By Thomas Manch
“What’s a stronger word than necessary? Critical. Yeah, it just needs to happen,” said Waikato developer John Kenel.
Last month Minister Responsible for RMA Reform Chris Bishop detailed the Government’s intentions for two new laws to replace the much-derided Resource Management Act (RMA). Among 10 “core design features” of the new legislation was a potential new planning tribunal.
Bishop told The Post such a tribunal could resolve development issues that get “tied up” in the Environment Court for two to five years.
A planning tribunal could instead deal with issues like the Disputes Tribunal did, Bishop said, sometimes without a hearing, or otherwise in a more cheap and efficient manner. The Disputes Tribunal deals with claims up to the value of $30,000 outside of court, including over matters such as fences and consumer claims.
“One of the reasons why it’s so hard to build infrastructure in New Zealand, particularly renewable energy infrastructure, is decisions get tied up in that court process for a very, very long time,” Bishop said.
“If you can get a low cost, easy way to resolve some of those disputes, that is a potential answer.“
The minister stressed that the Government had not made any decisions about creating a planning tribunal. First, an expert advisory group appointed by the Government would produce a “blueprint” before Christmas on the third leg of the RMA reform the Government is undertaking, replacing the act.
While details of what the tribunal might cover remain scant ‒ meaning those in the sector contacted on Monday were reluctant to comment ‒ the idea is not entirely new. The Labour government’s 2020 review into the RMA recommended an alternative dispute process be created.
“Where, for example, neighbours were in dispute over minor infringements of development controls, such as height or height in relation to boundary, the alternative process could be used,” the report said.
Kenel, who develops property across Waikato, said a planning tribunal appeared part of a broader effort to simplify and focus the resource management system.
“They need to … I’ve got one site in Hamilton that I’ve been fighting with council four years. I’ve just given up. I’m not actually about to go ahead and develop. I’ve got another two that council are pushing back, they don’t want to process my plans because they haven’t got the infrastructure in place. They haven’t got the sewer connections.”
Kenel said he had never been to the Environment Court, though he might for the development stalled by lack of infrastructure. He had spent “a lot” of money on a RMA lawyer ‒more in the past two years than in the 18 years before it.
“Part of that is now because I’m just like, ‘Nah bugger this. I’m not going to get pushed around any more’. It just doesn’t make any sense.”
Auckland developer David Whitburn said a planning tribunal was a “potentially good idea”, including to “mop up” issues with building granny flats, removing cross-leases, and some “silly neighbourhood disputes” ‒ such as when a protected pōhutukawa tree drops leaves into a neighbour’s swimming pool.
“It could actually take a bit of pressure off the councils to focus on some of the nitty-gritty, and, quite honestly, to hold them accountable in some cases as well, and indeed, applicants too. I am in favour of it,” he said.
Also useful would be any “ironing out” of the different rules and interpretations that councils have, and inconsistencies in how different councils staff make decisions.
He said such a tribunal may not be able to help when suitably qualified experts were required on matters such as specialist engineering, or ecology.
See article from The Press below
