Latest news with #RMA
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Scoop
The Disastrous Effects Of Pine Forests On Our Land And On Ratepayers Pockets
The New Zealand Outdoors and Freedom party are outraged by the ongoing harm caused to communities, beaches and economy by pine forestry. Nothing has changed since the massive devastation in the East Cape and Tasman flood events several years ago. This time it's stunning Kaiteriteri Beach that has borne the brunt of destructive logging practices and yet again while private forestry companies profit, they expect ratepayers to pay for their mess. The public made it clear they wanted to end the shocking and predictable pollution from slash and waste logs, putting lives and property at risk, and clogging beaches after each significant rainstorm. 'The RMA and councils are failing the public. It's time for a more careful public focused response." says NZ Outdoors and Freedom Party leader and lawyer Sue Grey. "The common law makes individuals strictly responsible for the consequences of activities on their properties. Every lawyer learns about Rylands v Fletcher and strict liability for harm. Why are councils not holding logging companies responsible under these principles? Why are the public being expected to pay time and time again for the clean ups? How can it be in the public interest for private companies to take the benefits of logging but the public to pay the costs?" The cost to the taxpayer of cleaning some of the beaches in the Gisborne area resulted in a public outcry. As a result we all thought that might have been the end of the problem. The forestry companies promised that they would amend their harvesting practices. "Of course it was all posture and hollow words to keep the public quiet" says Alan Simmons of the NZ Outdoors and Freedom Party, who published a report after the East Coast floods. "The same can be said for the Government response which again was nothing but platitudes.' Take one look at the Tasman District after this latest huge rain event and you wonder why anyone ever wasted breath or ink on their promises. One of regions favourite beaches , Kaiteriteri Beach, has been left in an appalling state, covered in pine forest logs and waste. Sue Grey leader of the Outdoors & Freedom Party and Nelson Resident is angry about the damage done to this beautiful beach and by the lack of respect for the law by the forestry industry and local council. Sue Grey wants to know "Why forestry companies are not automatically required to pay for the cleanup and also the economic costs to the local business". She said "These costs should not fall on the ratepayer. The community is tired of the continuous excuses, the never ending slippery answers and the hollow promises they will ""voluntarily amend practices"", to avoid further harm and cost to the environment and local communities.' 'A decision by the House of Lords in 1868 developed English tort law establishing the rule of Rylands v Fletcher that everyone is strictly liable for harm caused by non-natural use of their land. It's now approaching 200 years since that rule was developed. Why are we still waiting for it to be applied in New Zealand?' asks Party leader Sue Grey 'If you seek to make the profit from growing the pine trees, then you must pay the costs for the consequences."
Newsroom
12 hours ago
- General
- Newsroom
Throwaway culture is a recent privilege we just can't afford
Opinion: Images of the Gordon Wilson flats on the Terrace in Te Aro, Wellington, may have persuaded many readers that Chris Bishop was right to amend the RMA so that the flats, owned by Victoria University, would be eligible for demolition. Bishop states: 'The flats sit as an ugly scar on the Wellington skyline,' and that they are, 'emblematic of a failed planning system that prioritises preservation of heritage, no matter the economic cost'. He got one part of that sentence right: the building is emblematic of a failed planning system, that allowed the building to fall into such disrepair that it was perceived widely as a scar on the skyline – a process that many have described as demolition by wilful neglect. It is not my intention here to argue in favour of the flats' heritage status; interested readers can read more about the McLean and Gordon Wilson Flats on Heritage New Zealand's website. Whether you think they are ugly or brutalist or represent a period in New Zealand history that should be preserved, is beside the point. Its heritage listing is being used as a scapegoat. The cold, hard, fact is that there are tons of embodied energy locked in the building, along with 87 housing units, at a time when there is a desperate shortage of housing. Yes, it needs to be refurbished but the fit-out costs would be the same whether it is a new building or a refurbishment. Demolishing this building would be a despicable act of waste – much of the developed world would be appalled. It would fly in the face of many international initiatives, such as the retrofit first policy, now adopted by three London boroughs, and gaining traction elsewhere. The policy is designed to discourage new buildings and encourage a circular economy, reliant on building reuse. Under the policy, developers are required to consider a whole life carbon assessment early in the feasibility stages of a project and assess varying degrees of retrofit, prior to considering demolition and re-build. The priority is on retaining at least 50 percent of the existing building's superstructure, because nearly 50 percent of a typical, large building's embodied carbon lies in the superstructure, with a further, nearly 20 percent, locked in the substructure. Circularity is also soon to be a legal requirement in Brussels, where Article 4 of the Regional Urban Planning Regulations states that: 'Every existing building will be conserved and, if necessary, renovated.' A similar legal framework is also proposed in the EU. Why do we in New Zealand feel that we should be exempt from these progressive principles – are carbon atoms somehow different down under? Sustainability architect Carl Elefante said in 2007 the 'greenest building is the one that is already built'. We now know that that the greenest building is the one that already exists and has been remediated to ensure it performs efficiently. The Gordon Wilson Flats were built as a model of high-density inner-city housing, close to employment and transportation routes. Photo: Wikimedia Commons Operational carbon emissions from buildings account for approximately 28 percent of global energy-related carbon emissions, according to the World Green Building Council. It also states: 'Towards the middle of the century, as the world's population approaches 10 billion, the global building stock is expected to double in size. Carbon emissions released before the built asset is used, what is referred to as 'upfront carbon', will be responsible for half of the entire carbon footprint of new construction between now and 2050, threatening to consume a large part of our remaining carbon budget.' Therefore, when building new, the target should be net zero or, ideally, carbon negative – the latter being an ambitious target that has yet to be achieved in New Zealand. But working with what already exists will always be achievable because we already have it – we have paid for it both in terms of carbon emissions and dollars. Why waste it? Wastefulness is a recent and poorly exercised privilege – one that was inconceivable to, for example, my grandparents, who managed to narrowly survive WWII, and then maintained a frugal existence for ever after, having learnt the hard way what going without really means. Our throwaway culture is exacerbating the climate crisis. Therefore, it is astounding that such a significant and substantial building is being considered for demolition. Yes, we could build new with 'sustainable materials' but as the UK engineer and contributor to Building Design, Anna Beckett, said, this is comparable to a fad diet: 'Ultimately, to consistently reduce carbon we have to build less.' The challenge is building less but delivering more, she explains, and this is where re-purposing existing buildings is so important. The Architecture Centre is currently working on a proposal that illustrates how the Gordon Wilson Flats could be seismically strengthened and refurbished so that the building envelope meets high thermal performance expectations and low operational carbon emission targets. In its proposal, an externally installed, mass timber structure, with steel dampers, would enclose the building, offering a reinterpretation of the original facade. This would ensure high thermal performance as well as increasing the ductility of the building, ensuring that it performs well in an earthquake, achieving at least 67 percent New Building Standard. Initial engineering advice suggests that this is not only a relatively simple solution, but a cost-effective one too. The internal spaces could be retained in their existing form. Retaining the superstructure of the building will save considerable money as the construction time would be reduced and the superstructure would not have to be demolished and re-constructed. Furthermore, this proposal also ensures that concerns about the 'ugly' aesthetic of the building are addressed. The building would be re-envisioned much like the Cité du Grand Parc, in Bordeaux, by Lacaton & Vassal has been, illustrated below. In this way, the site's most significant heritage values would also be retained. It would continue to be used as housing and the important legacy of the flats as a significant piece of New Zealand's social housing history would also be retained. The re-envisioned building could serve as much-needed (and highly desirable), post graduate housing or faculty housing, similar to the Symonds Street flats, which are owned by the University of Auckland and were refurbished for this purpose. The re-envisioned building would be an exemplar of how a large mid-century building can be both seismically strengthened and thermally efficient, one which Victoria University could showcase as a truly sustainable development it could be proud of.
Scoop
a day ago
- Business
- Scoop
Council Pushes Ahead With Changes Despite Government's ‘Plan-Stop' Policy
Marlborough's council will charge ahead with changes aimed at airline safety, despite the Government pushing pause on plan amendments. The district council's environment plan changes aim to ensure buildings or objects that could compromise aircraft safety could not be built close to Marlborough's three airports. Resource Management Act (RMA) reform minister Chris Bishop announced on Wednesday the Government wants to stop councils from passing amendments to environment and land use plans. Councils should not be wasting resources on making changes to plans under the RMA, ahead of major reforms expected in 2027, he said. 'Even though councils know the RMA's days are numbered, many are required to continue with time-consuming, expensive plan-making processes under the RMA,' Bishop said. '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.' Councils would be required to withdraw any planned changes that had not progressed to hearings within 90 days of the RMA Amendment Bill coming into effect in early August. The Marlborough District Council environment and planning committee unanimously voted to prepare a change to their Proposed Marlborough Environment Plan on Thursday, 24 hours after Bishop's announcement. Council strategic planner Clementine Rankin said the planned change would ensure buildings or objects that could compromise aircraft safety could not be built within the vicinity of Marlborough's three airports. 'For safety purposes, it's critical to provide protection for air corridors used in approaches to, and departures from, our airports,' Rankin said. 'It is a civil aviation safety issue when structures like buildings or frost fans penetrate into [air corridors].' Visual and structural objects that penetrated into an airport's approach air space were already prohibited under Civil Aviation Authority rules. But the council could not legally deny resource consents for people who wanted to build those objects without a change to the Proposed Marlborough Environment Plan. Rankin said there were recently constructed frost fans that had become a safety risk. 'This issue has occurred due to the focus [in rural zoning] on noise only. 'The controlled activity rule does not include an airport protection standard.' Rankin said that the council would move forward with the plan change, despite Bishop's announcement, and would ask the Environment Minister for an exemption if they had to. Only private plan changes, natural hazard changes, and changes directed by the minister were automatically exempt. All other exemptions had to be requested from the minister within three months of the policy becoming law. Councillor David Croad greeted the announcement with a shake of his head, calling it 'disingenuous'. 'I don't often participate in politics, but yesterday's plan-stop thing, [saying] 'we're stopping that because we want to save ratepayers' money', it's a little bit disingenuous in my opinion,' Croad said. 'Ultimately it implies that the staff that we have in our planning departments are going to go home and go off payroll for a period of time. 'We have great people in this building and it takes a while to build good teams. 'We just don't get to turn these things on and off at will.'
The Spinoff
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Spinoff
The tension between central and local government bubbles to the surface
Local government says it needs certainty from central government beyond election cycles. Central government says local government is wasting money on unnecessary projects. Who's right? Simon Watts, minister for local government, has kids. He's learned that when you give them a full day free to do whatever they want, they might 'make some bad choices'. But give them five options, and they can pick the one they want to do. He's on stage at SuperLocal, Local Government New Zealand's annual conference in Christchurch, answering a question about the government's move to stop 'wellbeing' and 'the environment' being part of councils' remit. 'People don't have an appetite for nice-to-haves,' he says. 'You weren't elected to make easy decisions, you were elected to make difficult decisions. The best thing I can do is to help you on that journey.' Broadcaster Miriama Kamo, hosting the discussion, pointed out that some local government members might not appreciate the metaphor. 'That's a bit patronising, mate,' someone yelled from the audience. At SuperLocal, the tension between central government and local government is nearly palpable. A brief, videoed address from Christopher Luxon is met with about three people applauding. With RMA reform and a potential rates cap on the agenda, the government is saying that councils are spending too much money on unnecessary projects. Councils are saying that actually, they are focusing on basics – and ever-changing directions from central government is a waste of their resources. Chris Bishop, the minister for RMA reform, addressed attendees at a plenary session. 'Ratepayers don't care what Greenstar rating your new council facilities have or whether some international architectural body thinks your latest build is pretty or not. The only awards your projects should be winning are for cost efficiency and effectiveness,' he said. There was an audible groan somewhere in the room. He kept going, talking fast to get through his speech, saying that councils needed to be better at planning for housing growth and that the government needed to make this easier. He promised two bills by November: one to replace the development contributions system so that developers pay more for infrastructure their new housing will require, and another to fund infrastructure development. Bishop's key announcement was also aimed at council efficiency: with whatever replaces the RMA on the way, he is removing (in most cases) the requirement for councils to take the RMA into account when making their plans. 'Plans completed under the RMA may be incompatible with the new system,' he said. Most plan changes will have to wait until the new system is in place, although particularly urgent changes, or changes related to Treaty settlements or natural hazards, will be exempt. 'Minister Bishop's announcements today were really good for local government to hear, with some certainty about where the RMA is going, [and] the timeframes around when we're going to hear further announcements,' said Sam Broughton, Selwyn District mayor and president of Local Government New Zealand, at a press conference afterwards. On the whole, though, local government is frustrated, because they feel that they're not using their budgets on 'nice to haves'. 'If I use my council as an example, 80% of our spend is on water pipes, wastewater pipes and transport systems. So the other 20%, you've got to include your recycling, your rubbish, your pools, the things that actually communities still think are essential.' To Broughton, and local government in general, changing directives from central government make it hard to plan long term, making councils more inefficient and wasting resources. 'Every time we have an election, there's a flip-flop, and it's just a distraction from us getting on with the work,' he said. One government wants wellbeing and environment to be part of plans; the next doesn't. One government wants to overhaul the RMA in one way; the next wants to overhaul the RMA in another way. 'We need ways of doing things so changes of government don't rip up previous governments' work – a pipeline of work that is agreed cross-party,' Broughton said. To prevent what he sees as wasteful council spending, the government is investigating legislation that would cap how much rates can rise, said Watts. 'It has to achieve the outcome that we're looking for.' The giant Taxpayers' Union truck parked outside the Te Pae conference centre emblazoned with pictures of mayors and how much rates have increased in their regions is a reminder of vested interests in this issue. But linking rates to household inflation doesn't make sense, Broughton said; much of what councils spend money on isn't in the CPI basket. 'Rates capping itself is actually a discussion about who makes decisions locally about what's delivered. Is it central government? Is it more power to Wellington?' Broughton said, mentioning that New Zealand is one of the most centralised countries in the OECD, with central government controlling the vast majority of government spending. Part of Wednesday's conference session was the release of an LGNZ-commissioned report quantifying local government's economic contributions: $20.1 billion operational and capital expenditure, $2.2bn in public administration and $500 million in long-term productivity gains. 'There's some basic things that councils have to get involved in because central government isn't stepping up to fit the needs of local communities,' said Broughton. His council is funding a health centre, because many people in Selwyn have to leave the district to go to the doctor. While there's certainly tension between central and local government, there's also a desire to get things done. Broughton was asked about Simon Watts' 'kids' comment at the stand-up. 'I think people like to play politics around language,' he said. 'But Minister Watts has also said he wants a situation where we sit around the table as adults. Councils get elected locally to think about what's in the best interest of their local community. And that is really hard work that requires mature minds.'
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Reaction to plan change halt mixed
Dunedin residents' concerns about multi-unit development have been caught up in sweeping halts to plan changes, leaving one city councillor "extremely unhappy". 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.
