RMA reform plans to end the culture of “no”

Resource Management Act (RMA) reform will make it easier to get things done, and will end the culture of “no”, said Minister Responsible for RMA Reform Chris Bishop 

In its current state, Bishop said the RMA makes it too difficult to build infrastructure and housing. New legislation developed by an Expert Advisory Group, and approved by Cabinet, will cut red tape. 

“The RMA’s scope is far too broad and allows far too many people to rely on far too many reasons to object and tangle progress in webs of absurd conditions. Cabinet has now agreed on the shape of the Government’s replacement legislation, signalling a radical transition to a far more liberal planning system with less red tape, premised on the enjoyment of property rights,” said Bishop. 

The new system will deliver a 45% improvement in compliance costs when compared to the current system, added Bishop, via “common sense ideas like standardised zoning”. 

“Standardising these zoning rules will take pressure off ratepayers and make it easier to build more homes for Kiwis. It will also enhance local decision making, allowing elected local representatives to focus more time on deciding where development should and should not occur in their community, and less time on the enormous amount of technical detail that goes into regulating that development,” said Bishop. 

“Codifying practice for common activities, like earthworks and working in a water course, into regular standards will liberate the anxiety planners face to set ever more stringent conditions and give development a mandate to certainly and sensibly occur.” 

Other key features of the new system include: 

• Two Acts: A Planning Act focused on regulating the use, development and enjoyment of land, along with a Natural Environment Act focused on the use, protection and enhancement of the natural environment. 

• A narrowed approach to effects management: The new system will be based on the economic concept of “externalities”. Effects that are borne solely by the party undertaking the activity will not be controlled by the new system (for example, interior building layouts or exterior aspects of buildings that have no impact on neighbouring properties such as the size and configuration of apartments, the provision of balconies, and the configuration of outdoor open spaces for a private dwelling). Matters such as effects on trade competition will be excluded. 

• Property rights: Both Acts will include starting presumptions that a land use is enabled, unless there is a significant enough impact on either the ability of others to use their own land or on the natural environment. This will reduce the scope of effects being regulated and enable more activities to take place as of right. There will be clear protection for lawfully established existing use rights, including the potential for the reasonable expansion of existing activities over time where the site is ‘zoned or owned’. There will be a requirement for regulatory justification reports if departing from approaches to regulation standardised at the national level. Compensation may happen for regulatory takings in some circumstances. There will be an expansion in the range of permitted activities. 

• Simplified national direction: One set of national policy direction under each Act will simplify, streamline, and direct local government plans and decision-making in the system. Direction under the Natural Environment Act will cover freshwater, indigenous biodiversity and coastal policy. Direction under the new Planning Act will cover urban development, infrastructure (including renewable energy) and natural hazards. 

• Environmental limits: A clearer legislative basis for setting environmental limits for our natural environment will provide more certainty around where development can and should be enabled, whilst protecting the environment. 

• Greater use of standardisation: Nationally set standards, including standardised land use zones, will provide significant system benefits and efficiencies. The new legislation will provide for greater standardisation, while still maintaining local decision making over the things that matter. 

• Spatial plans: Each region will be required to have a spatial plan, focused on identifying sufficient future urban development areas, development areas that are being prioritised for public investment and existing and planned infrastructure corridors and strategic sites. 

• Streamlining of council plans: A combined plan will include a spatial planning chapter, an environment chapter and planning chapters (one per territorial authority district). 

• Strengthening environmental compliance monitoring and enforcement: To safeguard the environment, a national compliance regulator with a regional presence will be established – taking over a function currently done poorly by regional councils. 

Shannon Bray, chair of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects, said the organisation welcomed elements of the reform, but added that there were significant concerns. 

“We have substantial concerns that consideration of effects on the landscape is not being fully considered. We disagree with the recommendation to omit the regulation of landscape and amenity effects within the reform. 

“The inherent connection people have with the environment – what it means to them and their identity, alongside its memorability, perceptual qualities and social-environmental values – is key to community wellbeing. We think both Acts must be bolder in describing the important relationship people have with the environment around them. It’s how we personify its elements and character.” 

The Environmental Defence Society is “especially pleased” with the reform’s emphasis on spatial planning, but urged caution in other areas. 

“We are especially pleased to see the emphasis on spatial planning to provide more certainty,” said Chief Executive Gary Taylor. “[However], some of the hyperbolic language used in the announcement is disconcerting. And some of the ideological drivers around property rights and regulatory takings are cause for concern.” 

The New Zealand Planning Institute (NZPI) CEO David Curtis, called spatial planning a “no-brainer” and a “game changer”, and welcomed standardisation of land use zones. NZPI Chair, Andrea Harris, said she was concerned at the proposed narrowing of the scope of the land use planning system. 

“We agree that regulation should be targeted and effective, but we don’t want to see the baby thrown out with the bath water. We haven’t seen the detail of what this will look like in practice yet and we’d want to make sure there weren’t any unintended consequences as a result of a narrowing of scope.”