|
Resolution
number AE/2023/7
MOVED by Member J Maskill, seconded by Member R Smith:
That
the Albert-Eden Local Board:
a) support the principle that the Resource
Management Act system requires reform.
b)
support the purpose of the new resource management system:
i)
to enable the use, development, and protection of the environment in a way
that:
A)
supports the well-being of present generations without
compromising the well-being of future generations; and
B) promotes
outcomes for the benefit of the environment; and
C) complies
with environmental limits and their associated targets; and
D) manages
adverse effects; and
E) and
recognises and upholds Te Oranga o Te Taiao*.
*(As per the Natural and Built
Environment Bill, ‘Te Oranga o Te Taiao’ definition incorporates:
(a) the health of the natural
environment; and
(b) the intrinsic relationship between iwi and hapū and
te taiao; and
(c) the interconnectedness of all parts of the natural
environment; and
(d) the essential relationship between the health of the
natural environment and its capacity to sustain all life).
c)
support the overall intention and purpose of the Natural and Built
Environment Bill.
d) request
consideration for:
i)
a requirement for development to contribute to ecological capacity (for
example; air, water, land capacity), proportionally to the scale of the
development.
ii) a
requirement for regulatory authorities to identify biophysical capacity and
excesses.
iii) mandating
mechanisms to resource identification and enforcement of ways to achieve
required ecological improvements.
e)
do not support the proposed structure and key elements of the Natural and
Built Environment Bill and Spatial Planning Bill for the following reasons:
i) There
is a reduction in input and decision-making by locally elected
representatives over local matters.
ii) There
is a reduction in local communities input into development in both the
planning framework and on a case-by-case basis.
iii) There
is no recognition of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act and unique
governance role of local boards.
iv) Local
board plans do not have statutory weight.
v) Moving
decision making away from territorial authorities means there is separation
of decision-making between planning and funding decisions, which is a
particular issues for future infrastructure.
vi) Territorial
authorities are required to providing funding and implementation of a
planning document they do not have decision-making over.
vii) There
is not enough detail on the concept of Te Oranga o Te Taiao*, including how
to interpret or implement it.
*(As per the Natural and Built
Environment Bill, ‘Te Oranga o Te Taiao’ definition incorporates:
(a) the health of the natural
environment; and
(b) the intrinsic relationship between iwi and hapū and
te taiao; and
(c) the interconnectedness of all parts of the natural
environment; and
(d) the essential relationship between the health of the
natural environment and its capacity to sustain all life).
viii) There
is not enough ability to provide for tree protection in urban environments.
ix) It
is uncertain if the proposed system would achieve a key driver of the reform,
which is to make the process less onerous for the public.
x) Request
English translations for Te Reo Māori terms, to ensure it is easy and
accessible for community to understand.
xi) There
is risk that local issues will not be able to be adequately reflected or
addressed, such as heritage, special character, sites of cultural
significance, protection of maunga (mountains), or coastal areas.
f)
oppose the
inclusion of a fast-track consenting process that appears to be modelled from
the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020, as captured in Sub part
8—Specified housing and infrastructure fast-track consenting process
for the following reasons:
i) The
COVID-19 Recovery Act provisions were for the specific purpose of providing
economic stimulus in response to COVID impacts. Turning this provision into a
‘business as usual’ provision would undermine the usual resource
consenting process, including local feedback.
ii) The list of
eligible activities is wide ranging and many larger scale housing
developments are proposed for the Albert-Eden area.
iii) The fast-track
consenting process could create a bypass for significant and complex
developments, as illustrated by the projects that have gone through the
COVID-19 fast-track process, that local boards and communities will have an
interest in and want to give feedback on.
iv) The fast
turnaround for feedback on complex applications with a large amount of
documentation means that effective and thorough feedback from local boards
and community will be difficult to provide within timeframes.
v) That we
reluctantly supported the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track consenting) Bill in
June 2020 in principle, provided that it was used sparingly and for a limited
time, and with appropriate safe-guards to ensure wise-decision making to
approve structures that will be around for many decades, if not centuries and
note that our views have not changed on these matters.
vi) That we have seen
it regularly used over the last two year on our area and still request, as we
did in 2020, that active consideration be given to a form of Limited Public
Notification as this would allow immediately affected neighbours of the
proposed project to make submissions.
vii) We would still advocate that
parties with “a greater than average interest” be allowed to
participate in the process – for example; relevant local groups
(environmental, historical, cultural) who can demonstrate an actual interest
in the project.
g)
strongly oppose the
compensation required by Natural and Built Environment Bill s590 and s591
where compensation is required by the Territorial Authority to the allotment
owner when an esplanade reserve is required to be taken on a subdivision. The
esplanade reserves are an important part of the environmental rehabilitation
and public enjoyment of our waterways, providing a public good for future generations
and the environment and with subdivisions representing intensification
adjacent to the waterways, the contribution of the esplanade reserve to the
public realm should be a part of the amenity to mitigate development and
intensification adverse effects and minimise coastal erosion noting that:
i) this is
a change in process, and it will be unaffordable to Territorial Authorities
who then will likely not follow through with the requirement for esplanade
reserves
ii) consequentially
that contravenes the outcomes set out in the purposes of the Bill regarding
the need to consider coastal erosion, environmental benefits and current and
future generations wellbeing as many of these strips become coastal walkways.
h)
note the following
Albert-Eden Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes and objectives that relate to
natural and built environment:
i) Outcome
one: Resilient, connected and empowered communities who value diversity,
People are resilient and can adapt to change, People are included,
interconnected and celebrate our diversity, People are engaged and
participate in local board processes.
ii) Outcome
two: Neighbourhoods that reflect and value our heritage and unique identity
now and into the future, Māori cultural heritage is valued and
protected, Neighbourhoods have a strong sense of identity and create a
connection to place, We respond to high density living, intensification and
changing suburban form.
iii) Outcome
three: High-quality natural environments and sustainable lifestyles, Our
environment is protected and restored.
iv) Outcome
four: A strong local economy with thriving town centres, Our local economy is
growing and provides stable employment options, Town centres are attractive
destinations.
v) Outcome
six: Safe, easy and sustainable options for moving around, Our community has
more transport options and we see a shift in transport modes used by the
community, Our transport options increase safety and minimise harm.
CARRIED
|
