|
Resolution
number FR/2016/57
MOVED by Chairperson A Baker, seconded by Member
MA Kay:
a) That the Franklin
Local Board endorses its feedback on the proposed new Marine Protected Areas
Act as follows:
i) Support the purpose of the proposed new Act to enhance,
protect and restore marine biodiversity.
ii) Support the unconfirmed submission points to be put
forward by Auckland Council.
iii) Support
for a quota and/or species limit for small commercial operators to enable
them to continue to operate and not be displaced into other areas,
particularly the Manukau Harbour, which would create a problem there.
b) That the
Franklin Local Board endorses its feedback on the Better Urban Planning
inquiry and the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill as follows:
Better Urban Planning
i) Support
the move to create urban planning environment that is principle based but
within those principles, allows some flexibility
ii) Support
the need for long term planning of infrastructure being required as part of
the framework to ensure major infrastructure is delivered at the right time
in the right place
iii) Support
requirement to ensure all agencies involved in planning use the same base
data sets
iv) Support a
planning process that ensures there is clarity for all involved and that
there is consistency within the likes of Council processes whereby the
shifting of goalposts cannot occur
v) Process
needs to find a balance between benefits of flexibility and practicalities of
delivery
vi) Support
the need for a range of funding tools for infrastructure and understanding of
who has responsibility to fund and why – needs to be clear at start of a
planning process (removal of surprises)
vii) Support
the need for appropriate consultation and engagement tools at the right time
with the right people (early and open communication)
Resource Legislation
Amendment Bill
i) Concern
that this amendment is really not wide spread enough and simply tinkers with
parts of the Resource Management Act (RMA).
ii) Should
be considered once other reviews of associated legislation and reports
completed – e.g. Productivity Commission of Planning Framework – so whole
picture can be seen as to needs and desired outcomes
iii) Move to
national planning templates is supported in principle as providing
consistency in particular in terms of definitions
iv) Support
principle of standardisation of rules for common issues such as noise but
concerned that localised variations should be able to be delivered – horses
for courses type approach. Approach being proposed does not allow for any
local flexibility and is too strict. Individual councils should be able to
retain some flexibility
v) Support
processes which provide councils the tools to deal with RMA rule type
disputes (e.g. boundary issues)
vi) Do not
support the degree of interventions proposed for the Minister
vii) Do not
support the move to rely on experts as it weakens the ability of lay people
or locals with huge local knowledge (without expert qualifications) to
provide information. This will result in further evolution of the “expert
witness” industry and thus comes with significant risk to the process in
general.
viii) Support
making the process easier and quicker for applicants but must have balance to
ensure purpose of the Act is met and that as many appropriate things are
considered during the process.
CARRIED
|
