch, it's devastating, and I am still in shock. But the silly thing about it all is that I absolutely still have a job, still have shitloads of work, and will be continuing what I've been doing, it just won't be released as soon as we'd hoped. So I don't really know what the government thinks it is achieving apart from some dilly-dally delay? But surely you knew this was coming? No. We truly thought this particular piece of mahi was safe, and we had no warning. The embargoed media release was sent to our managers 30 minutes before it was released publicly. I got back from lunch to a message from my manager asking me to call them ASAP, and got the shock of my life when I was told the news. I'd literally worked until 9pm the previous evening on a presentation we were giving to a group that week to explain how we'd taken on board their feedback on our draft plan and show them the final form it was in. Womp womp. Doesn't it make sense to stop, though, if we are getting a new resource management system? This is one of those very classic cases where yeah, it does sound kind of logical on the surface, right? But in practice, it's nonsensical in most cases. It ignores the fact that these plan changes have been considered in annual plans and long-term plans, have been agreed to by councillors, and have often been years and years in the making. Plans are hardly ever reviewed within the 10 years timeframe, and so most are long overdue for an update. The way we manage the environment is also not going to fundamentally change, no matter how the RMA is repackaged – because let's be real, that's all the RM reform is going to do, repackage what we've got with some different wording and some slightly different processes to end up in roughly the same place but with more houses and mines. It is insulting (and ignorant) that the government doesn't understand and respect that we have considered this, and have tailored our work accordingly to ensure that it can transition into a new system (whenever that actually arrives… and sticks). In fact, a large part of why our plan change has taken longer than we'd hoped is we have had to go back to our council multiple times to check in and get approval to continue again and again, and change our scope so that we could ensure we were still taking the best way forward given the changes and uncertainty in the political environment. So frustratingly, dealing with the RM reform, rather than being able to progress actual resource management, continues to be prioritised by central government. As stated in the Beehive press release, 'The government's intention is that stopping plan requirements for councils will enable them to focus on critical work to prepare to transition to the new system'. So, I should stop doing my actual job under the actual system that currently exists, so I can prepare for a new system that doesn't even exist yet and isn't proposed to be in place until 2027? (Astute readers will of course realise that this is after the next election, when there is a decent chance of a change in government and it will be repealed anyway). What critical work do they mean for someone at my level? Attending yet another webinar on what the new acts might hypothetically contain when they are finally released? We've already been down this road with the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA), and to be blunt I'm not interested in spending my time (and ratepayers' money!) on learning a new system that (1) I can't actually learn yet, and (2) has no guarantee of ever being in force. Fool me once, shame on you time-wasting politicians who can't achieve cross-party support for such an integral piece of legislation that literally shapes Aotearoa. And I just want people to really think about it – if we had to stop doing anything any time there was the possibility of change, nothing would get done ever, in any sector. Won't it save money though? Will it? RMA reform minister Chris Bishop certainly hasn't provided any evidence for that. It's just kicking the can down the road, just like rates rises. The press release said the government was stopping councils 'wasting their officers' time and their ratepayers money'. But this doesn't consider all the time that has already been spent by the community engaging in these processes. The meetings they've attended, the documents they've read, the feedback they've written, the list goes on. It also ignores the fact that the bulk of work that feeds into a plan change process is business-as-usual work – technical inputs, monitoring, staying on top of legislative and technological advancements etc. We don't just wake up one day and go 'oh maybe we'll go nuts and change the rules for no reason, and how about we spend a bunch of money on some brand new stuff that isn't needed or useful for any other purpose and that we definitely don't already have' and then crack on with no checks and balances. Can't you just apply for an exemption to continue? HA HA HA HA HA. Good one. Technically, yes. But it's essentially not an option given the (deliberate?) timing of this news so close to local government elections, when councillors are likely to be hesitant to make decisions of this nature. We would also then have to spend the time getting the case together for the exemption, rather than finishing the actual work, which is a neat little no-win situation. Any final words before you go back to bashing your head against a wall? The one key thing I really want people to take from this is: whether or not you think the RMA is broken, whether or not we need RM reform, and what form that reform should or shouldn't take, there is literally no need to have a blanket pause on actually managing our resources while that happens. Our politicians, across the spectrum, need to get their shit together and land on a workable, lasting RM system that we actually get to implement, rather than living in this bonkers limbo for the foreseeable future. Our environment, our economy and our lives literally depend on it.
