Alarm bells sounding over impact of Fast-track Approvals Bill
A new ‘Fast-track Approvals Bill’, being moved through Parliament under urgency, is ‘‘anti-democratic’’ and could have disastrous consequences for the Whakatipu Basin, according to one environmental engineer.
Dave Hanan, who’s got a particular interest in Queenstown, believes if it goes through, years of costly planning and work — including Environment Court appeals — aiming to balance development with landscape protection could be lost.
That, he believes, would be ‘‘a travesty’’, with far-reaching consequences.
The government’s proposed new Bill, which has passed its first reading in the House, intends to provide for a new fast-track consenting pathway, that’ll be a ‘one-stop-shop’ for consenting and permitting processes for projects with ‘‘significant regional or national benefits’’.
While what that means hasn’t yet been defined, Todd & Walker Law senior associate Rosie Hill says criteria that maybe relevant to Queenstown include increasing the supply of housing, addressing housing needs, contributing to a well-functioning urban environment, or delivering significant economic benefits.
Todd & Walker Law senior associate Rosie Hill
Under the proposed Bill, to get a foot in the door, proposals either have to be listed in the legislation as a candidate for fast-tracked approval, or be referred by a minister on application.
Once in, an expert consenting panel will make recommendations to a minister — and the minister will have the final say.
Those proposals won’t be publicly notified, and decisions can’t be appealed.
And, critically for the Whakatipu, more weight will be given to the purpose of the Bill than the landscape.
‘Housing at all costs’ not befitting
Hill says for Resource Management Act (RMA) consenting under the Bill, which will involve Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONLs) and Outstanding Natural Features (ONFs), the prime decision-making criterion is to facilitate delivery of infrastructure and development projects with regional or national benefits.
‘‘And only after that is there consideration of the purpose of the RMA, and then after that is consideration of … ONLs and ONFs.
‘‘It’s significantly different.’’
Hanan, of GHC Consulting, says the existing process under the RMA ensures values of the Whakatipu Basin are protected.
‘‘Whether you like it or not [it] is a pretty special process that we have in New Zealand, because it actually makes people think about what they’re doing.
‘‘You can’t just say, ‘right, we’re going to stick housing here for the sake of it’, and then have somebody in Wellington decide, ‘yes, that’s a good idea’ and allow it to proceed without appeal.
‘‘That is fundamentally wrong.
‘‘The district is the loser, because some politician in Wellington has all the power.
“It smells bad.’’
Environmental engineer Dave Hanan
Hill says there’s ‘‘a lot of commentary’’ on both sides about the executive giving out powers to the executive, something which hasn’t been seen in the RMA for 30 years.
‘‘On the other hand, [there’s] a lot of commentary saying the RMA has served well as an effective regime to protect the environment, but doesn’t actually work that well in terms of planning for infrastructure and urban growth.’’
But Hanan’s ‘‘totally’’ concerned the environment will come third fiddle in the decision-making process, noting ONLs, ONFs and sensitive natural landscapes have ‘‘been put there for a reason’’.
He says they’re taonga and ‘‘it’s almost tapu [forbidden] to go and disturb them’’.
While he’s cognisant of the rental housing and affordable housing crises in the resort, ‘‘housing at all costs is not the way to go’’.
He also can’t understand why the Bill’s being passed through urgency.
‘‘They’re perverting the normal democratic process where the public can have input into Bills by chucking it through this urgent process.
‘‘It’s just not right … it’s autocratic … and it’s just flying in the face of democracy, really.’’
Hill, noting the Bill hasn’t been accompanied by a regulatory impact statement, says submissions are open till April 9.
They’ll be considered by the select committee and then it’ll go back for a second and third reading, meaning it ‘‘could be passed within a few months’’.
While it’s envisaged the process of expert panel consideration and recommendations is supposed to take less than six months, Hill queries whether or not that’ll be achievable.
‘‘This legislation will create a whole other realm of people needing to sit on these [panels], and I just don’t know if there are that many people in New Zealand.
‘‘I think the proof will be in the pudding there … can they actually resource this?’’
Fast-track could save time, money
Hill says because approvals under the Fast-track Approvals Bill could only be appealed on points of law, it should speed up the process for landowners and developers — and save money.
At present, major developments which will potentially be considered under the Bill have to go through Queenstown’s council and are subject to public notification.
That process takes months and, if a decision’s appealed, years.
Queenstown’s council says 40 resource consent applications had decisions issued last year — of the seven that were declined, six were appealed to the Environment Court.
So far this year, three notified decisions, declined by council, have been appealed.
Council media man Sam White says at any one time council’s consents department is dealing with between 10 and 20 Environment Court appeals, some taking two or three years to resolve.
