Tag Archives: Cam Drury

Is the housing crisis over? How effective is the fast track planning process?

Posted on by
Reply

In our April 2022 article we talked about housing supply and how the effective use of fast-track planning processes under the RMA could assist us, while on the other hand recognising the views of some economists that ‘the housing market boom is over’. While the latter could be considered to prevail the former, does this make the issue worst?

Even if the housing market boom is in fact over, there is a legacy issue that still needs to be dealt with in that while the problem may or may not increase – Hawkes Bay had the problem, and that problem remains.

Our concern is where does the motivation and funding come from to address the initial problem if there is a perception that end buyers are not there – especially in a climate of increasing building costs, uncertainty and greater onus around lending.

Further, while fast-track planning processes have been established under the RMA to speed up delivery, is the motivation there to take these up, especially when from the outset they are still relatively daunting processes and not necessarily quick relative to the somewhat volatile environment we’re playing in.

We’re finding ourselves thinking a lot more about what planning process may be the best for a given development scenario – is it a standard subdivision resource consent process? Should it include a concurrent land use consent to allow houses to be built quicker – noting that this may involve investment prior to the certainty of consent, or is the Covid 19 Recovery (Fast Track Consenting) Act 2020 the better option? This option may work well for development where the actual built outcome is known, but not so well for subdivision where various development scenarios would need to be provided up front with little flexibility during implementation.

On the other hand, while many of the limitations around resource consenting processes can be addressed through a Schedule 1 District Plan Change process, these are typically longer processes, and while the Streamlined Planning Process was introduced to try and speed these up through limiting appeals, there are entry criteria and approval is required by the Minster.

All these options have their own advantages and disadvantages and its all about matching the circumstances of the proposal to the process. The point is, without a high level of motivation, they are all daunting. So, if motivation is dropping or the appetite for risk is dropping, or does indeed drop, what then?

The answer lies in working together, and our observations are that our Councils are very open to this – in fact they’re doing it. Examples include 18 houses completed on Korowhai Street Flaxmere, funded by MHUD, built by Soho Development and managed by Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga, housing completed at Kainga Ora’s 40-lot development at Kauri Street/Place, Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga and Waingakau building 120+ houses for intergenerational whanau, and similar infill developments being completed by both Kainga Ora and private developersin Napier.

We’ve been fortunate to have been involved in the planning of a lot of these developments and have certainly noticed a theme of greater collaboration and smart resourcing to reduce risk and build certainty earlier in the process.

If we can achieve this, then confidence, or at the very least, comfort, is maintained, motivation is sustained, outcomes are delivered, people are housed, and our region is as great as we all know it can be.

We think it’s important to think outside the square, be open to working together differently and leverage off the strengths or opportunities of others – while being aware of the limitations and drivers of the various players involved. It may seem cliché, but collaboration from start to finish is where ‘easy’, or at least ‘easier’, is probably going to be found.

Policy changes come into force

Posted on by
Reply

August and September saw several new pieces of legislation come into force. Two of these include:

1. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020

2. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020

The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 came into effect on 20 August 2020. It replaced the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016.

The NPS-UD 2020 recognises the national significance of having well-functioning urban environments now and into the future and providing sufficient development capacity to meet the different needs of people and communities.

It requires Councils to plan for growth and ensure a well-functioning urban environment for all people, communities and future generations by:

  • Ensuring urban development occurs in a way that takes into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti o Waitangi)
  • Ensuring that Plans make room for growth both ‘up’ and ‘out’, and that rules are not unnecessarily constraining growth
  • Developing, monitoring and maintaining an evidence base about demand, supply and prices for housing and land to inform planning decisions
  • Aligning and coordinating planning across urban areas.

Key points include:

  • Policies pertaining to intensification seek to improve land-use flexibility in the areas of highest demand – areas with good access to the things people want and need, such as jobs and community services, and good public transport services.
  • Minimum parking rates in District Plans are to be removed as a means to improve landuse flexibility in urban environments.
  • Removing minimum parking rates in District Plans is anticipated to allow more housing and commercial developments, particularly in higher density areas where people do not necessarily need a car to access jobs, services or amenities. Urban space can then be used for higher value purposes than car parking. Some degree of car parking will still be required however – certainly for accessible car parking, but the intent is for the number of car parks to be driven by market demand.
  • Although minimum rates may be removed from District Plans, car parking is still likely to be a major consideration for any resource consent process, and it may be that losing this sort of guidance (or ‘acceptable solution’) from District Plans will have unintended consequences on streamlining the process. Have we just leapt to the other end of the spectrum?

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 came into force on 3 September. It succeeds the 2014 and 2017 versions and provides local authorities updated direction on how they should manage freshwater under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Managing freshwater in a way that ‘gives effect’ to Te Mana o te Wai is the central principle. This is all about:

  • Involving tangata whenua
  • Working with tangata whenua and communities to set out long-term visions
  • Prioritising the health and wellbeing of water bodies, then the essential needs of people, followed by other uses.

Core objectives are to improve degraded water bodies and maintain or improve all others using bottom lines defined in the NPS. Key points include:

  • Threatened species and mahinga kai join ecosystem health and human health for recreation, as compulsory values
  • Councils must develop plan objectives that describe the environmental outcome sought for all values
  • Councils will have to develop action plans and/or set limits on resource use to achieve specific attributes.
  • There are tougher national bottom lines for the ammonia and nitrate toxicity attributes

With the Plan Change 9 (TANK) being notified just prior to this new version of the NPS, it is unclear as to how and when the new NPS will be implemented, or how it may affect the TANK process. Whatever the case, it is sure to have a significant influence on future planning processes and the way everyone manages land and freshwater.

It seems change in this sector is coming at a rate where policy approaches are almost immediately redundant upon development, and that initiatives are continuously needing to change before substantial progress is even made.

Napier begins review of District Plan

Posted on by
Reply

Napier City Council has recently launched its District Plan review process, which at this early stage is looking to be based around the following six key outcomes:

1. Putting people first,
2. Open for business,
3. A port and coastal city, 4. Our people our stories, 5. Ecological excellence, 6. Pedal power.

Too often the Plan development process falls into an academic exercise where the direction of a District Plan gets forced to respond to only resource management issues, which risks a framework focused around the status quo, or worst still, the past.

The District Plan development process is supposed to be a creative exercise, where we can do some blue sky thinking and dare to be bold and consider what could be.

The way Napier City Council is approaching this review is refreshing, and while there are obviously certain processes and legal frameworks that need to be followed, this doesn’t mean one can’t create or feel free to suggest ideas, after all, that’s what Planning is all about.

All too often we fall into the trap of thinking it’s all about creating and ticking boxes and following the way it was done in the past, or trying to put different issues or proposals in the one box as we think we need to drive towards the same sort of outcome for everything in the one environment. This happens when the theme or tone of a process or planning document is inherentlyuncreative or not interested in thinking about things. The result is often a regulatory environment where it seems hard to get things done or to introduce new ideas, let alone get excited about them.

Napier has some great opportunities. We have people visiting from all over the world, and having been to a few different places in the world myself, Napier is right up there through the lens of a tourist, and easily comparable to memories of the Mediterranean with its small towns, novel architecture, vibrant centers, coffee shops and eateries. Napier has this potential.

The ecological excellence idea is a great opportunity. Although some may think this gets borne out in greater regulation, its actually the clean streets, water bodies, harbour and coastline, and the well- developed and planted parks and reserves that we all enjoy spending time in. Focusing on ecological excellence is actually one of the easiest things to do to enable our community to unload and spend quality time with our friends and family. Ecological excellence benefits all of us.

So what can you expect in a District Plan process. Well Napier City Council have announced it intends to notify a draft plan in 2020. Between now and then there will be a number of informal ways to contribute ideas and feedback to inform that initial draft. There will then be time to make a submission on the draft prior to the formal Plan being notified.

Once formally notified, the process gets a little more organised. A first round of submissions enables you to make a submission on the plan. A summary of these submissions is then notified, and there is an opportunity to make a further submission as to whether you are in support of, or in opposition to an original submission. There may be opportunities to discuss or mediate on different issues to reach a resolution, but the next step is generally for a report, or series of reports to be prepared that makes a recommendation to a hearing panel. A hearing, or series of hearings is then held where all the outstanding issues are heard and decided on. The Plan will then become operative as all appeals, if there are any, are resolved.

Although managed in a quasi-legal sense, the process is purposely informal so as to encourage participation. This is important, as while the more academic part of a District Plan review sets down what ‘must be’ included, it’s an opportunity to think about what we ‘want’ to include for our City – and who knows, this may influence how we manage those things that must be included.

I think the direction Napier City Council is looking to take our city, and more importantly the manner in which they are wanting to do it, is the way it should be, and while there will no doubt be competing interests and debate around the detail, future outcomes seem exciting – and they’re the ones we can only imagine at the moment.

Statutory acknowledgements & RMA

Posted on by
Reply

A number of different co- management initiatives have been established in recent times, however in the world of resource management it’s the Statutory Acknowledgements framework that is likely to be encountered on an everyday basis.

Statutory Acknowledgements have arisen from a number of Treaty of Waitangi settlements around the country as part of cultural redress for Maori. They relate to specific areas of importance to a claimant group and affect processes under the Resource Management Act – including applications for resource consents and local authority responsibilities. They may apply to land, rivers, lakes, wetlands, landscape features or particular parts of the coastal marine area.

The purpose of Statutory Acknowledgements is to ensure:

  • that a particular claimant group’s association with a certain significant area is identified, and that the relevant claimant group is informed when a proposal may affect one of these areas,
  • and that consent authorities have regard to these Statutory Acknowledgements when identifying affected parties in relation to resource consent applications

    Hawke’s Bay has over 70 Statutory Acknowledgement Areas across (7) iwi including Ngai Tāmanuhiri, Ngati Manawa, Ngati Whare, Ngati Pāhauwera, Rongowhakaata, Maungaharuru-TangitŪ Trust and Ngāti Hineuru. Most are located north of Bayview between the southern extents of Poverty Bay and Taupo.

    Generally speaking, Councils must forward summaries of resource consent applications to the relevant iwi where activities will affect these areas and must also have regard to the Statutory Acknowledgement when forming an opinion as to whether the relevant iwi is an affected party.

    Its therefore a matter being aware of this and identifying when a site or area in question is subject to a Statutory Acknowledgement in a similar manner as checking the District Plan for any waahi tapu sites or the New Zealand Heritage List/ Rārangi Kõrero for any significant and valued historical and cultural heritage places.

    Best practice is to undertake this exercise as early as possible. It need not be considered an issue or potential barrier to a project. In fact it can enhance your understanding of a site or area and contribute to design outcomes. At the end of the day, the best position to be in when starting a new project is having knowledge across all aspects so that surprises and unexpected delay can be avoided.

    From our experience it’s a matter of considering cultural values at the same level, or alongside what maybe more familiar matters such as geotechnical stability and engineering servicing in the case of a subdivision, or effects on allocation and ecological effects in the case of a surface water take.

    Although this isn’t necessarily a new concept, the Statutory Acknowledgments framework brings a little more organisation and prescription to the matter. Councils, consultants and iwi groups will still need to establish new processes, and there will no doubt be a teething phase where understandings and expectations are not aligned. The purpose of the Statutory Acknowledgements framework is ‘a’ just, and respectful one however, and like any change, it will be a better and more fruitful experience if everyone works together and applies patience and a willingness to engage and learn in understanding different perspectives and transitioning to this new norm.