24.1. Formal town planning for Auckland started in the 1920s, with wider metropolitan and regional planning commencing in the 1950s. Today, resource management and planning are core functions of local government in New Zealand, and those functions are particularly important in Auckland because of the scale and complexity of the city and region, and its rate of population and economic growth. Different local government arrangements have the potential to contribute to or detract from the current and future well-being of the region and its communities, and may be more or less cost-effective.
24.2. The Commission has explored the effectiveness of current resource management processes, identified the major resource management issues and constraints that face Auckland today and in the future, and examined the relationship between resource management planning and other core functions (such as integrating land use planning with the provision of transport and other city-shaping infrastructure). It has also explored various governance, institutional, and legislative changes that could be better suited to Auckland in the future. The Commission has drawn on a wealth of written submissions, oral submissions, and various commissioned papers, particularly “The Resource Management System in Auckland” by Hill Young Cooper (hereafter “the RMS paper”).1
24.3. This chapter outlines the present state of resource management planning in Auckland and summarises the pressing issues for the Auckland region based on the views of informants, submitters, and the RMS paper. The chapter discusses how changes in planning processes could assist Auckland to become a more successful city-region. Options for change are explored and assessed, transition and implementation issues are identified, and the chapter concludes with a succinct summary of proposals needed to improve the delivery of resource management planning and services in Auckland.
24.4. The Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) sets out a hierarchy of participants and plans in the resource management process. The preparation and enforcement of resource management is undertaken through policy statements, standards, plans, consents, and monitoring and compliance by the Crown, regional councils, and territorial authorities.
Table 24.1 Key resource management participants in Auckland
| Body | Role | Key statutory instruments |
| Minister for the Environment | Prepare national policy statements (“NPS”) and national environmental
standards, including appointment of hearing body and determination of adopted
policy Monitoring the effectiveness of the RMA including local authority performance Call-in of RMA applications to be heard by a board of inquiry |
NPS – electricity transmission Proposed NPS – freshwater management Proposed NPS – renewable electricity generation |
| Minister for Conservation | Prepare New Zealand coastal policy statement, including appointment of
hearing body and determination of adopted policy Approval of regional coastal plans Determining category of resource consent under regional coastal plans |
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement Proposed New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement [2008] |
| Auckland Regional Council | Integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the region Prepare regional policy for integrated management of natural and physical resources of the region Regulate soil conservation, water, natural hazards, coastal marine area, contaminated land, discharges to the environment, hazardous substances, air quality Prepare regional plans related to its regulatory functions Resource consenting related to its regulatory functions Inspection, monitoring, enforcement, and compliance related to its regulatory functions Monitoring of effectiveness |
Auckland Regional Policy Statement Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control Auckland Regional Plan: Farm Dairy Discharges |
| Present territorial authority councils: Rodney District North Shore City Waitakere City Auckland City Manukau City Papakura District Franklin District |
Integrated management of the effects of the use, development, and protection
of land Regulate use of land, subdivision, and noise Prepare district plans (“DPs”) related to their regulatory functions Resource consenting related to their regulatory functions Administration of notices of requirements (network utilities, public works) |
DP – Rodney District Proposed DP – Rodney District DP – North Shore City DP – Waitakere City DP – Gulf Islands DP – Isthmus DP – Central Area DP – Manukau City DP – Papakura District DP – Franklin District |
DP = district plan; NPS = national policy statement.
24.5. The hierarchy of statutory instruments from national to local is illustrated in Figure 24.1.
24.6. The RMA became law on 1 October 2001. It closely followed the 1989 local government reform, which saw Auckland’s local government boundaries established as they are today. Among other reforms, Auckland’s 27 boroughs, counties, and cities were reduced to the seven districts and cities.2 Then, as now, the relative scale of the councils varied greatly. As a result of the enactment of the RMA, a new regional policy statement (“RPS”), a regional coastal plan, and new district plans were all required to be prepared under the Act. These are termed the first-generation plans and were notified in the period 1992–2000.
24.7. The RMA has been amended several times since 1991. Over this time the role of the RPS as the overarching, integrating policy instrument for all plans has been significantly strengthened. The initial spirit of the RPS was one of guidance and integration. Today the statutory emphasis is on direction, with lower-order plans required to give effect to the RPS.3 The Auckland Regional Council Policy Statement is explicitly expected to provide for the integration of land use and transport.4 All regional councils have as one of their functions the strategic integration of infrastructure with land use.5 It can be expected that the next version of the RPS will be significantly more important and directive than the current RPS.
Figure 24.1 Hierarchy of statutory instruments from national to local24.8. Regional and district RMA policy statements and plans are subject to change and variation through a statutory process similar to that which applies to the original policy statement and plans. Throughout the Auckland region there are currently hundreds of plan changes and variations being processed to hearing and decision stage by councils, along with appeals to the Environment Court on proposed plans and plan changes and variations that are already past council decision-making stage. With extensive and lengthy public submission and hearing processes and appeal rights to the Environment Court, it typically takes five to seven years from the date that a plan is notified until it becomes operative. During this period there is overlap between the older operative plan and the new proposed plan. This can add greatly to the complexity of administration of the RMA for regulatory authorities and users alike. The cost of preparing, notifying, receiving, and hearing submissions, and dealing with subsequent appeals, runs to millions of dollars even for the smallest of plans in the region. These costs are borne by the regulatory authorities, major institutions, landowners, developers, ratepayers, iwi6, and communities.
24.9. All policy statements and district plans have a 10-year life from the date they become operative until the time a review must be notified for public submissions. The proposed Gulf Islands District Plan is in its second version since the enactment of the RMA in 1991, but hearings have yet to be held. The first-generation proposed Rodney District Plan is mired in appeals from council decisions and it will be some years before it is operative. The first-generation comprehensive regional plan covering air, land, and water has completed the council decision-making stage, but with many appeals it will be some years before the plan is operative. Major changes to the RPS and district plans to give effect to the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy7 are through to the appeal stage, and again will be some years in the resolution.
24.10. The timeline in Table 24.2 shows when the various policy statements and plans are due for review over the next 10 years. The second-generation Auckland Regional Policy Statement is under preparation, as is the Auckland Isthmus District Plan. Most of the other regional and district plans for the region are due for review in the next seven years.
Table 24.2 Timeline for notification of policy statement and plan reviews, Auckland region
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | Beyond 2014 |
| Regional Policy Statement | Regional Plan – Sediment Control | District Plan – Manukau | District Plan – Waitakere | Regional Plan – Coastal | District Plan – North Shore 2016 | |
| District Plan – Papakura | District Plan – Isthmus | District Plan – Central Area | District Plan – Gulf Islands | |||
| Regional Plan – Farm Dairy Discharges | District Plan – Franklin | District Plan – Rodney |
24.11. The Commission invited submissions and posed a number of questions relating to resource management and planning. Submissions received are summarised in Volume 3 of this report.8 In addition, Hill Young Cooper sought the views of a small number of frequent participants in the resource management and planning system in Auckland, which are reported in the RMS paper.9 No one advocated retaining the status quo or suggested that only small changes to the status quo were required. Rather, submitters and informants saw this as an opportunity to fundamentally improve the capacity of Auckland local government to deliver better results through altered local government arrangements and better law.
24.12. Based on its analysis and on the views of submitters and informants, the Commission has crystallised widely held views on the major resource management and planning issues which must be taken into account in proposals to improve local government in Auckland. This chapter records the changes that will be required to improve the delivery of resource management and planning in a manner that will not aggravate existing problems in the region. The following sections identify the principal issues and options for addressing them.
24.13. The issues fall into three main categories:
24.14. The RMA is a devolved statute that provides for most resource management policy making and consenting to occur at local government level. In the case of the Auckland region, unnecessary complexity of the system is caused by several factors: the large number of key decision makers who exercise resource management powers, the overlaps in jurisdiction, the sheer number of plans and rules, each with their own style and presentation, and the number of resource consents that are often required to authorise development of land, buildings, businesses, and infrastructure. As a result, the system is difficult and costly for participants, creates barriers to community engagement, and is not justified by the outcomes achieved. Some complexity in the resource management system is the result of the relatively sophisticated Act itself, and cannot be easily addressed by altered governance arrangements. In addition, a fine-grained approach to planning will always be required in order to meet the needs of Auckland’s diverse communities and to manage the wide range of natural and physical resources.
24.15. Ministers of the Crown retain certain powers under the RMA, and utility operators (such as the New Zealand Transport Agency, power companies, and telecommunication companies) also have special powers to designate and compulsorily acquire land, and to veto development of designated land (or air space) not owned by the designating authority. The RMS paper identifies 20 utility operators with these special powers In Auckland.
24.16. Auckland has eight local authorities covering a region of 1.4 million people. The RMS paper identified and discussed the Auckland specific policy statements and plans: a regional policy statement; four proposed or operative regional plans; 10 proposed or operative district plans; and hundreds of variations and changes to those policy statements and plans.
24.17. An example of the complexity of the planning system is a major land development in the rural area of Rodney District. Such a proposal would be subject to
24.18. One or more resource consents would typically be required under each plan, resulting in a number of resource consents from two consenting authorities – Rodney District Council and the Auckland Regional Council – and they would be subject to the objectives, policies, and rules of at least five plans and policy statements, some of which deal with essentially the same effects, but all with subtle and not so subtle differences in rules, emphasis, and desired environmental outcome.
24.19. Another example of the complexity of the planning system would be a major new energy line through the metropolitan area of Auckland. The utility operator would usually initiate a requirement for a designation. The project would be subject to
24.20. A notice of requirement would be needed for the land use designation and multiple resource consents for matters under regional jurisdiction. Designations or consents would be required from all territorial authorities through whose territory the line passed and the Auckland Regional Council. If there were works in the coastal marine area, the Minister of Conservation might also have a consenting role. A similar situation to the Rodney rural land development would prevail, with the added complexity of even more plans and three or more consent authorities having separate decision-making powers, even if heard by a combined panel.
24.21. Another example of the complexity of the planning system would be a developer and a group builder involved in similar types of housing and subdivision operating across most of the territorial authorities of the Auckland region. While the nature of the development is similar from one authority to another, the activity status of subdivisions and houses differs between authorities, as do the standards and rules controlling development. The development contributions required by councils also differ significantly.
24.22. The issue of complexity of the planning system was the most common issue raised in submissions to the Commission on the subjects of planning and regulatory functions.10
24.23. Complexity in the planning system can be addressed in one or more of the following ways:
24.24. Reducing the number of territorial authorities should result in fewer plans simply because there would be fewer councils to make plans. However, as there is a power for an individual council to prepare several district plans (in territorial sections), a reduction in plans cannot be guaranteed. Also, the situation is not much improved for those projects or developers who deal with more than one territorial authority, especially if multiple district plans are prepared.
24.25. Requiring the production of fewer district plans (or even only one plan) could result from one or more of the following:
24.26. The Commission asked the question: “Is it possible and practical to have only one district plan for the Auckland region?” This would require either agreement by all existing territorial authorities to use the existing powers of the RMA to prepare a combined plan (perhaps supported by a statutory direction that there be only one district plan), or if there were one resource management authority for the region, a statutory direction that it prepare only one district plan. The Commission is satisfied on the basis of the advice it has received that the answer to this question is “yes”, although it has little confidence in the practical ability of the existing territorial authorities to prepare a single district plan, because of timing and governance issues. Should this course be adopted, there would inevitably be considerable transitional issues and significant technical and community issues with a “one-size-fits-all plan”. Both of these issues are addressed in later sections of this chapter.
24.27. The Commission’s advisers have analysed the district plans for the Auckland region and identified many standard types of zones used by most territorial authorities, even if they go by different names, such as
24.28. Within these zones, standards address a similar range of potential effects and have similar ways of measuring results but are not always the same in areas such as
24.29. Specialised but similar standards apply in specific zones such as a main shopping street with respect to matters such as verandahs, building form, urban design, orientation of buildings, and signs.
24.30. As an alternative to a single district plan, a high degree of standardisation in all district plans would remove some of the complexity of the planning system. This option would involve creating a standard palette of zones and zone standards for the entire region, to be applied to multiple district plans of separate territorial authorities. A regional standard set of objectives, policies, methods, and rules for zones should be able to cover the vast majority of land within the region, although the actual zoning pattern would vary according to the circumstances of each area.
24.31. In addition to a palette of zones and zone standards, a single consistent set of environmental standards would need to be developed for the entire region, recognising differing environments such as coastal, forested, rural, suburban, or urban as appropriate. The potential for the same activity rules and standards across the region includes
24.32. Standardisation of a regional palette of zones and standards, and standardising rules for activities in all zones and identified environments across a district, could be approached in a number of ways including
24.33. Apart from these areas of potential regional standardisation, there are several areas that would still require a “local” response. These include
24.34. Most of the district plans in the region would be more or less conducive to the standardisation approach set out above. The exceptions to this are the Waitakere District Plan, which has a multi-layered approach to zones, and the District Plan – Central Area Section of Auckland City, which deals with a large and very complex high-rise environment. There is considerable merit in the Waitakere approach to a two-layered zoning pattern – one that reflects the human environment and one that represents the natural environment. This is one of the options that could be considered for application on a region-wide basis.
24.35. The Commission has reached the view that the production of fewer plans and policy statements is a better way to reduce complexity than standardisation of planning approaches within existing plans. In a later section we discuss governance options that would help achieve this outcome.
24.36. There are areas of jurisdictional overlap between territorial authorities and the regional council in several areas including
24.37. There are currently four regional plans, the most significant of which – the proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water – is some years from finalisation, while the other regional plans are operative.
24.38. We have reached the view that there is no practical reason why a single regional plan could not be produced for the Auckland region in due course, one that includes all of the regional objectives, policies, and rules for matters within the jurisdiction of the regional council. This has been achieved in several regional councils in other parts of New Zealand. Indeed, in a coastal region such as Auckland the drawing together of all regional plans into a single, cohesive document governed by an integrated set of objectives and policies would be a desirable outcome. It would integrate the management of resources, as envisaged by the RMA. As an alternative to “regional resource management standards” in each of the region’s district plans, this same regional plan could also be the home for objectives, policies, and rules in any areas of jurisdictional overlap, providing a consistent set of regional rules. For reasons of efficiency, existing RMA powers that delegate the administration of such rules to a lower tier of government could be considered and required.
24.39. Moving to one district plan while there is more than one council with plan-making powers is not considered a practical option. This is because of the overall complexities and scale of the Auckland urban environment, and the political complexities of having one plan-making function carried out by several territorial authorities. It also cuts across a principle of local governance that policy makers should be accountable for the implementation of that policy.
24.40. It is not considered desirable to combine the regional policy statement with regional plans while there are separate territorial authorities. This is because the RPS should be the integrating policy document for both levels of government, and because regional plans and district plans are generally of equal status. Importantly, the RPS should provide for the integrated management of resources and environment across the region and between the two levels of government, and should resolve jurisdictional overlap issues. Where there are separate territorial authorities, this is best achieved by retaining a separate document that focuses primarily on policy rather than regulatory matters.
24.41. As previously mentioned, the RMA gives extensive plan and rule-making powers to territorial authorities and regional councils. It provides for wide powers of delegation to committees and, where they exist, to community boards. It provides extensive opportunity for public participation both when plans are made and in relation to publicly notified resource consents.
24.42. Communities often have strong and specific aspirations for their local environments, and equally have strong and specific opposition to or support for particular developments. Councils often have elected members who combine on a “ticket” to promote specific outcomes in their district or city, or to promote or oppose specific developments. District plans often express local preferences and aspirations.
24.43. Within the Auckland region there are widely differing environments which do not lend themselves to a “one size fits all” approach. The wild west coast is significantly different from the eastern coastline. The high density of Auckland’s central business district has very little in common with the villages of Waiheke Island. At a more strategic level, the approaches of various parts of the region to growth management and environmental protection have differed significantly in emphasis and style.
24.44. Many submitters had views about the merits of consistency of standards across the Auckland region. Many took the view that consistency was necessary only in matters of regional significance, and that there was a need to allow for differences between councils and areas. Differences and inconsistency lead to diversity and are also a result of community engagement in policy development and plan making.
24.45. Where submitters tended to operate across the region, such as developers and Māori, more consistency was favoured.
24.46. One identified problem was lack of consistency within a council between planners, or between various council departments – for example, conflicts between the regional development objectives and the environmental protection objectives of different parts of the same council.
24.47. The RMS paper reported that frequent users of the RMA system were divided on the need for harmonisation or a single district plan, perhaps in part because of their familiarity with the different plans.
24.48. The Commission supports the view that changes in governance and other arrangements for the Auckland region should strengthen and support the diversity of Auckland’s environments and communities, while achieving a high-quality urban and natural environment. We note that the RMA has a significant but limited role in shaping communities and the quality of our living and working environments. The Act has a strong influence on spatial layout, style of development, and quality of the environment over a very long period. Other major influences include
24.49. Although the RMA may have a shaping role through the various RMA plans discussed above, its role in achieving the diverse outcomes that diverse communities desire should not be overemphasised.
24.50. The Commission supports the view that the engagement of people, organisations, and communities in shaping the quality of their local environment is a fundamental premise of the RMA. The provisions of the Local Government Act must underpin any change in Auckland’s governance arrangements, including those that impact on the effects of the RMA.
24.51. There are many ways to ensure appropriate diversity in the administering of the RMA in Auckland.
24.52. Standardisation of RMA rules need not result in a “cookie cutter” urban and rural landscape or standardised outcomes on the ground. The Commission notes that a variety of land use zones at the district planning level would result in a mosaic of different land use patterns, such as we see today in Auckland. There is no reason why unique circumstances in one part of the region could not result in a specific zone, or the tailoring of particular environments (such as a town centre) while also maintaining a level of standardisation.
24.53. Community and tangata whenua12 engagement in the production of plans, plan changes, and variations and notified resource consents is guaranteed through the public notification provisions of the RMA. This would continue under the proposed changes to governance arrangements. Major developments are usually publicly notified, so public submission rights ensure community views can be heard and reflected in decision making. Depending on governance arrangements and delegation, people with local knowledge – from local planners to locally elected members – may also have decision-making rights in the consent process. This is another means of keeping the local element in RMA administration.
24.54. Much of Auckland is being developed and redeveloped at higher densities. This is happening in areas that are already settled and this inevitably causes community reaction. It is important that communities be involved in changing plans for their living and working environments. This can be achieved through a variety of methods including
24.55. “Keeping the local” in the administering of the RMA would be a challenge for a large unitary authority governing all of the Auckland region. The size of the organisation could create barriers for people trying to access officials, advice, and information, and could lessen public involvement with policy development, plan making, and consent processes. To mitigate these risks, it is essential that there be involvement in RMA decision making at the local level, including through delegations to locally elected politicians and locally based staff.
24.56. Auckland is New Zealand’s largest region, has its only world-scale city, and will account for more than 60% of New Zealand’s growth over the next 30 years. Not only is Auckland the largest region by a considerable margin, it is projected to become relatively larger. Every five years an additional city with a population the size of Dunedin’s arrives in the Auckland region, fuelled by natural growth and immigration.
24.57. Managing population and economic growth is core business for Auckland governance and must be of world-class standard to ensure that Auckland can protect and enhance the well-being of the region and its communities and maximise the region’s contribution to wider, national objectives.
24.58. Policy for integrated growth management does not fall entirely within the realm of resource management. However its statutory expression is contained within the RPS and district plans. Much of the technical work in developing integrated growth management is carried out by the same sections of council responsible for resource management policy development.
24.59. Auckland has its own methods for developing policy to manage regional growth. These methods while commendable have fallen short when it comes to implementation. One of the problems in implementation is the lack of sychronisation between the regional council, the territorial authorities, and major infrastructure providers, all of which have various planning instruments, growth policies, and investment plans at different stages of development. Some policies and plans have been in conflict or have served to frustrate regionally agreed directions and priorities particularly in relation to transport.
24.60. Auckland local authorities have long recognised failures in aligning the land use side of growth management with the funding and provision of city-shaping infrastructure (motorways, regional arterial roads, the rapid transit network, regional water and wastewater networks, and open space networks), but have lacked the local government structure, and commitment to achieve regional agreement.
24.61. The Commission frequently heard frustration expressed by submitters about the time taken to make key decisions, the relitigation of regional decisions at the district and neighbourhood level, and the difficulty of obtaining alignment of city-shaping infrastructure decisions.
24.62. The regional growth strategy (“RGS”), which was agreed in the 1990s, was an attempt by the region’s local authorities to address growth management in an integrated way, and arose from strong regional leadership and collaboration rather than from the exercise of statutory powers. The RGS was first given statutory support through an amendment to the Local Government Act, and was then more strongly supported through the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act in 2004. Those Auckland amendments required the regional council and territorial authorities to make specific provision for the RGS in the RPS and in district plans.13 The statutory process of submission and appeal is still under way with appeals to be heard by the Environment Court.
24.63. As a precursor to the new RPS, the councils of the region have collaborated to develop the Auckland Sustainability Framework,14 which provides linked and cohesive principles for the region. The framework contains a shared commitment to sustainable development for the Auckland region over the long term, a 100-year vision, eight long-term goals, eight shifts that need to occur in the way the region thinks and does things, some intermediate actions, and longer-term responses, together with some indicators to measure progress. It will provide, along with the RGS, the Auckland Regional Open Space Strategy Technical Report, the Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy, and the Auckland Region Business Land Strategy, a good start to the work that will need to be done if a spatial plan is to be developed for all Auckland.
24.64. Integrated growth management requires the participation of major agencies and organisations such as Auckland Regional Holdings Ltd, Auckland Regional Transport Authority, New Zealand Transport Authority, Housing New Zealand, the regional and local councils, and Watercare Services Ltd and the territorial authority water businesses. It requires the implementation of provisions of resource management, the Local Government Act 2002 and the Land Transport Management Act, and the involvement of those with responsibilities under those statutes. If Auckland is to achieve world-class integrated growth management, it will be necessary to simplify and align the responsibilities referred to above.
24.65. The RGS is now being reviewed and will provide an important input to the two key statutory documents – the regional policy statement under the RMA and the regional land transport strategy under the Land Transport Management Act, both being prepared in the 2008/09 period.
24.66. Since the RGS was adopted in 1999, amendments to the RMA have strengthened the hierarchy of planning documents so that a district plan is required to give effect to a regional policy statement. This new power has not become fully effective on district plans as the comprehensive review of the Auckland RPS incorporating this power has only just begun. The notification of the reviewed RPS (late 2009) may just precede the notification of one of the most important district plans – the Isthmus Plan of Auckland City (early 2010). This timing may limit the effectiveness of this important new RMA power.
24.67. To further support integrated growth management, the RMA has been amended to provide that one of the purposes of regional councils is “the strategic integration of infrastructure with land use through objectives, policies, and methods.15
24.68. The RPS sets out key growth management policies, such as the determination of the metropolitan urban limit (“MUL”), the promotion of a compact urban form with intensified development in “nodes” along transport corridors, and the protection of coastal and rural areas from urban development. District plans give effect to the RPS through zoning and rules. A complex set of actions between many participants is required to achieve the vision.
24.69. A particularly difficult area for the region’s councils has been planning for and managing intensification of the urban areas that are well served by public transport and have been identified for urban renewal in the RGS, the RPS, and district plans. This is a result of
24.70. To the above list may be added other issues identified in the discussion paper Building Sustainable Urban Communities, prepared by the Department of Internal Affairs.17 The paper identifies the following barriers to successfully providing large-scale, sustainable urban development projects:
24.71. Local input helps identify areas of special need – for example, household crowding, which is a serious problem in parts of the Auckland region. Housing reform requires coordinated action by central and local government and the private sector. Local communities, iwi, and others with a stake in the land need to be involved. Good-quality planning and integrated management have an important role to play.
24.72. Local government should use transport and the placement of facilities to encourage social participation, reaching those who need the services most (for example, giving fare holidays on public transport in the weekends, putting public transport routes in more deprived communities, siting of parks and recreational facilities where people do not have the resources to create their own leisure activities).
24.73. An integrated approach to planning and development also requires a full assessment of the needs of sections of the community such as children, young people, and the elderly. The activities of local government in managing the urban and suburban landscape can have a profound affect on the lives of children and their carers, and of young people. Those with fewer resources at home rely greatly on recreational facilities provided by local government. The Commission was advised that the quality of playgrounds in a neighbourhood gives an accurate picture of whether it is rich or poor. That must change. Poor neighbourhoods need quality facilities even more than wealthy neighbourhoods. Manukau City Council has recognised this in its policy of not charging admission to council swimming pools. All planning documents must take into account these socio-economic factors and ensure that the needs of children, youth, and the elderly are properly addressed.
24.74. The current regime for developing policy that integrates growth management involves many parties, suffers in the implementation, and is not adequate for the challenges of Auckland. Less than optimum management of integrated growth will continue to produce less than optimum results for Auckland: an over-reliance on greenfield land supply because of the slowness and complexity of urban intensification, a stifling of desirable economic development, key infrastructure delayed or not put in place at all, housing affordability issues, and the compromise of highly valued resources and heritage values by inappropriate use and development. Integrated growth management needs to give the highest priority to urban development and redevelopment, and to investment in public infrastructure and amenities. A world-class city-region requires world-class integrated growth management.
24.75. The Commission has concluded that the solution to the problems identified above is to create a unitary authority for the whole of Auckland as described earlier in this report. What follows are the steps that the Commission believes must be taken by the new Auckland Council to remedy the defects identified.
24.76. Much greater capacity to analyse and plan the city region will be needed, particularly in gaining a more sophisticated understanding of complex urban systems, and developing tools to evaluate and prioritise major investment choices across all types of assets.
24.77. The Commission has explored several options for changed governance in the Auckland region. Our preferred structure is described in Chapter 14, “The Auckland Council: Key Features”. One of the factors that led us to this choice relates to the delivery of services under the RMA and the ability to provide world-class integrated growth management. This section describes the benefits of that choice from a resource management perspective.
24.78. As outlined previously, the Commission favours the creation of a unitary authority for Auckland (Auckland Council) with six subsidiary local councils.
24.79. To improve resource management and integrated planning, the first tasks for the Auckland Council are listed below:
24.80. The Commission wishes to stress to the authors of future plans, particularly the district plan, the importance of having simplicity of language and controls as a central objective. This is of particular importance in residential zones. The Commission is satisfied, on the basis of the evidence it has heard, that residential zones have become unnecessarily complex often requiring expensive resource consent applications for relatively minor building additions or alterations.
24.81. The preparation of these plans would be undertaken by the Auckland Council, after full consultation with the local councils. Local council input into the district plan in particular is essential to ensure that local aspirations and place-shaping are provided for. One of the functions of the urban local councils will be the processing of resource consents, subject to a power of the Auckland Council to call in applications of regional significance. Where consents are processed at local council level, the Auckland Council should ensure that any necessary regional consent requirements are delegated to the local council. As indicated elsewhere in this report, greater supervision by the Auckland Council will be necessary in relation to planning functions in the rural areas, given the importance of the MUL and the need to ensure that Auckland-wide policies on development and growth are adhered to. Because of the highly specialised nature of some RMA functions (such as water allocation or air quality standards), some RMA consenting will still be best handled by the Auckland Council.
24.82. The Commission has considered the possible benefit of creating a separate council-controlled organisation (“CCO”) with a specialist pool of planners, transport planners, environmental analysts, urban designers, and other supporting experts to deliver some parts of planning services. The Commission is aware of CCOs in other parts of New Zealand that successfully deliver such services. The Commission discussed this possibility with its advisers. It was told that councils have a very real problem with the recruitment and retention of highly skilled professional staff. The new Auckland Council will need to examine why this is so and ensure that its structures and culture are such that professionals find the council an exciting and fulfilling place to work. The culture of the council must focus on delivery of quality service to the citizens of Auckland. The Commission suggests that one way to address the recruitment and retention problem is through the creation of a separate business unit for planning within the council organisation. The formation of a CCO is another way. Whichever approach is adopted, the aim must be to give professionals the freedom within which to operate. It is essential too, that local body politicians must recognise and accept that there are conventions involved in the way they work with the councils’ professional staff. The Commission believes that the decision on whether a CCO would be preferable to a separate business unit within the Auckland Council is one for the council to make in due course.
24.83. Experts in this country and overseas have recommended to the Commission that there should be no right of appeal to the Environment Court from regional policy decisions. Rather, a procedure should be adopted in relation to the RPS similar to that adopted for national policy statements, but with the requirement that there will always be a hearing of submissions by independent commissioners. It is the Commission’s view that policy should be made by politicians, not by the courts. The present system means that regional policy is litigated at length and at great public expense. There are several examples in Auckland where territorial authorities and the Auckland Regional Council have opposed each other in appeals to the Environment Court over policy matters. Such appeals can involve other parties as well, and because of their complexity can delay the operation of an RPS for a period of years. Obviously, the Commission’s structure recommendations would remove the possibility of disputes between territorial authorities and the regional council, but would not remove the possibility of other parties challenging regional policy.
24.84. The Commission accepts that there is considerable value in having the supervision and experience of the Environment Court, particularly when it comes to the relationship between policy and rules. The Commission is also aware that there are many regional councils that struggle to provide adequate resources in preparing regional policy statements.21 The Environment Court’s experience can be very helpful in such circumstances. However, it is crucial that the RPS of the new Auckland Council should be able to be prepared and become operative with the minimum of delay. It is reasonable to anticipate that the resources available to the council, and the political oversight that will be available, will ensure robust policies whose adoption would be justified after their having been through a submission hearing process before experienced commissioners. It is also relevant that many of the regional policies are already well established. We conclude that in the case of the Auckland Council there should be no right of appeal against decisions relating to the RPS. The Commission recommends that the Resource Management Act should be amended accordingly.
24.85. Some submitters raised the issue of requests for private plan changes. In the Commission’s view it will be important, at least until the new district plan is operative, that there be a moratorium on private plan changes. The reason for this is that there can be very significant disruption and cost involved in dealing with private plan changes while the district plan itself is going through the submission and appeal process. This, of course, would not prevent changes being made during this time, but they would be by way of variations to the proposed plan and would be instituted only if the Auckland Council was satisfied as to their appropriateness.
24.86. Having an integrated spatial plan and plans for strategic regional infrastructure prioritised by the Auckland Council (which would generally hold the regional purse strings) means that there would be a singular clarity of direction, with a wide range of methods by which to achieve strategic regional outcomes. This would also do away with the inevitable institutional friction created by separate units and levels of local government (regional and territorial).
24.87. This planning framework would provide for rational and evidence-based decision making in the interests of the entire region, without the difficulties that can arise from spatial decision making based on the region’s current, separate territorial authority boundaries. Elected representatives would face a wider range of considerations in their policy-making roles, along with a role and duty to consider the inevitable balancing of a broad range of environmental, social, cultural, and economic factors. This must lead to better decision making.
24.88. This, in turn, will mean that development of the regional policy statement does not need to be slowed down by the current competing financial and “council patch protection” interests and timing misalignments. Rather, it can focus on the delivery of an outstanding regional policy statement consistent with the spatial and infrastructure plans. There will be much less delay related to RMA processes, with only one council having plan- and policy-making duties and powers.
24.89. The preparation of the regional plan and one district plan by the Auckland Council will reduce complexity and provide (at the point where the regional plan and the district plan provisions come together) greater clarity for those involved in RMA processes (particularly applicants and submitters) where they operate over wide parts of the Auckland region. Even if the district plan is prepared in territorial sections, there will be a greatly enhanced ability to ensure consistency with the regional spatial plan, the regional policy statement, and the regional plan. Lack of consistency, implementation difficulties, and unintended outcomes would be more easily identified and more easily corrected.
24.90. Having only one regional plan and one district plan for Auckland could initially create a large volume of work for the Environment Court, but once settled would significantly reduce the amount of work going to the Court, reduce time frames and potentially result in quicker turnaround times for the Court on other matters.
24.91. Greater consistency in administration and decision making for consents across the region should be achieved through the simplification of plans, standardisation of rules, and cohesive RMA governance and decision-making processes (including standard delegation approaches to local councils and their staff). This could ensure that the RMA is not perceived (as at present) to be the cause of regulatory obstacles to appropriate development and growth.
24.92. Presently, applicants for resource consents face the possibility of having to prepare applications to a territorial authority and to the regional council for matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of each. There are instances, affecting infrastructure providers in particular, where applications need to be made to more than one territorial authority and possibly the regional council as well. In these cases, applicants must prepare two or more applications, and prepare for one (if the hearing is a joint one) or two hearings, and meet the cost of complying with the potentially conflicting conditions of two or more consenting authorities. The ability to create a “major” or “regional” projects approach means that critical infrastructure or growth projects can be handled by a single regional team with the appropriate level of skill and resources to advance them expeditiously. Moreover, the volume of large or complex resource consents processed in the region may actually diminish because of better alignment between regional and district plan documents.
24.93. The greater scale of the region and better funding (compared with the current situation in some parts of the region) would help reduce consenting time frames and costs as it would allow
24.94. The preparation of the RPS, regional plan, and district plan by the Auckland Council maximises the opportunity for an integrated approach to be taken to the management of natural resources and environmental values, and to integrate land use planning with infrastructure investment across the region, producing better environmental outcomes
24.95. Having one district plan will reduce the likelihood of rules being overlooked and has the potential result of greater compliance and progress in achieving the RMA’s environmental outcomes.
24.96. If compliance and monitoring are undertaken by the Auckland Council, the resulting large monitoring team would ensure sufficient focus and momentum to meet RMA requirements. At present, many councils struggle to fund monitoring of district plan effectiveness, being distracted by pressing requirements to amend plans or resource other projects.
24.97. In summary, the Commission is confident that the changes proposed in this chapter should
Auckland needs robust, considered and consistent planning to support the region’s ongoing growth and development.
24A The Auckland Council should, immediately following its establishment,
24B Simplicity of language and controls should be a central objective in the preparation of plans.
24C After the commencement date of the Auckland Council, there should be a moratorium on private plan changes, until the new district plan for the whole of Auckland becomes operative.
24D The Resource Management Act 1991 should be amended to remove the right of appeal to the Environment Court from regional policy statement decisions made by the Auckland Council.
24E The Auckland Regional Policy Statement should be subject to a submission process similar to that which applies to national policy statements and those submissions should be heard by independent commissioners.
24F Auckland Council should consider creating an Urban Development Agency, to operate at the direction of the Auckland Council, with compulsory acquisition powers.
Transition24G The Establishment Board should undertake preparatory work on the development of the Auckland regional spatial plan and consider the new planning and regulatory requirements when designing Auckland Council’s organisation and unified service arrangements.
1 Hill Young Cooper, “The Resource Management System in Auckland”, in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, Auckland, 2009, pp. 261–353.
2 Tuakau, Pukekohe, Waiuku, Franklin, Papakura, Howick, Manukau, Tamaki, One Tree Hill, Onehunga, Mt Roskill, Mt Eden, Mt Albert, Auckland, Waiheke, Great Barrier, Glen Eden, New Lynn, Henderson, Waitemata, Devonport, Northcote, Birkenhead, East Coast Bays, Takapuna, Rodney, and Helensville.
3 Resource Management Act 1991, section 75(3)(c).
4 Local Government Amendment Act 2004, sections 38–40 and Schedule 5.
5 Resource Management Act 1991, section 30.
6 Iwi – tribal grouping.
7 The Auckland Regional Growth Strategy deals with growth boundaries, areas for new urban development, urban redevelopment, business land, and important city-shaping infrastructure. It also deals with the need for and priority of infrastructure investment. Areas for protection such as coastal landscapes and native forested areas are also identified as constraints to urban growth. The 1999 version has a spatial concept, rather than being a spatial plan. Available at www.arc.govt.nz (accessed February 2009).
8 Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, Auckland, 2009, Chapter 13, “Environment”, pp. 149–159.
9 Hill Young Cooper, “Resource Management System in Auckland”, in Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 4: Research Papers, pp. 261–353.
10 See Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, p. 131.
11 Wāhi tapu – sacred place, location with spiritual meaning.
12 Tangata whenua – local indigenous people, people of the land, Māori people.
13 Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004, sections 38 and 40.
14 Regional Growth Forum, Auckland Sustainability Framework: An agenda for the future, September 2007 (available at www.arc.govt.nz, accessed February 2009).
15 Resource Management Act 1991, section 30(1)(gb), as inserted by the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005.
16 Sustainable Urban Development Unit, Building Sustainable Urban Communities, New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs, 1 September 2008 (available at www.dia.govt.nz, accessed February 2009).
17 Ibid., p. 22.
18 Densification refers to the process where population increase in an urban area is accommodated through increasing the density of housing, either through high-rise or low-rise buildings. This can be done in a sustainable, environmental way, without compromising other urban space.
19 See paragraph 24.75.
20 The regional transport plan should be prepared at the same time as the regional policy statement.
21 Resource Management Act, sections 45–55.
22 “Called in” refers to the powers proposed for the Auckland Council to call in and determine applications that would otherwise by dealt with at local council level.
| Home | Help | Disclaimer & Copyright | Contact us | newzealand.govt.nz |