Hearings Committee Decision Report

The Decision Report relies heavily on the Officer’s Report for policy direction and guidance, similar to the Waitarere case study. There was no direct reference in the Decision Report to policy in the RMA documents discussed above or the RMA, except specific rules in the District Plan relating to conditions of the consent and that granting the application was pursuant to sections 104 (1) and 104B. There also was no direct reference to non RMA documents, including the LGA.

believed that their proposal was the best approach for residential development of the land (Gisborne District Council, 2007c). The applicant therefore requested that the even though the site was in the rural general zone that it would be more appropriate to assess the development against the general residential zone rules, given the type of activity proposed (Gisborne District Council, 2007c).

The Decision Report singles out several of the more significant issues associated with the proposal and discusses a number of them in more detail providing some rational behind the decisions made.

The Decision Report acknowledges that the existing amenity values will be changed by the development. The report notes that the Officer has outlined a number of mitigation

measures to reduce the visual effects on amenity values and landscape values, including applying the residential requirements from the District Plan with several exclusions. However, from the Officer’s Report there was no mention of the District Plans residential policies.

The Decision Report identifies that although the Department of Conservation still had reservations about the wastewater treatment design. The Officer was of the opinion that the design was sound. The Hearings Committee agreed with the Officer’s position as they decided to grant the proposal without further modification of the waster water design. Although the conditions in the Decision Report required monitoring of the discharges at the source there was no monitoring required within the dispersal field, the on-site streams, or in the adjacent marine area for diffused cumulative effects, in line with policy direction in the RPDLW (policy 6.2.3, and method 6.3.5).

The Hearings Committee was satisfied that the stream realignment would not cause sediment accumulation within the watercourse on the site. However, there was no mention of sediment effects on the adjacent marine area which debatably could increase with the more direct flow from the streams realignment.

The Decision Report specifically outlines reasons for the decision to grant the application. The Hearings Committee generally felt that the development design and mitigation

subdivision would provide “additional coastal housing opportunities for the general public” and the “economic well being of the applicant” (Gisborne District Council, 2007c , p 26).

From the Decision Report the following conclusions that can be drawn. The Hearings Committee places a significant amount of trust in the Officer’s Report and the evidence of council’s technical experts. The focus of the discussion and conditions in the Decisions Report are around mitigating the effects of the proposed activity mainly on the site itself. The discussion does not address the potential effects on the wider environment and district context, including whether the proposal increases the cumulative effects associated with settlement patterns.

At a more detailed the conditions apply a 50 year risk assessment to the stormwater design. The District Plan promotes the use of a planning horizon of 100 years for hazard risk management. Applying a longer risk management timeframe to not only stormwater management, but also wastewater and natural hazard management could have potentially reduced the risk to life, property, infrastructure and the environment.

5.5 Conclusion

As with the Waitarere case study, there is no evidence identified through the analysis of alignment or integration of the decision-making and sustainability requirements given to council under the RMA with the LGA. New policy direction was identified in council’s policies, plans, and strategies, other than RMA documents which were relevant to the proposal and if used to help inform decision-making, arguably, could have increased the sustainability of the proposed coastal development. However, much of the policy direction was similar and reinforced that found in the RMA planning documents. Despite the

repetition of policy direction, many of the issues remained unaddressed in the Officer’s Report and the Decision Report. A number of possible reasons for this failure were identified through the case study analysis, for example, the primary reliance on the District Plan to assess the application, assessment of the site in isolation of the surrounding environment and district wide issues, and the focus on mitigation of effects rather than enhancement of the environment.

Chapter 6

Interviews

6.1 Introduction

The interviews were used to supplement the documentary analyses and provide a richer understanding of the participants’ implementation of the RMA and LGA, and also possible barriers to the Acts implementation and integration, as discussed in Chapter 3

(Methodology). The interviews were semi-structured (see Appendix 4 for the Interview Schedule). The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then thematically analysed manually.

The following analysis identifies and discusses themes that were drawn from the interviews. To focus the analysis I have divided my discussion in to four categories, although many of the areas are interrelated. Quotations used from the interviews do not identify the author to ensure unanimity, as agreed with the participants.

6.2 Analysis