Jenny Dixon: Cutting corners with planning law will do us no good

Opinion

Since the Resource Management Act has been in existence its implementation has been problematic.

Among the more acute problems that people have encountered have been significant delays and corresponding burdensome costs. Pedantic legalistic approaches have also tended to thwart efficiencies that the act was originally conceived to deliver.

The problem is not with the idea and ideal of managing resources in the best interest of all, but in the inability thus far to properly deliver on what the act was intended to do.

The present Government's proposal to streamline the legislation runs the risk of appearing to improve a situation everyone agrees needs tending to.

In fact, as it stands, it will not adequately address issues of substance. It is a short-sighted attempt to simply speed up a process which will only exacerbate problems of a more substantive nature that, in its fullness, the act seeks to address.

While it is important to improve efficiencies and eliminate unnecessary and vexatious costs, simply cutting corners is likely to result in even poorer outcomes.

In the face of global environmental and economic change we need an environmental planning system that is responsive, adaptive and robust. The processes in place and those proposed go some way to achieve this.

However, the changes proposed in this "RMA (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2009" run the risk of getting enmeshed in detail and so losing sight of the bigger picture and strategic priorities.

Of critical significance is that these changes signal a significant shift in the relationship of national and local government and reflect a move back to greater centralisation of power. This is a fundamental departure from one of the key principles underpinning resource management and local government reforms of the last two decades, notably devolution of powers and responsibilities to lower levels of government.

An example of this shift to the centre is the proposed Environmental Protection Authority. The bill gives the authority a wide mandate while the detail is yet to come. Major changes for regional councils could be in the pipeline. It is likely at least to mean some changes in the functions of the Ministry for the Environment and possibly for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Potentially, this proposal could mean that central government is assuming much greater leadership for providing national policy direction and guidance.

If it does, this is likely to be welcomed by many groups as something that was badly wanting in the early days of the act's implementation. On the other hand, it could also mean that some functions, better administered at local levels, are now implemented from the centre.

What this all suggests is that for devolution to work properly it has to be adequately resourced. Simply taking functions away from the local level because they are perceived not to be working well does not solve the problem.

As the Minister for the Environment's own technical advisory group observed in its report, the proposed changes need to be matched by an appropriate level of resourcing (both financial and intellectual) and strong leadership to provide the level of national guidance required. Without this, they warn, many of the current problems will continue.

The proposal to limit appeals on district plan reviews is another major change. It assumes, of course, that local government produces plans of consistent quality.

This is not always the case. There is considerable variation in the capacity of councils to prepare plans. These issues have troubled the implementation of the act since it was created. A corner-cutting exercise will only make these problems worse.

It is well recognised that the process of producing plans can take so long that they become outdated before they become fully operative. But simply shortening the process by, for example, restricting appeal rights is unlikely to result in better policy-making and better quality plans.

It certainly won't help the process of achieving a plan that has good public buy-in.

Other improving strategies are needed to strengthen the quality of implementation. These include building the capacity of councils and practitioners to develop good policy and rules when plans are prepared.

Stakeholders are an important part of the process. Civic participation has been a hallmark of the RMA and it is important that an appropriate balance is maintained between the rights of applicants and the wider community interests.

What is needed to improve outcomes under the act is not so much a streamlining exercise, but better resourcing of the institutions charged with creating and delivering plans.

* Professor Jenny Dixon is head of the School of Architecture and Planning at the University of Auckland.