Planning Practice

As identified through the case studies relevant policy guidance from the RMA documents and other council policies, plans and strategies was largely ignored. A number of reasons for this were identified through the case studies. The issue this raises for alignment and integration of the LGA and RMA is that even if policy guidance was more integrated there is a high probability that it would not be used to help inform deliberations or strategically achieve a desired outcome. This is because there is already an aversion to using much of the guidance currently in RMA documents. The following section discusses some of the reasons why policy guidance is not being used to inform decisions.

One of the reasons identified through the case studies and interviews was that the officers’ assessments and the decision-makers’ deliberations were very narrowly focused on mitigating the adverse effects of the subdivision on the development site. They were also relatively fixed in time concentrating on the immediate change in landuse and the

construction phase of the development with few conditions managing the long-term effects of residential activities or enhancement of rural coastal environment.

The application assessments undertaken by the councils were mainly focused on

mitigating the adverse effects of the development. The result is that little encouragement is given to actions and consent conditions that promote enhancement of values in line policy direction in RMA planning documents (particularly regional and national) and the Part 2 of the RMA. Although Section 104 of the RMA (Consideration of Applications) requires consideration of the effects of an activity it does not restrict decision-makers to just

and Section 2) of the RMA require an assessment of actual and potential effects and are not specific as to whether they are positive or negative. This is also supported by section 3 of the RMA which provides a definition of ‘effect’ and includes positive and negative effects. Enhancement of values is also reflected in other parts of the Act, such as the functions of regional councils (section 30) where water quality and ecosystems should be maintained and enhanced. The “mitigation mentality”, as this approach is referred to by Peart (2007, p 5), will likely be a barrier to enhancing the four well-beings towards sustainability as it favours the status quo or encourages cumulative adverse effects (Peart, 2007). The mitigation approach is likely to be related to the interpretation of the RMA, in particular, the emphasis on mitigating the effects of activities in Section 5 (2) (c), and Section 17 and the strong focus in the Act on adverse effects (e.g. Section 5 (2) (c), Section 17, and Schedule 4 (Section 1 (b) (d)). The ‘mitigation of adverse effects’ approach to development is also emphasised in the wording of the District Plan rules in both case studies and to a lesser degree in the regional planning documents. Because the current practice of assessing applications emphasises mitigating adverse effects of a proposal, largely on the

development site, there is little likelihood that the opportunities which the RMA consenting process affords will be taken to address the wider effects of coastal development and promote the four well-beings.

Another reason for not considering policy guidance identified through the research (in particular the interviews) was that the officers based most of their assessment on the rules of the underlying rural zoning of the site in the District Plans. This was even though both applications were discretionary and within a coastal overlay which required assessment against the objectives and policies of RMA planning documents and Section 104. When asked why this was the officers in both case studies considered that the implementation of the plans was through zoning and the developments did not trigger other parts of the plan. This approach to planning was reiterated when the interviewees were questioned why the cumulative effects of the development were not considered. Therefore, although there was relevant policy direction elsewhere in the District Plans and in other RMA planning

documents it was often not considered. As a result of this approach to planning practice the District Plans policies which supports things like energy and resource efficiency, avoiding cumulative effects of subdivision, consolidating development in existing residential areas, and considering the overall impacts of infrastructure like transport

questioned further about their approach, they felt that they could place little weight on these factors if there were no rules in the District Plan which were linked to the underlying zoning. This is the same for coastal overlays where policy direction was given but

generally few rules.

Through the case studies it was also apparent that there were political positions from both the officers and elected members that influenced the policy guidance selected to assess the application and ultimately the decision outcome. In addition, it was evident in one of the case studies that policies or parts of policies were selected to support a specific outcome, even though the outcome would have likely been contrary to the intent of the full policy. The case studies, in particular the interviews, identified that in some instances there is political pressure to support a specific outcome and that some of the wider societal and environmental effects are not yet politically acceptable to address on a case by case basis through the resource consent process in spite of policy direction on issues.