|
Resolution
number HB/2019/54
MOVED by Chairperson J Parfitt, seconded by Member C
Watson:
That the Hibiscus
and Bays Local Board:
a)
provide the following feedback on the Department of
Conservation proposal to revoke current ministerial delegations to Auckland
Council under the Reserves Act 1977:
i) does
not support the proposal to revoke 44 delegations by the Minister for
Conservation under the Reserves Act 1977
ii) note
that the Reserves Act 1977, was drafted when central government had
considerably more staff and expertise available to give effect to the Act
iii) further
note that the Court of Appeal in Opua Coastal
Preservation Society v Far North District Council was not directly asked
to look at the matter of delegations under the Reserves Act 1977 as the point
was not pursued by the appellant, and therefore the commentary by the court
was an observation not a considered judgment
iv) recommend
that the Department of Conservation re-assess whether that the existing
delegations in place are automatically faulty or in need of revocation in the
absence of a considered judgment
v) consider
that it is not clear, based on the information provided, what problem the
Department of Conservation is trying to fix, or what the benefit to local
reserves and communities will be if the current delegations were revoked
vi) consider
that the Department of Conservation needs to seriously consider whether they
are adequately resourced to give effect and to implement the delegations in a
timely and efficient manner, as the reason the delegations were made was to
provide timely and efficient decision-making
vii) express
the concern regarding the expected delay that will eventuate as a result of
revoking delegations, noting that a one-year delay is common and a three-year
delay is not unheard of when working with the Department of Conservation in
relation to current Reserves Act 1977 decision-making
viii) submit
that a pragmatic approach needs to be taken to the handling of delegations in
light of current Department of Conservation resourcing, the capability of
territorial authorities, and existing checks and balances in the process,
before any revocations are confirmed
ix) note
that, in the Auckland context, there is already a two stage approach to
decision making under the Reserves Act 1977 with the following decisions
delegated to local boards and then confirmed via the Reserves Act delegations
by the Governing Body (exercised, in practice, by staff):
A) approval of Reserve Management Plans
B) classification of reserves
C) the chuange of classification or purpose of a reserve
D) declaration of land vested in council to be a reserve
E)
exchange of reserves for other land
F)
granting of rights of way and other
easements
G) powers (other than leasing) in respect of reserves
H) leasing of reserves
x) consider that the revocation of the current delegations will put
local decision making at risk and create the perverse scenario where
decisions normally made by Auckland Council will need to be approved by
central government staff in Hamilton, Wellington or Christchurch
xi) express
its concern that there is likely to be an increased cost to council (and
therefore to the ratepayers of Auckland) if the revocations are made given
the Department of Conservation’s cost recovery model
xii) recommend
that the Minister and the Department of Conservation work to update the
Reserves Act 1977 to better reflect the present day balance of resourcing and
capability, noting that 80 per cent of Auckland reserves are owned by
Auckland Council with no contribution from central government and this
proposal has raised questions about the extent to which decision making under
the Reserves Act 1977 is still fit for purpose
xii) recommend
that the Minister and the Department of Conservation seriously consider a
review of the Reserves Act 1977 to meet modern day requirements and a
detailed analysis of the decision making required for reserves and their
management.
CARRIED
|
