Staving off those NIMBY’s

After Environment Minister Nick Smith’s announcement on Resource Management Act reforms the debate has started off promptly. Of course there is many sides to the debates and these will be thrashed out as the reforms work their way through the legislative program.

One debate is whether the reforms will do something about NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) inherent with development projects these days as well as stripping back development controls that add costs to a development (see GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES NEXT RMA REFORMS UPDATED on some of those costs as well as the report that sparked the debate and reforms).

A key point whether the RMA reforms will address those two concerns can be looked at here (with thanks from Bob Dey):

on Thursday 22 January 2015 in Forward thinking,Land use, Law, Legislation, Reform, Resource management, Sectors 0

Environment Minister Nick Smith listed 10 changes last night that he wants to see to the Resource Management Act.

He said 4 were crucial if the act was to work better:

• Add the management of significant natural hazards
• Properly recognise that 80% of consents are about urban issues
• Specifically recognise affordable housing
• Add the provision for appropriate infrastructure
• Give more explicit recognition to property rights
• Prepare a national set of rules
• Speed up the plan-making process
• Foster collaborative resolution of issues
• Strengthen powers for national regulation
• Electronic communication.

Dr Smith said the Resource Management Act had 3 ways to make developing new lower-cost housing near impossible:

• The way the act is used to constrain land supply & push up section prices
• It doesn’t balance environmental protection by considering cost
• Neighbours’ appeal rights.

Dr Smith said the Government aimed to have a bill drafted & introduced in the first half of the year, advancing to a full select committee process for passage by year’s end.

He said councils & resource management practitioners needed a change in culture: “We need a ‘can do’ rather than ‘can’t do’ mentality. We need a tighter focus on actual environmental effects. We need officials to be practical and to appreciate the impact of the time and costs of how they administer the RMA.”

…….

Full post and source: http://www.propbd.co.nz/smith-lists-10-rma-changes-3-ways-defeat-cheap-housing-2-new-laws/

Specifically:

on Thursday 22 January 2015

Building, Housing & Environment Minister Nick Smith stacked 80,000 pages of council resource management plans & rules on the rostrum when he delivered his speech in Nelson last night on reforming the Resource Management Act.

“This mountain of red tape well illustrates the need for an overhaul of the Resource Management Act,” he said.

Sitting up the top was the most recent of these numerous documents, the Auckland unitary plan, and it represents a quite different requirement from legislative reform. That plan is about guiding development of a city-region, a very different prospect from the needs of New Zealand’s many villages & small towns.

While Dr Smith sees merit – and most New Zealanders would agree with him – in reducing the mountain of red tape and creating a common national set of rules, writing a regional plan that takes into account local peculiarities remains a worthwhile exercise.

It would, if that’s what it’s going to do. There is a danger, however, that Auckland’s unitary plan will be as dangerously inflexible as the metropolitan urban limits proved to be and, if that is the outcome, Dr Smith’s simpler-faster national rulebook might be a better answer.

……

And then there is the third problem arising from the consultation, submission & appeal rights of neighbours. Neighbouring property owners’ interests are in protecting their property rights & amenity, and little for increasing the supply of affordable housing for others. I’ve seen neighbours object to adjacent land being used for housing because they like the outlook of green pasture & frolicking horses, which they view as their amenity values that the Resource Management Act says must be protected.

“Neighbours will often push for conditions that will increase the cost of adjacent housing developments or make them unviable. At one hearing, a neighbour was quite blatant in wanting conditions that would ensure that only millionaires could afford to build, noting that this would also enhance his own property’s value. More commonly, such blatant self-interest is dressed up in language of ensuring only quality developments are allowed. It is not that there are not legitimate neighbourhood interests, but rather that the process does not have anyone actively advocating for the young family wanting access to an affordable house or apartment.

“We need to make important changes to confront these problems. Councils need to be required to free up sufficient land for development to keep pace with growth. They also need to explicitly consider housing supply & affordability alongside factors like amenity, natural character & heritage.

…..

Source and full article http://www.propbd.co.nz/smith-outlines-rma-reform-aims/

That quoted section could become a main debate (if not a bitter debate) point as it often forms the Class 3 NIMBYism situation (NIMBYism for the sake of it, usually applying when someone says a development is “out of character” but it is not exactly a eight storey brutalist structure being built in a mixed housing urban area). So will the Government have the bravado to put in legislation something that would prevent the above from stalling a development or will it capitulate like Council did in 2013 before the elections in regards to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan? Because this (https://voakl.net/2015/01/15/nimbys-deprive-others-of-much-needed-housing/) situation is unacceptable

Also to go on will be the question of land release:

on Wednesday 21 January 2015The key question about how greenfields land will be rezoned under Auckland’s unitary plan is: Who controls it, council or developers?

The second question is how infrastructure for rezoned land can be put in place before or as it’s needed, not after.

And the third is: How will it be funded?

The first of those questions is one for the independent panel hearing submissions on the unitary plan. The second has been mentioned by council people from time to time, but without a proposition being brought forward. And the third, on funding, has to be considered if the order of infrastructure provision, or the supplier, changes.

……

Source and full post: http://www.propbd.co.nz/up8-crucial-question-will-control-land-release/

Minister Smith had to say this in relation to the above:

The first is the way the act is used to constrain land supply and push up section prices. Section prices have increased way more significantly than the built house cost. If the section costs $250,000, nobody is going to put a modest $150,000 building on it.

…..

And

“The fourth change is adding the provision for appropriate infrastructure to the purpose of the act.

“Good infrastructure is essential to the functioning of a modern nation – whether it be for transport, communication, water or energy. The stories of 19th century London, Auckland or Nelson without a reticulated sewer system emphasise the connection between the environment & infrastructure. Even today, many of our urban water pollution problems relate to poorly designed or maintained sewerage & stormwater systems. The absence of any mention of the importance of good infrastructure is an anomaly in the Resource Management Act that needs addressing.

….

Source: http://www.propbd.co.nz/smith-outlines-rma-reform-aims/

I suppose we shall soon see whether it is smiles or this for the Minister in regards to any meaningful reforms: