The following commentary is provided by Morten Gjerde, a senior lecturer in urban design at Victoria University of Wellington’s School of Architecture.
There is no question that the Resource Management Act (RMA) could be modified and it may be relevant to overhaul it, as noted by Dr Nick Smith. But the basis on which the Government proposes to make change is flawed.
The Minister and his Government colleagues seem to be pursuing change exclusively from the perspective of economic development and their information sources appear to be developers’ only. I haven’t read too many reports commissioned by Government departments that look at impacts of the RMA on social or environmental development—perhaps because the Government is fine with the outcomes its changes will deliver in these areas. While I recognise the need for the Government to balance the impacts and outcomes of development activity, the only catalyst for these changes seems to be economic.
One of the proposed changes I find most interesting is the summary of ‘additional’ costs incurred by developers for meeting local council requirements.. How can the cost of private balconies or building within height limits be extra costs to a developer? The first is there to provide a minimal level of amenity for future residents of a housing project and the second to ensure that our streets remain enjoyable for all to walk along.
In my experience as urban design consultant to several local councils, I’ve come to learn that there are developers who are in it for the long haul and who appreciate the feedback they receive through the consenting process. Then there are those who can’t see past their financial calculations.
Nevertheless, I see merit in looking to change the Act in several of the areas listed by Dr Smith. There is no question that urban planning and design should be recognised more than they are currently.
Also, because the RMA is interpreted by local councils in so many different ways and because many have limited resources I see the need to provide national planning templates and other tools. There is also a need to acknowledge the importance of public infrastructure but, in saying that, there also needs to be robust debate around the most appropriate type of infrastructure to provide.
There are also proposed changes that should not be contemplated. I can’t see how the Act can be revised to prioritise housing affordability. Despite the efforts of the authors of the Motu Report, housing affordability remains an enigma. New Zealand is not the only country struggling to provide affordable housing and I’m aware of other national and local Governments doing much more to directly influence housing affordability. The cost of housing is affected by so many areas outside the sphere of resource management and I’m afraid that trying to solve this current problem with the RMA could lead to compromises in several other areas.
What we have to keep in mind is the objective of balancing current needs with those of future generations and of the environment. I’m a little worried that the full extent of proposed changes may lose sight of this goal.
