|
 [Matthew Hayman, Secretary of the neighbouring Lyttelton Harbour Landscape Protection Association, has some concerns about what's happening to the Resource Management Act. So much so, he's fronting up to a Select Committee to argue his case. We find out why.]
New Zealand's Resource Management Act is certainly in the news these days. With some people loving it, and others hating it, the only thing that seems certain is that changes are in store for this piece of legislation. Given that our local community groups will have to work with the consequences, it seems important to understand what it all means.
A visit by then Leader of the Opposition, John Key, to Ferrymead before the election last year gave Heathcote people a chance to get some answers.
Locals may remember the intense debate surrounding the building of the
now completed tower block in Ferrymead. With this issue in mind, and
recorder in hand, I did my best to get a useful answer to this
question, "Will your proposed changes to the RMA make it easier or
harder for the community to have its say on controversial projects like
this?"
In answer, Key talked of "streamlining" the RMA. He thinks it's overly
bureaucratic and takes far too long to operate. One change would see
contentious projects go straight to the Environmental Court, where
everyone gets the chance to object. Needing a clearer answer, I tried
again, "Will your proposals make it harder for community groups to
object?" Key replied, "Depends on what it is, in some areas yes and in
some areas no."
With the election long gone, and the resulting Resource Management
(Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill making its way through
Parliament, people are concerned about what these changes
mean for local community groups. Speaking at a recent meeting, called by
the local MP for Port Hills, Ruth Dyson, was the Secretary of the Lyttelton
Harbour Landscape Protection Association, Matthew Hayman.
The meeting identified three critical areas. These are that it cuts
out access to local hearings, with issues going straight to the
Environment Court, secondly, it raises the threshold for us to be told
about some applications, and lastly, it stops the council from having
to revise its plans.
Hayman feels these changes will significantly discourage public
participation in the process of making and reviewing plans, and
appealing inappropriate development. It will massively damage the
modus operandi of groups such as his, and effectively block the public
from having their say. He feels the direction of the community and
environment will more and more be decided by developers. Based on this,
Hayman has gone on to make a submission on behalf of his Association to
the Select Committee considering the Bill.
The submission argues that the public will be effectively excluded from
submitting on district plans and appealing bad resource consent
applications. It notes the removal of the requirement for plans to be
reviewed every ten years and argues we will be stuck with bad plans or
piecemeal-reviewed plans that do not reflect changing issues. The
submission also notes the presumption towards public notification of
development applications is being reversed to a presumption towards
non-notification. Hayman asks, "How can the public and local residents
have their say if they don’t know what’s going on?"
The submission is in front of the Select Committee
in Christchurch on the 30 April at 3.30 pm, in Concord A Room at the
Sudima Hotel near Christchurch Airport.
|
