Property investor Andrew Bruce sees council planners stuck in the middle trying to balance the legal requirements of the RMA with Council district plans, neighbour objections and developer goals

By Andrew Bruce*

For those people who have ever built a house, extended their current home or even added a garage there is a high likelihood they’ve had to wade through the resource consent process.

This can be quite an eye opener to the uninitiated as the process can become very time consuming, expensive and stressful.

In fact many projects come to a grinding halt before they begin due to the hurdles that have to be overcome through this Resource Management Act (RMA) process.

So why is it so difficult?

Many people blame the Resource Management Act. This is the overarching document that sets out the requirement for Council to have a District (or Regional) Plan and specifies matters which Council has control over. District Plans are developed by Councils to manage land use.

These plans set rules which cover things like:

- How high you can build (maximum height)
- Location of building/s on your site (yard set back)
- If you can operate an office in a residential area
- Number of dwellings allowed per site, etc

In very simplistic terms I’ve broken down the process of developing a District Plan into six steps, which takes on average about 7 years:

1. Strategic direction is set by Councillors (representing the community)

2. A draft District Plan is written by Council planners implementing the strategic direction.

3. The draft is endorsed (after changes) by the elected representatives (Local Boards/Councillors).

4. It’s then released for two public submission periods.

5. At the close of submissions, the planners then make recommendations on changes to the draft District Plan taking into account public feedback.

6. After hearings, the final approval of the District Plan is generally made by Councillors.

Once the final District Plan has been signed off, it is then used by the Council planners as the “rule book” to assess future resource consent applications.

Currently the Auckland Unitary Plan is at stage 5 of this process. So if these rules have gone through such a thorough process isn’t it just a matter of applying the rules?

To my way of thinking this is where we run into our issues.

While there is a rule book (i.e. District Plan), where people want to go outside the rules (ie. apply for resource consent) a lot is left to interpretation of the planner assessing the resource consent application.

A planner may take an extremely conservative view of your application or a more pragmatic planner may take a more proactive approach.

Recently we lodged a resource consent for a new commercial building. In this instance, although the project overall needed consent, it complied with height in relation to boundary. However the planner still requested we provide a diagram to show potential shading effects on one of the neighbours. As our aim was to obtain the consent as expediently as possible, we chose not to argue with the Council planner and provide the shading diagram (at added time and expense).

As the building complied, it only showed shading which was allowed by the District Plan so the entire exercise was a waste of time and money other than to appease the planner.

So why does this occur?

I believe this is where politics and planning can become intertwined.

If I build something my neighbour doesn’t like, often my neighbour will complain to Council. On the other hand, if someone is wanting to build, they will undoubtedly feel the Council is placing hurdles in their way.

Either way, pressure then is placed upon the planner (by applicants, neighbours and often indirectly by elected representatives) regarding their decision and when this happens a natural reaction is the planner will become more conservative in their approach.

This generally means seeking extra supporting reports from the applicant i.e. extra cost and time delays.

From the planners point of view this costs Council no extra money, provides extra support if the application is challenged and places the application ‘on hold’ so the statutory processing time is stopped.

Why is the Council conservative?

1. There is a statutory time pressure of 20 working days to complete the process. If this isn’t adhered to there can be financial implications on Council.

2. Councils have reputational and legal risk when approving any resource consent.

3. Council planners are placed under organisational / political pressure with queries on their decision making process.

For these reasons, I don’t believe the RMA is the sole issue or even the District Plans; if they weren’t in place there would be other similar documents with similar controls.

I believe the crux of the issue is the planner having to balance competing interests: people who what to build or change things against people who don’t want change.

The District Plans help with this balance but the consent process still needs a decision maker. The planner is often that person and the level of support they are provided at an organisational and elected representative level may have a significant influence on their approach. The less support they receive, naturally the more conservative their decision making process will be, with the flow on effect being extra costs, time delays and uncertainty when seeking resource consent approval.

--------------------------------------

Andrew Bruce is President of the Auckland Property Investors Association www.apia.org.nz

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our free Property email newsletter brings you all the stories about residential and commercial property and the forces that move these huge markets. Sign up here.

To subscribe to our Property newsletter, enter your email address here. It's free.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------