Approach to Assessing the Application

Under the LGA elected members have broad responsibilities for making decisions on issues outside of the RMA consent process, for example, infrastructure works, community initiatives, and council financial and strategic planning. Resource consent planners are generally focused on the RMA resource consent process and often work in relative isolation from other projects around the organisation, including strategic and financial planning. A resource consents planner’s professional training has traditionally

emphasised RMA consents processes, plan development, and interpreting the RMA.

Although there is an expectation that elected members will use their wide community knowledge and broad statutory mandates, and local representation in RMA decisions (Upton, 1997), there is a great deal of reliance on the Officers’ Reports and as there were few deviations from these in the final Decision Reports.

As a result, both applications in the case study research were decided in relative isolation from the immediate and wider environment and impact on the community, including cumulative effects, even though there was policy direction to do so in the RMA documents used in the Officer’s Reports to assess the applications. They instead focused on

mitigating the effects of the proposed development on the immediate site. This approach to assessing the applications was determined through the case study analysis and also the interviewees’ responses to questions on factors that were not included in the assessment of the application. For example, all the interviewees responses revealed that the district- wide cumulative effects of subdivision, transport (including cycling and walking) and utility networks, resource and energy efficiency, community social and economic impact

including rates, and the site’s relationship with adjacent natural and landscape values were not considered. One of the interviewees, for example, when asked whether cumulative effects of the development were taken into account or whether the development was assessed in isolation they said “I guess the answer is no…the reason is because the way the Plan is written”.

Another said:

To be honest I think it was the latter [isolation]…I don’t remember it being part of the submission process or part of our deliberative process either.

It was also evident in answers to questions about the relationship of the site with the surrounding natural and landscape values that there was little consideration about how the site links with the immediate marine environment or could influence significant features of indigenous vegetation or wetlands. All interviewees acknowledged that the assessments and decisions were undertaken in relative isolation.

Interviews conducted for both case studies provided insight into how rural coastal land was valued. Both development sites and the immediate surrounding landuse were in primary production. Because of this landuse, the sites were considered highly modified with very little landscape or natural value. This was largely determined by the lack of indigenous vegetation. The belief from interviewees was that subdivision would enhance the landscape and natural features of the site mainly through some revegetation with

modified that the developments proposed, in particular the earthworks, would not adversely affect the natural and landscape values.

The case study document analyses and interviews identified that the consent application assessments focused mainly on mitigating the effects of the proposals with little attention paid to the opportunities to address, rehabilitate, or enhance features and values

associated with the site and surrounding community. As one interviewee explained “the focus was more on risks”. In both case studies interviewees acknowledged that there was little or no consideration of promoting and enhancing values such as public access, ecological corridors, landscape features, or public safety. This was even though policy guidance encouraged and/or directed enhancement/rehabilitation of specific values that are endanger of being lost or degraded due to development. This will be discussed further in Chapter 7: Discussion.

The zoning and the rules in the District Plans (in particular the rural zoning rules) were used as a foundation for decisions. For example, both officers agreed that the

developments were residential landuse but did not consider the residential policies because the underlying zone was rural. They both felt that they could not have given weight to the residential objectives and policies because of the zone based planning approach of the District Plans.

In both District Plans there were quite a number of objectives and policies that did not have any rules associated with them. The officers felt that it would be difficult to implement some of the policy direction because of the lack of rules, for example in the area of

resource and energy efficiency (including transport), solid waste management and also cumulative affects of subdivision. As one interviewee stated:

Even though the activity was discretionary the rules are used as a baseline and if there are no rules it is difficult to implement the policy.

Although RMA planning documents other than the District Plans were considered to some extent, more weight was given to the rules in the District Plans. This was apparent from the officers’ answers when questioned about some of the policy directions in the NZCPS and RPSs and why they were either not considered or the recommendation seemed

contrary to the policy direction. When asked if methods like energy and resource efficiency, including grey water recycling and renewable energy, were considered as promoted in the RPS, an interviewee said “the District Plan did not have a rule on the issue”. A more specific example is the policy direction in both Regional policy Statements to avoid sprawling and ad hoc subdivision, with a preference to confining residential development to existing settlements. However, the District Plan rural zoning in both case studies allows subdivision to a residential allotment size in the rural zone as a permitted activity, even in the coastal environment. As one interviewee said:

The District Plan anticipates this type of development in the coastal environment because of the permitted lot size…I am not entirely sure that you could say that it is unplanned in that respect.