|
Council
17 April 2024
|
|
File No.: 24/205
5.1 Fast Track Approvals Bill - Council
Submission
1. Purpose
1.1 To
present a submission on the Fast Track Approvals Bill to Council for adoption.
2. Executive
Summary
2.1 On
the 7th March 2024, the Fast Track Approvals Bill (the Bill) was
introduced to the House under urgency and is currently with the Environment
Select Committee for public submissions. The Bill provides a pathway for
projects to receive their required approvals under multiple pieces of
legislation through a single process. The purpose is to provide a more
efficient and cost effective process to approve development projects (such as
housing and infrastructure proposals) that will deliver regionally or
nationally significant benefits.
2.2 The
Bill sets out that proposals can be considered for the fast track process via
two mechanisms. The first is to be a ‘listed’ project (that is to
be specifically listed in the legislation), the second is to be referred
project (to apply to be referred to the fast track process). If a proposal goes
through the fast track process, it is subject to different assessment matters
and decision making process than is generally provided for through existing
pieces of legislation such as the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
Significantly, proposals that go through the fast track process are to be
decided by Ministers, rather than by Councils or the Environment Court.
2.3 The
Bill is relevant to Council in its capacity as both a consent authority and a
consent applicant. Further, projects that stand to be approved under the
process proposed Bill may result in both positive and negative effects for the
community. As such, the purpose of this report is to present a submission for
Council’s consideration suggesting a number of refinements.
3. Recommendation
3.1 That
Report Fast Track Approvals Bill - Council Submission be received.
3.2 That
this matter or decision is recognised as not
significant in terms of S76 of the Local Government Act.
3.3 That
Council adopt the Fast Track Approvals Bill Submission.
4. Background
/ Previous Council Decisions
4.1 The costs of
consenting infrastructure projects in Aotearoa/New Zealand are increasing
rapidly. The supplementary analysis report prepared by the Ministry for the
Environment to support the introduction of the Bill details that currently
infrastructure project costs $1.29 Billion per year and that time taken to
obtain the necessary consents had doubled in the last 5 years[1]. The supplementary analysis
report further identifies that current approval processes do not sufficiently
recognise the social and economic benefits of development.
4.2 The previous
Government also recognised the time and cost challenges associated with consenting
large scale projects, having introduced both the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast Track
Consenting) legislation and, later, providing for a fast track process in the
Natural and Built Environment Act which has since been repealed. Both of these
previous forms of ‘fast track’ legislation differ from the Bill in
terms of purpose, assessment matters, and decision making.
4.3 It appears
that the Bill will speed up the approvals process for relevant projects.
However, these efficiency gains come with a cost, including reduced opportunity
for local voice.
4.4 On 28th
March 2024, Council held a public workshop where they received a summary of the
Bill and discussed making a submission. Following this discussion, Council
determined that this should be decided via a Council meeting. The submission
being considered today has been drafted based on discussion at the workshop.
5. Discussion
5.1 The
purpose of the Bill is as follows:
“The
purpose of this Act is to provide a fast-track decision-making process that
facilitates the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with
significant regional or national benefits”
5.2 It is
expected that this Bill will speed up and reduce costs of
consenting/approving projects, such as resource consents and notices of
requirement (both under the Resource Management Act 1991). It can also be used
to gain approvals under a number of other acts, including the Conservation Act,
Wildlife Act, and the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act.
5.3 The purpose of the Bill is proposed to override the purpose of other
acts, including the ‘sustainable management’ purpose of the
Resource Management Act. This means that decisions made under the fast track
legislation will have to give more weight to whether a proposal will deliver
regionally or nationally significant benefits than to whether the proposal
represents sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
5.4 Projects not listed in the Bill as being ‘automatically’
eligible to go through the fast track process can apply to go through the fast
track process. This decision will be made by Ministers (the Minister of
Transport, Minister of Infrastructure, and Minster of Regional Development). In
making the decision whether to refer a project to the fast track process,
Ministers must consider project’s consistency with
Bill’s purpose. They must seek comments from the relevant Councils,
portfolio ministers, Iwi authorities and Treaty settlement entities, and Marine
and Coastal Area Act rights holders. They may also consider the
efficiency of referring the project, whether the project will have significant
adverse effects, and the applicant’s compliance history.
5.5 Proposals
eligible for the fast track process (either by being listed or referred) are
then considered by an expert consenting panel. Expert consenting panels will be
made up of 4 members, including 1 nominee by local authorities
and 1 from iwi authorities. There is scope for consenting panels to be larger
than 4 members if this is required to meet the nomination requirements of local
councils and iwi authorities.
5.6 Expert consenting panels consider the application based on the
following matters, in the order listed and make a recommendation to Ministers.
· Alignment
with the Fast Track Bill’s purpose;
· Alignment
with RMA purpose;
· National
Policy Statements, Council Plans, Treaty settlements, MACA rights, Mana
Whakahono ā Rohe and Joint Management Agreements;
· Environmental
effects (s104 RMA).
5.7 Following the
receiving the recommendation of the expert consenting panel, Ministers will
make the decision. There are no appeal rights on decisions, except on points of
law.
5.8 The Bill may
deliver the following benefits:
· Faster
decision making and reduced consenting costs;
· Quicker
construction of needed infrastructure;
· Focus
on benefits of development may lead to greater certainty and more innovation.
5.9 The
Bill may deliver the following risks/costs:
· Limited ability
for local voice to influence decision making;
· The Bill does
require principles of Te Tiriti to be given effect to, putting iwi/hapū
relationships at risk and potentially putting pre-settlement iwi at a
disadvantage;
· Risk of
environmental harm (due to focus on benefits over adverse effects and the
ability to get approval for prohibited activities);
· Risks associated
with Ministerial decision and both the beginning and end of the process;
· Risk that the
costs of upgrading infrastructure and remedying unmitigated environmental
effects will be passed on to Councils.
5.10 Other
considerations include whether there is sufficient capacity in the system to
deliver the intended efficiency benefits. At present there are over 100
projects considered to be listed in the Bill itself, with numerous other
projects likely to apply go through the referral route.
5.11 This
legislation is significant for Council in two key ways. Firstly, as a consent
applicant and secondly, as a consent authority and infrastructure provider.
5.12 In
respect of being a consent applicant, there may be projects that Council wish
to utilise the fast track process for – either by seeking to be a listed
project, or by applying through the referral process. If so, there would likely
be time and cost efficiencies for Council in getting approval for projects.
5.13 As
a consent authority, Council will have a role in the fast track process in
terms of providing comments to Ministers and expert consenting panels. The
timeframes to do this are short (10 working days) and will likely be resource
intensive, with the proposals that will go through this process likely to be
large scale and complex, with significant and technical supporting information.
Council’s planning documents (e.g. the District Plan) may be overridden
by this process and Council may be left with financial costs associated with
upgrading infrastructure and remedying unmitigated environmental effects will
be passed on to Councils.
6. Options
6.1 Option
1 – Adopt the attached submission
Adopt the submission as attached.
This, along with Option 1(a), is the
recommended option.
6.2 Option
1(a) – Adopt the attached submission, with amendments agreed by Council
Adopt the submission, but make
amendments as agreed by Council at its meeting.
This, along with Option 1, is the recommended
option.
6.3 Option
2 – Do not make a submission
This option is not recommended, due
to the potential impact that the Bill could have on Council and the community.
6.4 Option
3 – Prepare a new submission, taking a different approach to the attached
submission
This option is
not recommended, as submissions are due on 19th April and there is
insufficient time to prepare a new submission with a new direction.
Cost
6.5 None
of the options come with any financial cost.
Rate Impact
6.6 There
is no rate impact from any of the options.
Community
Wellbeing
Community wellbeing has the potential
to be impacted by the Bill. In a positive sense, the Bill will make it easier
to approve (and deliver) projects that have regionally or nationally significant
benefits. On the other hand, it is possible that the projects approved under
the process set out in the Bill will have adverse effects and financial costs
on local communities and environments, which the community do not have a chance
to have their say on.Consenting Issues
6.7 There
are not consenting issues arising from making a submission (or otherwise). If
the Bill is passed, there will be impacts on future consenting processes.
LTP
Integration
6.8 There
is no LTP programme related to the options. There is no Special Consultative
Processes required.
7. Consultation
7.1 There
is no consultation required. Members of the community can make their own
submissions on the Bill to the select committee.
8. Legal Considerations
8.1 There
are no Legal Requirements or Statutory Obligations affecting options or
proposals.
9. Financial Considerations
9.1 There
is no financial impact arising from any of the options.
10. Iwi
Considerations
10.1 The
role for iwi/hapū set out in the Bill is reduced, compared with existing
acts such as the RMA. Significantly, the Bill does not require the principles
of Te Tiriti to be given effect to. Officers have provided iwi partners with a
copy of the Council workshop information from the 28th March 2024 to
help support their respective submission preparation processes.
11. Climate
Change Considerations
11.1 There
are no climate change considerations associated with the options. However, it
is noted in the submission that the Bill may not currently require sufficient
consideration of climate change impacts.
12. Environmental
Considerations
12.1 There are no climate
change considerations associated with the options. However, environmental
impacts could result from projects approved under the fast track process, due
to the lower weighting of adverse environmental effects compared with benefits
of the proposal.
13. Health & Safety Considerations
13.1 There is no health and
safety impact.
14. Other Considerations
15. There
are no other considerations.Next Steps
15.1 If Council resolve to
make a submission, Officers will finalise the submission making any necessary
or requested amendments before submitting to the Environment Select Committee,
prior to the 19th April 2024.
16. Supporting
Information
|
Strategic Fit/Strategic Outcome
The options are not relevant to any existing Council
policies or strategies, as they are responding to an opportunity to submit on
a Bill.
|
|
Decision Making
The options do not link
directly with the LTP. The decision as to whether to submit or not is not
significant and does not trigger special consultative procedures.
|
|
Consistency with Existing Policy
The options are not relevant to any existing policy.
|
|
Funding
The options do not require any funding.
|
|
Risk Area
|
Risk Identified
|
Consequence
|
Likelihood
|
Risk Assessment (Low to Extreme)
|
Managed how
|
|
Strategic
|
Not taking a
position on key elements on the Bill, including the diminished role for
iwi/hapū and absence of Te Tiriti principles.
|
Risk to
iwi/hapū relationship.
Risk to
community perception of Council.
|
Low.
|
Medium.
|
Make a
submission addressing these points.
|
|
Financial
|
Nil.
|
Nil.
|
Nil.
|
Nil.
|
Nil.
|
|
Service
Delivery
|
Nil.
|
Nil.
|
Nil.
|
Nil.
|
Nil.
|
|
Legal
|
Nil.
|
Nil.
|
Nil.
|
Nil.
|
Nil.
|
|
Reputational
|
Community
and/or other stakeholders disagree with Council’s submission.
|
Dissatisfaction
and/or implications for any future fast track applications.
|
Low.
|
Low.
|
Carefully
consider submission contents.
|
|
Confirmation of statutory compliance
In accordance
with section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002, this report is approved as:
a. containing
sufficient information about the options and their advantages and
disadvantages, bearing in mind the significance of the decisions; and,
b. is
based on adequate knowledge about, and adequate consideration of, the views
and preferences of affected and interested parties bearing in mind the
significance of the decision.
|
17. Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Fast Track Approvals -
Submission - Council Agenda
|
13
|
|
Author(s)
|
Lauren Baddock
District Plan Lead
|
|
|
Approved by
|
David McCorkindale
Group Manager - Vision
& Delivery
|
|
|
|
Monique Davidson
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
