contrast plan level vs resource consents

1 files changed, 21 insertions, 13 deletions

diff --git a/assignment1/discussion.tex b/assignment1/discussion.tex
index 3e437bc..2ac64c8 100644
--- a/assignment1/discussion.tex
+++ b/assignment1/discussion.tex
@@ -76,21 +76,29 @@ low level \parencite{eia-state-of-the-art}. Some of the main barriers
 to public participation cited by \textcite{eia-state-of-the-art} are:
 poor knowledge of the public about the process; poor provision of
 information; failure to influence the decision-making process; poor
-execution of participation methods; and regulatory
-constraints. According to the 2010/11 survey of local authorities the
-New Zealand \textcite{rma-survey} carries out every two years, only
-about six per cent of all resource consents in the two-year period
-were notified in some way, with only four per cent being publically
-notified (``poor provision of information''). Hence, there is limited
-opportunity for the public to participate in the decision-making
-process which may result in reduced participation in areas where it is
+execution of participation methods; and regulatory constraints.
+
+Councils have created ``generous opportunities'' for public
+consultation during the initial consultation stage of the plan
+formation process by means of workshops and
+meetings \parencite{miller2010implementing}. Upon completion the plan
+is made available for comments from the public for a period of at
+least forty working days, which is followed by a hearing period and
+the opportunity to appeal to the Environment Court.  The picture on
+the resource consent level, however, is a different one.  According to
+the 2010/11 survey of local authorities the New Zealand
+\textcite{rma-survey} carries out every two years, only about six per
+cent of all resource consents in the two-year period were notified in
+some way, with only four per cent being publically notified (``poor
+provision of information''). Hence, although the public can influence
+the framework relative to which resource consents are evaluated, there
+is limited opportunity for the public to affect the outcome of the
+actual decision-making process; this situation may result in reduced
+willingness to participate in areas where public participation is
 still possible (``failure to influence the decision-making process'').
 
-% TODO
-% - opportunities for public involvement?
-% - screening is political because it depends on the values of those
-%   who perform the screening; public participation in plan development?
-% On the other hand, public participation ... leads to abuse, slow process miller2010implementing
+% screening is political because it depends on the values of those
+% who perform the screening
 
 
 \subsection{Cumulative effects and the devolved mandate}