Minister to reverse new non-notification law

Minister to reverse new non-notification law
Thursday 23 November, 2017
Environment Minister David Parker has indicated that the Government will attempt to reform the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) which was amended in April this year through the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (RLAA).
In particular, the Minister has signalled an intention to reinstate the public's right to participate in certain discretionary resource consent processes which was removed as part of the reforms that came into effect on 18 October. Section 95A(5)(b)(ii) now precludes public notification for a restricted-discretionary or discretionary application for a subdivision of land, a boundary activity (as defined in new s 87AAB), or a residential activity (defined in new section 95A(6)) unless special circumstances exist. The RLAA also removed the right for applicants and submitters to appeal resource consent decisions made by district councils relating to subdivision, boundary, and residential activities unless the activity has non-complying status (s 120(1A)).
Speaking to the media about the government’s intention to introduce the reforms, the Minister expressed the view that removing public notification and appeal rights was going "a step too far" for applicants and submitters. "We still think that was wrong. We are intending to have some reform of the Resource Management Act and that would be one of the things that we would fix," he said.
The Minister did not want to give the impression that a law change would be a quick fix. Amending the RMA required "a big piece of work", he said, adding that people had a right to be heard about landscape issues. "We have the general view that we ought not to take away the public's right to participate but we should make sure processes under the Resource Management Act are dealt with quickly. We don't think the right way to go is to rip people's rights off them," the Minister said.
This is welcome news to those that say the new provision threatens landscape protection and informed decision making.
Queenstown Lakes District Council, who submitted in opposition to the law change, has been in the spotlight recently in relation to its implementation of the new law. After taking legal advice, it issued a practice note in October, stating all discretionary rural subdivisions would not be notified to the public. Only in limited, special circumstances can some people have a say. Legal practitioners have queried whether the Council’s new practice is legally correct.
Commenting on the practice note the Minister said he had two queries: firstly, whether the Council was appropriately applying the new law, and secondly, whether an application for a "building platform" fell within the meaning of a "subdivision". "People will have to explore for themselves. If the Council is wrong and is acting ultra vires, that is not for me to determine" the Minister said.
We will monitor future developments in relation to the new provisions and provide a report in future issues of the legal brief.
Please contact Bridget Parham if you want to learn more about the issues discussed in this article.
Author
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 October, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018

Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018
