Report to COUNCIL for noting

Transcription

1 Title: Section: Prepared by: Review of RMA Plans and Development of a Uni-Plan Strategic Planning Kim Smith (Special Projects Manager) Meeting Date: 19 May 2016 Legal Financial Significance = HIGH Report to COUNCIL for noting SUMMARY This report explains why a single resource management plan (Uni-Plan) should be progressed and outlines the next steps for developing it. The process would involve, first, merger of the seven existing plans into one document, retaining the intent of the existing provisions while removing duplication and unnecessary material. An Amendment Bill to the Resource Act proposes a new streamlined planning process, which could potentially allow merger of the plans with no appeal rights for submitters. However, given the uncertainty around the process becoming law and delays, it is recommended that Council use the usual plan change process. Rolling reviews (topic-by-topic) are then proposed, rather than an intense review as a single exercise. Future updates on progress with the plan merger and template for the new Uni-Plan will be provided to the Future Tairawhiti Committee. The Committee will also be provided a work programme for the rolling review of RMA plans. The decisions or matters in this report are considered to be of HIGH significance in accordance with the Council s Significance and Engagement Policy. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council 1. notes the content of the report David Wilson Strategic Planning Manager Nedine Thatcher Swann Group Manager Planning & Development Keywords: Uni-Plan, Resource Act 1991, A Page 1

2 BACKGROUND 1. Gisborne District Council currently administers 7 plans and policy statements under the Resource Act 1991 (RMA), including a transitional plan. Some plans or parts of plans are still to be made operative. Regional Policy Statement, mostly operative Combined Regional Land and District Plan (Combined Plan), mostly operative 2006, but with significant regional chapters operative in 2008 and 2010, and some yet to be made operative. Regional Coastal Environment Plan (Coastal Plan), yet to be made operative. Regional Air Quality Plan (Air Plan), mostly operative in Regional Plan for Waste, Hazardous Substances and Discharges to Land and Water Plan, mostly operative in 2006 and proposed to be superseded by the Proposed Freshwater Plan. Proposed Freshwater Plan for the Gisborne Region (Water Plan), notified in 2015 and yet to be made operative. Transitional Regional Plan, mostly superseded but with drainage regulation provisions remaining. 2. Gisborne District Council must review its RMA plans periodically, it is a legislative requirement. The potential to combine plan review with development of a single resource management plan for the Region (Uni Plan) has been discussed for several years. In 2014 three potential options for producing a Uni Plan were reported to the Environment, Planning and Regulatory Committee (Report 14/218), these were: i. To prepare the Uni Plan as a single intense exercise, over a relatively short period of time. ii. To prepare the Uni Plan in stages, over a period of time, on a topic-by-topic basis. iii. To merge all the plans into one document first, then complete the review over a longer period of time, on a topic-by-topic basis, as for the second option. Recently Council has focused on other policy development and has not progressed the Uni-Plan. DISCUSSION and OPTIONS Plan Review Requirements 3. The RMA requires local authorities to review their planning documents at least every ten years (unless required earlier, for example, under a National Policy Statement). The 2009 amendment to the RMA shifted the ten year review requirement from whole plans to individual provisions, clarifying the ability for local authorities to do rolling reviews, rather than whole plan reviews. A review must now be commenced if the provision has not been a subject of a proposed policy statement or plan, a review, or a change by the local authority during the previous ten years. Common practice is to count ten years from the date a provision is made operative. 4. The Regional Policy Statement was made operative in 2002 and became due for review in Review commenced with the development of the Water Plan, but most of the document has yet to be reviewed. The Combined Plan has been subject to many minor reviews and two large topic-based reviews have also commenced (freshwater and natural hazards). Much of the remainder of the plan is due for review this year. Review of the Air Plan is also due to commence next year. 5. In other words, a significant portion of the planning documents are due or overdue for review. A Page 2

3 Why develop a Uni-Plan? 6. With the exception of the Water Plan, Council s RMA plans were developed in the 1990s and early 2000 s, when multiple plans were the normal response to the RMA. 7. Since this time there has been a national movement towards reducing and combining planning documents. An RMA amendment now allows regional policy statements to be combined with other planning documents. The amalgamated Auckland Council was required to develop a single resource management plan. Several other local authorities have also combined their planning documents. For example, Horizons created a One Plan and Napier City Council integrated their Ahuriri Subdistrict Plan into the Napier District Plan. A further development is the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, which proposes a new streamlined planning process for combining plans. 8. Combined planning documents are expected to: reduce repetition of provisions addressing the same topic in different plans and the need for users to refer to multiple provisions provide consistent plan formatting and structure for ease of use reduce conflict in planning provisions and encourage better integration across plans minimise re-litigation of issues because the same topics need not be reviewed multiple times if addressed in plans reviewed separately encourage better integration across provisions. 9. These expected benefits are difficult to quantify but are self-evident and considered sufficient support for Council adopting a plan review process that will also combine its RMA plans. for developing the Uni Plan 10. The principal options for using plan review to create the Uni-Plan remain those outlined above. Council can undertake review as a single exercise (option i) or a longer rolling review (option ii). There is also the option (option iii) of first merging the existing plans into one document. The proposed amendment to the RMA now presents a potential fourth variation (option iv) of using a new streamlined planning process to merge the plans. The diagram below illustrates the relationship between these options. Development of Uni- Plan as a single exercise, involving review of all plans Longer and staged rolling review, topic-by-topic Merge the plans before reviewing substance Don t merge the plans before reviewing Use the usual plan change process (Schedule 1) to merge Use the proposed streamlined planning process to merge Option i Option ii Option iii Option iv Figure 1: for using plan review to develop the Uni-Plan Single Exercise v Rolling Review 11. Development of the Uni-Plan as a single exercise could provide opportunity to rethink the plans and produce an integrated and holistic document. It could also encourage efficiency due to pressure on resources. On the other hand, it would be difficult to resource and may be unnecessary in the Gisborne context, where no significant new pressures require an overhaul of existing plans. There is also a risk that the review loses momentum, leaving the provisions without final decisions for some time. Because the RMA gives effect to both the existing and proposed provisions, this results in a complex planning framework. A very long term issue is that once the combined document was finally completed, it would eventually become due for review all at once and the peak workload would repeat. A Page 3

4 12. A rolling review is favoured, which requires more stable resourcing and allows prioritisation of resources to the issues most needing review. Why Pre-Merge the Plans? 13. Under option ii (no pre-merger of the plans) the Uni Plan would emerge slowly over many years, likely chapter-by-chapter, as each topic is reviewed. This slow development could potentially create a negative community perception of Council s plan making. 14. Pre-merger of the plans (options iii and iv) is favoured. A new Uni-Plan style, format and structure would be created and existing provisions would be rearranged into that framework. There may be some rationalisation through deletion of duplicated and unnecessary material, but with the intent of retaining the meaning and effect of the provisions. 15. Pre-merger would reduce complexity for those administering the rolling reviews. Tracking each provisions status (being reviewed, replaced, operative, yet to be reviewed) across multiple plans will become increasingly complex as the rolling reviews progress. The prior rationalisation of the provisions and their integration into one document would make it easier to track each provisions status. The topic of each major review project is likely to mirror chapter subjects. 16. Pre-merger would also reduce complexity for resource consent applicants and decisionmakers. To find hazard provisions, for example, users may need only look in a hazards chapter to find both existing and proposed provisions, rather than search hazard provisions across multiple plans and the emerging Uni Plan. Merger Process: Normal Process v Streamlined Planning Process? 17. The main concern about merging the plans is the risk of opening issues to appeal, before they have been considered substantively during the rolling review. The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill is proposing a new streamlined planning process for use in combining plans, which would remove this risk by removing appeal rights. However, there remains uncertainty about the enactment of the new process. At best, the process may become law later this year, but it would take several months to develop the proposal to use the process and obtain Ministerial approval. The new process also introduces the complexity of third party approval, by the Minister, of the final plan. In any case, officers consider the risks of substantive appeal during plan merger can be managed by ensuring the intent of the plans is retained and directing feedback on substantive issues to the development of the work programme for the rolling review. 18. It is, therefore, considered simpler and faster to use the normal plan development process (option iii) over the proposed streamlined planning process (option iv). National Planning Template 19. The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, if passed, would enable Government to develop a national planning template to specify the structure and form of planning documents and provisions that must be included in plans. 20. One might question whether plan merger should wait until the template is developed to avoid rework. However, the national planning template, like the streamlined planning process, has yet to be enacted and remains uncertain. Ministry for the Environment staff suggest that, if passed towards the end of this year, it would likely take another two years to develop the template. During this time are national elections and government resourcing priorities may change. Timeframes given to local authorities to complete the transition to the new template are likely to be a further five years. A Page 4

5 21. In any case, while some rework may be involved, combining the plans into a Uni-Plan and removing unnecessary provisions would likely make it easier to move the provisions into any new national template. 22. Therefore, it is considered that Council should not wait for the national template before completing the plan merger. Strategic Planning Framework first? 23. It has been suggested that the Regional Policy Statement component of the Uni-Plan should be developed before the lower level rules and policies. This could provide opportunity to settle broad strategic directions. However, our current view is that the Regional Policy Statement components can be developed within the topic-based reviews in order to avoid topics being considered multiple times. Indeed, this is the approach being taken with the two substantive reviews on the plans (the Water Plan and natural hazards). 24. It has also been questioned whether Gisborne should develop a spatial plan to proceed the Uni-Plan, in order to set strategic direction, as occurred in Auckland. Our current view is that a spatial plan is unnecessary, as the Long Term Plan, infrastructure plans and Urban Development Strategy provide sufficient strategic support for the Uni-Plan. 25. These issues can be further explored during the development of the work programme. Relationship between existing plan review projects and the Uni-Plan Ridiculous Rules 26. Work has already commenced to address minor issues or ridiculous rules. Council has committed to consult with the community to identify how the plans can be improved to reduce complexity, bureaucracy and delays. This work can continue to progress alongside the merger of the plans. Community consultation to identify ridiculous rules will provide an opportunity to also consult on the work programme for plan review. Water Plan 27. Development of the Water Plan is underway, with the hearing of submissions due later this year. This plan could become part of the documents merged into the new Uni-Plan (probably as a section on water comprising the plan and catchment plans). Iwi and the development of the Uni-Plan 28. The RMA provides Council s default plan making responsibilities towards iwi. Local authorities must consult tangata whenua, through iwi authorities, and take account of iwi planning documents when preparing a policy statement or plan. Council must also consider ways to foster increased capacity of iwi authorities and develop processes to provide opportunities for iwi consultation. 29. Under the Joint Agreement between Gisborne District Council and Te Runanganui o Ngati Porou Trustee Limited, Council must do more than these default requirements: decisions on RMA planning documents that affect the Waiapu Catchment will be made jointly with the Runanga. The agreement is intended as a first step towards joint decision-making powers in the Ngati Porou rohe, specifically at this stage, in the Waiapu Catchment. The agreement also includes capacity building through, for example, secondments and staff training. 30. For the Ngai Tamanuhiri, Rongawhakaata and Te Aitanga a Mahaki rohe, a Local Leadership Body is to be set up under treaty settlement legislation. The body will be a joint committee of Council, comprising of representatives of Council and iwi. The body may provide information to assist with the development of RMA plans. A Page 5

6 31. Plan review processes can be developed to give effect to these responsibilities towards iwi. Next Steps and Initial Timeline 32. Staff plan to progress the first stage of the plan merger by developing a project plan and template for the Uni-Plan. A report will then be presented to the Future Tairawhiti Committee. 33. A work programme for the rolling review of RMA plans will also be provided to the Committee at a later date. 34. Initial thoughts on steps and timeframes are set out below. Subject to detailed project planning, Council could potentially notify the merged plan in early Decisions on the merged plan could be completed by, say, April Rolling reviews would occur continuously to complete a review of all provisions by ten years. Development of Project Plan (May - June 2016) Development of Template and Consultation (June - August 2016) - Consultation with key stakeholders on concept and structure - Engagement of experts to assist with structure - Investigation of e-planning issues Report Back to Future Tairawhiti to approve template September 2016 Drafting of merged plans into Uni-Plan (September - October) Consultation (October November 2016) - Informing of wider stakeholders of merged plan - Consulting on priorities for plan review - Consulting on ridiculous rules to fast-track review Notification, Submissions and Further Submissions (December 2016 March 2016) Report to Future Tairawhiti Committed on Plan Review Work Programme early 2017 Hearing and Decisions on Merged Plan April 2017 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Criteria This Report The Process Overall The effects on all or a large part of the Gisborne district Medium High The effects on individuals or specific communities the level or history of public interest in the matter or issue Medium High Consistency with Council s current strategy and policy High High Impacts on Council s delivery of its Financial Strategy and Long Term Plan. High High 35. Developing a Uni-Plan by merging RMA plans is considered of medium significance in accordance with Council s Significance and Engagement Policy. It will be of some interest to the community, but not as significant as the substantive review of the plans. 36. The plan review work programme and decision to complete a rolling review, rather than review as a single exercise, are considered of high significance in accordance with Council s Significance and Engagement Policy, because these decisions have a high impact on Council resourcing. A Page 6

7 37. The rolling reviews, themselves, will also be of high significance in accordance with the Council s Significance and Engagement Policy, as they will cover all of Council s RMA policy and have a wide impact on communities. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 38. Council s intention to develop a Uni-Plan was signalled in the Long Term Plan. Further consultation with stakeholders is proposed before Council agrees on a template for the merged plan. 39. Consultation is also planned in respect of the work programme for plan review. CONSIDERATIONS Financial/budget considerations 40. Plan review is expensive. The factors that will influence the relative costs of the different options are summarised below. Option i Development of Uni-Plan as a single exercise, involving review of all plans Option ii Rolling review with no merger before reviewing Option iii Rolling review with merger of the plans using the usual plan change process Option iv Rolling review with merger of the plans using the proposed streamlined planning process Most expensive up-front, as requires review of all provisions. Potential process efficiencies encouraged by pressure on resourcing. Potentially greater use of consultants to increase costs. Brings forward review ahead of when required. Rolling review allows resourcing to be more constant over time. Potential cost saving No upfront costs to merge the plan but higher transaction costs administering resource consents due to complexity tracking provisions Potential for costs settling appeals on the merger, however consider risk can be minimised (refer below). avoiding appeals on the merger. Some additional costs working with the Ministry on developing the proposed process and working through approvals. Legal Considerations 41. Relevant legal considerations, as discussed above, include: The requirement to commence review of RMA plan provisions if it has not been subject to review in the previous ten years (section 79(1) RMA). The ability to produce combined regional and district planning documents (section 80 RMA). The joint planning requirements with Ngati Porou for the Waiapu Catchment, under the joint management agreement. The new role of the Local Leadership Body to provide information to assist planning. The potential amendment to the RMA to allow for the streamlined planning process and a national planning template. POLICY and PLANNING IMPLICATIONS 42. Development of a Uni-Plan is consistent with the Long Term Plan. A Page 7

8 RISKS 43. The risks associated with the different options, as well as methods to manage the risks, are summarised below. Risks: Loss of momentum causes increasing cost to plan users; damage to reputation Option i Momentum may be lost due to pressure on resourcing, leaving provisions unsettled for some time. This would prolong complexity for plan users as both existing and proposed provisions have weight. Council reputation may be damaged if plans remain unsettled. Disciplined project management, increasing resourcing through consultants and/or additional staff. Risks: Lack of efficiency associated with rolling reviews ii, iii and iv (Rolling review). Staging the reviews may discourage efficiency with reviews dragging out with excessive resourcing. A detailed work programme with disciplined programme management. Risks: Lack of integration across Uni-Plan associated with rolling reviews ii, iii and iv (Rolling review). Staging reviews may discourage integration across the plan as the context changes over time and it may be more difficult to pass on the understanding gained in one review to another. Careful selection of topics for rolling review. Risks: Unplanned pressure on resources resolving appeals on merged plan Option iii Merger using the normal First Schedule Process. Submitters may appeal substantive aspects of the plan before considered during the rolling reviews. This could result in significant resourcing spent resolving contentious matters, before the planned timeframe for consideration. Limit the scope of the merger and ensure the original intent of the provisions is retained. Provide opportunity for stakeholders to provide views on the review programme and direct substantive issues to this process instead of the instead of the merger process. Do not recognise submissions that are on substantive matters and not on the merger process. Risks: Delays and increased costs completing merger using the streamlined planning process Option iv merger using the proposed streamlined planning process. Uncertainty around legislation being passed. Streamlined planning process will be new and it may take time to work with central government to developing a proposal and obtaining approvals. Delay decision to proceed until outcome of legislation clearer (not recommended). A Page 8