222. Some resource consents are required because of breaches to plan rules that are very minor and of a technical nature. In other instances, a proposal may breach a rule where the only potential adverse effects are extremely localised and the affected neighbour has provided written approval. In these cases, the environmental effects are essentially little different from those associated with permitted activities and the objectives and policies of the plan will not becompromised.
223. In such cases the consent decision approves an activity that was very nearly permitted – yet the applicant must proceed through the normal resource consent application process. They may be faced with costs that are not proportionate to the proposal, and delays that seem unnecessary given the minor or technical nature of the rulebreach.
224. Two proposals have been put forward to balance the lack of proportionality around simple applications in the resource consenting system. Theyare:
· Where a marginal or temporary breach of a rule occurs, the consent authority will have the discretion to give notice to the applicant that the activity is to be treated as a permittedactivity.
· Where a proposal requires resource consent because of the breach of a boundary rule (where a structure breaks a rule in relation to its distance from, or dimensions in relation to, a boundary) and the written approval has been obtained from the affected neighbour, the consent authority will be required to treat the activity aspermitted.
225. Once considered to be a permitted activity, resource consent will not be required under either of the abovesituations.
226. These changes will remove, as much as possible, the cost and time burden of obtaining resource consent for the simplest of infringements. These types of infringements account for a significant proportion of resource consentapplications.
227. The proposed exemption powers are intended to improve the proportionality of how councils allocate their resources within the consenting framework. The reduced workload will enable councils to focus resources on processing more substantive applications. The proposed requirement for councils to fix their fees (P 3.5) will also support the objectives of this proposal. If councils are obligated to fix fees for simple consents, they are likely to spend less time processingthem.
228. The proposed changes are expected to reduce the number of consents required by about 2000—9000 a year, or between 6-26% of all consent applications made during 2012-2013.7
229. There is some concern about the charging mechanisms that would be available for councils to explicitly provide for cost recovery if an exemption is granted, the risk being that costs might be cross-subsidised by ratepayers. In addition to this, councils may decide to put up fees for other types of consent if they can no longer charge for simple consents (which may serve in part to subsidise the running of businessunits).
230. There are risks around the possibility that permitting technical and minor breaches will lead to a ‘creep’ effect and may also contribute to the development of cumulative effects and have unintended impacts on permittedbaselines.
231. It is possible that some consent authorities will choose not to exercise their exemption powers, or to do so very infrequently, due to a perceived risk of judicial review by third
7 These data are from a custom database of resource consents processed to a decision in 2011/12 or 2012/13, from a purposivesampleof11localauthorities.Boundarydataisbasedontwourbancouncilsinthedatabase,exemptiondata (based on a processing times of three or fewer hours) for 3councils
parties. This could undermine the policy intent of this provision. However, it is considered that most consent authorities will implement the proposed exemption powers as intended and this is not considered to be a significant risk to the effectiveness of thisproposal.
Councils specifyexemptions
232. The RMA could be changed to allow councils to exempt activities without the need to make and record decisions to that effect. This would remove significant time and cost burden to applicants and councils and might be cheaper and faster than tracking exemption decisions on paper. However, there is a risk that fraudulent use of the power would beuntraceable.
Remove the need for consent for any temporary or controlledactivities
233. This would also remove significant time and cost burden to applicants and councils. However, it would not allow for case-by-case decisions to waive consents to be made on the basis of effect. It may also have the unintended side-effect of encouraging councils to avoid using controlled activity status inplans.
No ability for applicants toapply
234. At the policy development stage it was intended that applicants would not be able to apply to a consent authority for an exemption. Instead, the consent authority would exercise its discretion to grant an exemption only when considering the proposal through some other application, such as the resource consent, building consent or project information memorandum (PIM). This remains the case for exemptions for minor and technical breaches, however an application process has been proposed for boundary activities in order to ensure that potentially affected neighbours have the opportunity to provide input into theprocess.
Non-regulatoryoptions
235. It is not possible to provide for exemptions through non-legislative means. Guidance and decision template could be produced to encourage consent authorities to cut all non- necessary reporting when dealing with boundary infringements that have the neighbour’s written approval. This is likely to deliver significantly fewer time and costsavings.
236. This proposal is largely fit for purpose and is considered to be an appropriate means of delivering time and cost efficiencies while improving the proportionality of the consenting system. The proposal would remove time and financial costs for the applicant if their proposal is the same as or similar to a permitted activity. The reduced workload would mean that councils could focus resources on the processing of more substantiveapplications.
237. This proposal will contribute significantly towards the outcome of scaling RM processes and costs to reflect the specificcircumstances.
