222. A proposal for developing an urban area can often involve plan changes and resource consents as well as exchanges of reserves. However the process for exchanging reserves under the Reserves Act is not aligned with the RMA. This can result in prolonged decision- making processes, unnecessary costs to developers and local authorities, and duplication of evidence heard. Having two separate processes for issues that are part of the same proposal also leads to ineffective and inefficient community engagement andconsultation.
223. Typically, the approval process under each Act is carried out sequentially rather than at the same time (concurrently), prolonging development approvals. Since the decisions are interdependent, it also creates a risk for the applicant of losing time and money if the second approval is not granted. The sequential process can also discourage submitters from engaging with a project earlier because the legislation they are concerned about is not being decided on until a later date. The impacts of a sequential process include increasing land holding costs for developers. The government and community's time and resources are also used inefficiently, resulting in a frustrating engagement process. The interdependency of decisions under each regime makes a case for considering the impacts at the sametime.
224. It is not known how many resource consents/plan changes are impacted by the reserve exchange or revocation processes as some reserve decisions are delegated to local authorities. The remainder are forwarded to the Minister of Conservation for final approval. However, discussions with councils suggest that the region most affected by these processes is Auckland. According to the Auckland Council, reserve exchanges or revocation processes can take three to six months, depending on the scale of the project. Resource consents and plan changes can take longer, which means it can take up to one year or more to get approval under both regimes. Auckland Council believes if the processes were combined, it could cut processing times down byhalf.
225. The proposal is to amend the RMA and the Reserves Act to enable an optional joint process of public notification, hearings and decisions for proposals that involve publicly notified plan changes/resource consents and recreation reserveexchanges.
226. This process will only be able to be accessed where the local authority making a decision on the plan change/resource consent application is also the administering body for the recreation reserve exchange. This optional joint process will be available upon request by the applicant and if considered appropriate by the relevant local authority. The local authority will also have the option of delegating decision-making under the joint process to a hearing commissioner(s). The process would remove the statutory responsibility of the Minister of Conservation to authorise exchanges of recreation reserves in the circumstance when a joint process isfollowed.
227. This proposal would reduce costs, provide faster decisions and enable a more efficient process for proposals that involve plan changes/resource consents and reserve exchanges. This process would be particularly beneficial in facilitating urban redevelopment projects, as it enables one integrated public consultation process and ensures optimal urban design outcomes.
228. In practise, a joint hearing process may be difficult to implement. Having one hearing for two decisions to meet different purposes would be more difficult for decision-makers and increase the risk of legal challenge. Even where there is only one decision maker, there are still two separate matters to be considered and two decisions to make under separate Acts. As the joint process has not yet been widely tested, apart from some general discussions with Auckland Council, some developers and councils may still prefer to conduct these processes sequentially. These risks could be mitigated by developing clear criteria and standardstoensurethatdistinctionismadebetweenthetwodecisionsinajointhearing
process. The voluntary joint process option also would be crafted to allow a joint notification and a separate hearing process only if the local authority deems itappropriate.
Amend the Reserves Act and RMA to require a mandatory jointprocess
229. This option would make it mandatory for all applicants and local government to undertake a joint process (where applicable). The main difference between this option and the proposal (above) is that inconsistent implementation would not be an issue because all applicants and local authorities would be required to undertake a jointprocess.
230. However, a mandatory joint process may not achieve the expected efficiencies and would lock applicants and local authorities into a process that may not be desirable. It can also increase legal risk if particular projects would be best completed in a separate process. Further tests and evidence from other local authorities and development applicants is needed to ensure the expected efficiencies and reduced legal risks will be achieved under a mandatory jointprocess.
231. Further evidence and testing would be needed to ensure this option would deliver the expected efficiencies. An optional joint process would be a safer option as it could test the risks and efficiencies before making itmandatory.
Encourage a voluntary concurrent (rather than sequential) notification and hearingprocess
232. It is important to note that there is nothing in either Act that limits running the processes concurrently. It appears that applicants will usually seek approval for the more difficult application first (typically the resource consent/plan change) before spending more time and money on the other approval. Under this option, local authorities would coordinate a concurrent process so that the notification and hearings for the reserve exchange/revocation occur within the same timeframe as the resource consent/plan changeprocess.
233. A concurrent process is possible as the notification period between these two Acts are already similar with the RMA requiring 20 days and the Reserves Act requiring one month. However, it still involves sending two separate notifications on the same date, and holding two separate hearings during the same week, month, or day. No legislative change is required to undertake this option, but central government would need to provide national guidance or standard operating procedures on how councils can establish a concurrent process.
234. The main risk of this option is relying on local government to establish a process which may not be a priority for them, or they may not have the capacity to develop the process fast enough to address national problems, such as providing more housing. This would be mitigated by providing non-statutory guidance. Applicants may not want to engage in this process as they would still have to spend the same amount of time and costs on two separate notifications and hearings concurrently. Thus, if the more difficult application is not approved, then they have unnecessarily spent time and money on the otherapplication.
235. Following a concurrent process would provide process simplicity for the applicant, and save on time and costs. However, the gains are likely to be marginal as it would still involve two separate processes for notifications andhearings.
236. While we consider the optional joint process to be the best option to address the specific issue of developing an urban area which involves plan changes and resource consents as well as exchanges of reserves, resolving the issues between the RMA and the Reserves Act is likely to make only marginal gains in processing efficiency and expediting development. It does not address the broader problem that development applicants are often required to submit different applications under multiple Acts (including the LGA and LTMA) for the same proposal (often with similar information requirements). However, this is a complex issue that cannot be adequately addressed through the current reform package. Further investigationis
needed to assess whether there is potential for better alignment of resource management legislation after the Resource Management Reform has beenimplemented.
237. This proposal goes towards achieving the objective of reducing duplication within the resource management system for some proposals that require permissions under two differentActs.
