|
Resolution
number RD/2019/42
MOVED by Chairperson B Houlbrooke, seconded by Member B
Bailey:
That the Rodney
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 granted 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 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 are 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 its
concerns regarding the expected delay that will eventuate as a result of
revoking these 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 and Reserves Act 1977 decision making
viii) submit that a
pragmatic approach needs to be taken to the handling of delegations in light
of current departmental resourcing, the capability of territorial
authorities, and existing checks and balances in the process, before any
revocations are confirmed
x) 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 1977
delegations by the Governing Body (exercised, in practice, by staff):
A) approval
of Reserve Management Plans
B) classification
of reserves
C) the
change 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
xi) 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
xii) 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
xiii) 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
xiv) 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
|
